EPTBeing independent and having a lot of appeal in Bernie Sanders I just want to say that if you can't respect the issues that the candidates are talking about that you are out of touch with a majority of Americans. Not saying approve of the solutions, but I do not think these are wedge issues like Abortion that are just enflamed and never touched to keep voters in parties. I really think these candidates would do stuff about ISIS and immigration especially.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2666
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
Being independent and having a lot of appeal in Bernie Sanders I just want to say that if you can't respect the issues that the candidates are talking about that you are out of touch with a majority of Americans. Not saying approve of the solutions, but I do not think these are wedge issues like Abortion that are just enflamed and never touched to keep voters in parties. I really think these candidates would do stuff about ISIS and immigration especially. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19369 Posts
On December 16 2015 13:00 IgnE wrote: God Rand Paul. The greatest threat is our debt . . . why are people still saying such idiotic things? Well if we had a decent debate maybe his views on our debt issue could have been discussed. But saying greatest threat wether it be isis, debt, close mate change is always ridiculous. It makes it seem like we can only have one major issue. @Trump supporters here, are any of you actually republican and think his policies on domestic issues are actually republican? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 16 2015 13:34 BisuDagger wrote: Well if we had a decent debate maybe his views on our debt issue could have been discussed. But saying greatest threat wether it be isis, debt, close mate change is always ridiculous. It makes it seem like we can only have one major issue. @Trump supporters here, are any of you actually republican and think his policies on domestic issues are actually republican? None of Trump's supporters mistake him for being conservative or republican. That's not the point. Danglars reposted some posts of his from a couple years ago that summarize the issue quite well: Trump is the product of a corrupt republican political establishment. All of the bombast and other bullshit that comes out of Trump's mouth is strictly peripheral to the fact that people genuinely believe that Trump is his own man who is not beholden to the political class. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On December 16 2015 13:41 xDaunt wrote: None of Trump's supporters mistake him for being conservative or republican. That's not the point. Danglars reposted some posts of his from a couple years ago that summarize the issue quite well: Trump is the product of a corrupt republican political establishment. All of the bombast and other bullshit that comes out of Trump's mouth is strictly peripheral to the fact that people genuinely believe that Trump is his own man who is not beholden to the political class. I would go even further and say that a vote for Trump is a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42411 Posts
Thanks in advance.  | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
1. Rubio 2. Cruz 3. Bush 4. Trump 5-6. Christie/Fiorina 7. Paul 8. Carson I would put Bush ahead of Trump mainly because I don't see Trump as having a realistic chance of gathering enough actual votes in the center come election day, while there would be enough time until then for Bush to work on his re-branding (whether it would be effective or not is another story). | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 16 2015 14:11 Grettin wrote: VoDs anywhere? Thanks in advance. CNN will release the VoD's sometime tomorrow (so in 6-12 hours). | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Cruz is a threat to win because of his debate acumen and intelligence, but some of his views will struggle to win the middle against Hillary imo. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5007 Posts
I enjoyed it, as I always do. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On December 16 2015 12:18 TheTenthDoc wrote: Well for the first two in order to be a Muslim you had to be in the Caliphate. This is not the PC movement trying to create a new definition, it's the actual definition of the thing defined by Muhammad. Call it a radical Islamic dictatorship, because that's what it is. Incorrect, there is no Record of Mohammad leaving any instruction on how to manage the affairs of the empire he had left. The caliphate as it was known all the way till the Abassids was a post Mohammed construct. There is nothing fundamentally Islamic (it is Islamic, just not fundamentally) about the Caliphate, just like there is nothing fundamentally Islamic about Sharia law. Sharia law has like a dozen branches and like 4 main ones and all of them are pretty retarded. Both are interpretative constructs that just won out during Islams period of finding itself. It doesn't help that the logic of metaphysics and philosophers at the time were quite poorly expressed and got a thorough academic shellacking. Ironically the guy who owned them went from conservative to full on hippy mystic. As far as being intellectually dishonest is concerned. Sure, Islam has its problems, but the religion itself has no more baggage in terms of possibly violent rhetoric or instruction anymore than Christianity or Judaism. I mean have you read the old Testament ? The problem is with Wahabism, its consistent spread, the attempt to control fanaticism that failed miserably and now no one knows what to do about it. I don't know about the rest of the world. But we were rocking bell bottoms and smoking da ganja and going to Dave Brubeck concerts before the petro dollars started getting recycled into Maddrassas and propped up dictators. Sure everybody else helped because well you know money. But still most Muslims were pretty happy building their murals and doing dumb artsy shit while just getting a fresh breath of post colonial times but with special interests and powers involved the reset button kept getting reset to the point where we are going backwards now. On December 16 2015 12:40 jalstar wrote: when the risk of a false negative is a terrorist attack your screening test had better have no false negatives and if you have to limit it to 5 year old orphans so be it You can make the same kind of stupid argument for gun control. If the risk of a gun being sold is another school shooting. Ban all guns, or heck giving someone a freaking drivers license. My face when guns are more valuable than human life. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24152 Posts
On December 16 2015 15:17 jalstar wrote: there should be better gun control background checks, but in the usa we give up some security for the liberty of our citizens, that's why we don't ban all guns even though it would be more secure. we don't give up security for the liberty of syrians. Yet we just had a debate full of people who can't get rid of civil liberties fast enough for the sake of security (so long as it isn't stopping guns from being sold to suspected terrorists). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 16 2015 14:46 IgnE wrote: Trump - Cruz is the ticket. cruz involved in any executive function is a bad bad idea. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On December 16 2015 14:12 kwizach wrote: So, how would you guys rank the main Republican candidates in terms of how tough to beat they would be in the general election against Clinton? Without checking polls, I would say (from biggest challenge to lowest challenge): 1. Rubio 2. Cruz 3. Bush 4. Trump 5-6. Christie/Fiorina 7. Paul 8. Carson I would put Bush ahead of Trump mainly because I don't see Trump as having a realistic chance of gathering enough actual votes in the center come election day, while there would be enough time until then for Bush to work on his re-branding (whether it would be effective or not is another story). I would have it: 1. Rubio 2. Christie 3. Bush/Kasich 4. Cruz 5. Trump 6. Paul 7. Fiorina 8. Carson I actually think Rubio + Kasich ticket would be the most dangerous from a Democratic perspective | ||
| ||
