EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3139
| 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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
I know many of my friends who insist they will not vote trump but will also not vote Hillary. I'm curious how this turns out. I assume pretty much everyone agrees by this point trump is only repub who could win general? I just can't see cruz winning. And it's a fact vetted by last two elections that an "establishment" candidate can't win. Most numbers seem to support this. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45855 Posts
On March 03 2016 18:57 Atreides wrote: I know exactly one "republican" who will vote Hillary over trump. She also voted Obama x2 so not sure if counts. I know many of my friends who insist they will not vote trump but will also not vote Hillary. I'm curious how this turns out. I assume pretty much everyone agrees by this point trump is only repub who could win general? I just can't see cruz winning. And it's a fact vetted by last two elections that an "establishment" candidate can't win. Most numbers seem to support this. Yeah, it's almost certainly going to be Trump vs. Hillary, as much as I'd like Bernie to win. I just hope that all the young voters who are being energized by Bernie decide to still vote for Hillary in the general instead of just sitting at home since Bernie isn't an option anymore... if that happens- the lesser of two evils perspective- then Hillary will definitely beat Trump. But I have a feeling that the general election will be uncomfortably close. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28795 Posts
How about Mitt Romney's top strategist stating that Hillary will be a better president than Trump? Like, I can definitely accept that Trump is galvanizing hordes of previous non-voters, and yes, he does have the support of nearly half of self-identifying republicans. But you also have to realize that he is an incredibly polarizing figure - even within the republican party, and that yes, significant numbers of staple republican voters actually will defect if he is given the nomination. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28795 Posts
On March 03 2016 13:40 ElMeanYo wrote: Wondering how Trump is so popular when he doesn't have a clear stance on anything (other than immigration)? It's called Strategic Ambiguity. Check out this blog post by Scott Adams (yes, that Scott Adams): http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140272615821/strategic-ambiguity-master-persuasion-series While I don't fully agree with what Scott Adams writes in this wizard blog series, I certainly think he's on to something. And I have to grant him credit for predicting a trump nomination while everyone else thought it was a joke (6months ago), and I have to give him credit for even stating 'how' it's going to happen. I also agree a lot with his whole Moist Robot theory on how humans function, at least based on my rudimentary understanding of his theory (haven't read any of his books). But how can you read this, understand it, and continue to support Trump? It basically states that Trump is a liar and a mental manipulator. How can you want this guy to run your country? Like, the entire wizard series basically states that Trump is really good at hypnotizing people into believing that he can make stuff better. It doesn't say anything about how he will make anything better, just that he has been trained (prolly used a lot of focus groups as well) in coming up with the perfect phrases to manipulate people into believing he is the embodiment of 'success'. Like, when you read that blog series, pretend to understand it, and continue to support Trump, your statement is basically 'yeah okay, so I'm really impressed with how this guy has conned me into supporting him'. It's absolutely nonsensical. Guy is a master con-artist (look at what I did, I didn't just describe him as a con-man, I described him as a con-artist, that makes you think past the sale, him being a 'con-man' is already established and now what you have to accept or not accept is whether he's an artist at it or not), and that is absolutely not who you want to run your country. Or anything for that matter. | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
It's just a matter of worldview man, people have different ones. If your current worldview is that we are more or less on the right track and just need to keep making progress you will NEVER understand someone who thinks we are headed into the abyss. Because. Gasp. Those are opposite places for some people. I can see why people support sanders. Not my idea of social progression. (Free college, 15$mw lolol) but I can wrap my head around the worldview that wants those things, I just think they are retarded. On the flip side it's actually mind boggling to me that people support HRC. She is an extremely known quantity that has been actively participating in the destruction of our society for 30 years. On top of that she is objectively (to me) a scummy, lying, cheating politician through and through. (Believe me there are politicians closer to my world view like this as well and for example I have an ok opinion of Obama as a human being) I just don't quite get any world view that wants more of what our political system has been. Whatever. I believe this will wrap up my bi weekly foray into this thread. Typing on phone sucks. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
Trump, X, Hillary and Bernie. I'd be curious to at least see it polled | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Following up on Liquid'Drone's post on why Republicans will vote Hillary, the GOP establishment security advisors just sent out an open letter damning Trump's foreign policy and basically saying that you should not vote for him (this will probably give Trump a tiny short term bump in the polls but in the long run it's expected that the Republicans will recommend voting for Hillary instead). Letter itself. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 03 2016 17:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: War is far less likely with Trump.Trump can at least say that Iraq, Syria, Libya etc have been disasters.Clinton voted in favour of invading Iraq and had a hand in other mideast conflicts as secretary of state.Bush,Cheney,Rummy should all be in jail for war crimes but so should Clinton,Obama,Albright etc.The situation in the middle east is far more volatile now than in 2008, very much due to US intervention. The establishment (Military industrial complex) cannot puppet Trump as they can Rubio.On the democrat side Clinton is obviously an establishment puppet, Sanders is not. The only thing i give him is that he's not trying to hide the fact that the US fucked up almost every single freedom spreading operation in the last couple of years. Then again, it's so obvious to anyone else in the world, so it's hardly an achievement. He wasn't against those interventions either, btw, regardless of what trump supporters (or, funny enough, he himself) say. He wasn't particularly against the Iraq war (before it started), or Lybia (where he clearly said that you guys should go in and "remove him"). And funny that you ask for jail for bush etc for war crimes, but leave out the fact that trump already called for aiming to kill children and wives of terrorists, that you "have to target their families". He already, clearly and with no false interpretation possible, on national TV, announced that he will encourage war crimes. Or torture for that matter. I don't buy the whole "nobody can puppet trump" thing. He's so one dimensional, i actually think out of all candidates, he's the one easiest to manipulate. Not by telling him what to do, or how - which he clearly wouldn't do purely because you told him to, like a 10 year old - but subtle/gentle pushes in the right direction. I had a low opinion of the TV palin everyone saw also. She was completely opposite if trump and awful at dealing with the media but yehh..... No, no.. She really isn't. She's pretty much trump with better hair and a vagina. They're both unsubstantial populists. It should tell you spades if Geert Wilders has more substance than your favorite. Which is a joke in itself. