|
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. |
On May 02 2016 11:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 10:20 kwizach wrote:On May 02 2016 10:12 oBlade wrote:
This is apparently your discovery of hindsight. It's "unmistakably" the Nazi salute because it happened in the past and we now have the photo's context. And you're not listening. I'm asking you what you expect me to say to you right now. As in what was your goal here? ...except everyone but you recognized it for what it was before she confirmed it was the Nazi salute and before we had context, because it looks like the Nazi salute and not like anything else -- no need for hindsight. I'm not expecting you to say anything. You're the one who started replying to me for no reason except to say "nuh-uh!", and you've declined repeatedly my invitations to either stop replying or take it to PM. What are you trying to achieve here? I'm having a discussion - don't you share that goal? Surely you didn't copy/paste to me a dozen times just to restate that you thought it was 100% certain that the woman was doing a Nazi salute? Did you think I wasn't aware of your opinion? What's so different about the picture of the man I showed you, besides the angle of the shot, that makes the gesture totally different than the woman's?
What discussion are you having? You didn't seem to be aware of my point given you kept ignoring it and going on tangents instead. Perhaps if you stopped attributing to me positions you imagined in your head, it'd be easier to have an actual discussion. You're the one asking me what you should be responding to me, so you don't even seem to know what point you want to argue -- again, you're the one who replied to me.
The gestures are not "totally different", since both obviously have their arms up and extended, but they're sufficiently different to know for sure that the woman was doing the Nazi salute looking at how she deliberately kept her hand straight, while the guy could be doing any kind of of salute given his hand muscles are relaxed and not keeping the hand straight. Again, this was obvious to everyone in the thread, without context of hindsight (contrary to what you falsely claimed).
|
On May 02 2016 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 13:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2016 13:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 13:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 02 2016 12:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's saying after 4 years and Citizens United is still active will you be pissed or glad that the Democrats who are in power are using it. I don't think either Clinton or Bernie would have the ability to somehow get rid of money in politics in 4 years. I also think 4 years in the future is plainly silly to speculate about. Did we see this election coming 4 years ago? 4 years in politics is like a different era. So four years is an "era", but not enough time to get something done that 2 out of the 3 viable presidential candidates are already doing and the other claims she supports, done? Don't think that quite adds up. I'm curious who you think would stop it and how? High attendance in local elections is the only way to get it overturned. Get the house and senate Blue, get a Blue president, and then have the congressmen pressure the executive branch to push for the overturning of citizens united. You know, actual politics and not danke memes. Why is it so absurd to ask Hillary to join the other two viable candidates in not having superPAC's and not coordinating with them, and not using her Victory Fund like she has? I shouldn't have to convince the Democrat nominee to only exploit Citizens United as little as her Republican opponent (which, to date, is not at all). Right now if I was a Trump supporter I could be making the argument that Trump needs to get a superPAC, otherwise he's unilaterally disarming