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 03 2016 22:16 m4ini wrote: The only thing i give him is that he's not trying to hide the fact that the US fucked up almost every single freedom spreading operation in the last couple of years. Then again, it's so obvious to anyone else in the world, so it's hardly an achievement. He wasn't against those interventions either, btw, regardless of what trump supporters (or, funny enough, he himself) say. He wasn't particularly against the Iraq war (before it started), or Lybia (where he clearly said that you guys should go in and "remove him"). And funny that you ask for jail for bush etc for war crimes, but leave out the fact that trump already called for aiming to kill children and wives of terrorists, that you "have to target their families". He already, clearly and with no false interpretation possible, on national TV, announced that he will encourage war crimes. Or torture for that matter. I don't buy the whole "nobody can puppet trump" thing. He's so one dimensional, i actually think out of all candidates, he's the one easiest to manipulate. Not by telling him what to do, or how - which he clearly wouldn't do purely because you told him to, like a 10 year old - but subtle/gentle pushes in the right direction. i bet he would even fall for reverse psychology as soon as he is enraged enough... let him believe he is in a strong position, beg him to not do something (that you want him to do) and no matter if it makes any sense for the US he will do it just to spite you | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9rPjtDM.png) Source | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 03 2016 22:21 puerk wrote: i bet he would even fall for reverse psychology as soon as he is enraged enough... let him believe he is in a strong position, beg him to not do something (that you want him to do) and no matter if it makes any sense for the US he will do it just to spite you I thought the same, but realistically, that's not going to happen. But it's funny how trump makes you think about politics as if they're done by 15 year olds. Guess that's about the same substance his policies have. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22345 Posts
On March 03 2016 21:15 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it just me or wouldn't it be pretty easy to talk everyone (the people dissatisfied with their potential nominee) but Hillary into trying to run 4 people all the way through the general? Trump, X, Hillary and Bernie. I'd be curious to at least see it polled FTTP remains the main problem with creating diversity and that's not going to change since the ones who would need to break it are the very people that it keeps in power, the Democrats and the Republicans. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
Also, as unlikely as it seems now, I wouldn't be surprised to see current and/or former GOP candidates supporting Trump and being on his staff later on. "Some harsh things where said as part of the race to win the nomination, but we are all in this together, to make America Great AGAIN!!!" | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 03 2016 18:57 Atreides wrote: I know exactly one "republican" who will vote Hillary over trump. She also voted Obama x2 so not sure if counts. I know many of my friends who insist they will not vote trump but will also not vote Hillary. I'm curious how this turns out. I assume pretty much everyone agrees by this point trump is only repub who could win general? I just can't see cruz winning. And it's a fact vetted by last two elections that an "establishment" candidate can't win. Most numbers seem to support this. That fact was NOT vetted by the last two elections. Just because they were lost by the establishment doesn't mean anyone else could have won. 2008 was virtually unwinnable for Republicans no matter who ran (the economy end of Dubya's presidency really damaged their brand in the short-term) as was 2012 (it is difficult to unseat an incumbent, especially a President, and especially when he can point to tons of short-term markers as being much better than they were in '08 due to how catastrophic the economy was and had pretty much done 1 thing people don't like that hadn't even taken effect yet). I mean, who do you think would have won in 2012? Herman Cain or something? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
On March 03 2016 22:47 GoTuNk! wrote: I'm quite sure the vast majority of republicans viscerally hate Hillary and Obama so much they will eventually come to terms with Trump's nomination. This is just pure speculation by myself though. Also, as unlikely as it seems now, I wouldn't be surprised to see current and/or former GOP candidates supporting Trump and being on his staff later on. "Some harsh things where said as part of the race to win the nomination, but we are all in this together, to make America Great AGAIN!!!" Considering how he's being pitched as a con-man I don't think they can really get behind him without losing credibility. It's hard to go from a liar, idiot, dangerous, racist, etc.. to, he should be president. I mean, who do you think would have won in 2012? Herman Cain or something? You know, for as much of a joke as his run was, he's got one of the few catchphrases I can recall from all of the losers. + Show Spoiler + 9-9-9!!!! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2016 22:31 Gorsameth wrote: FTTP remains the main problem with creating diversity and that's not going to change since the ones who would need to break it are the very people that it keeps in power, the Democrats and the Republicans. There is also the problem that the electoral college is not designed for that. If someone doesn’t to 270, we get into a very messy election, which should be avoided at all cost. No one benefits from House of Representatives putting someone in the oval office through the process of playing king maker. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On March 03 2016 15:13 wei2coolman wrote: Whoa, speak for yourself. I'm all for a meme presidency. If anything, it's what the liberals really should be begging for tbh. Either we get the democrats and republicans working together in the House and the Senate to fuck over Trump, or the Democrats sweep the living shit out of the Republicans in the House 4 to 8 years down the line, or America is Great Again. I'm using "we" in the same sense as when a friend suggests a really awful idea and you respond "we really don't want to do that". I'm not claiming you agree with me, I'm claiming the results would be awful for everyone involved. I don't trust that Trump will be anywhere near as benign a President as you assume he'll be. The man thinks Putin has good ideas about how to run a government. | ||
| ||
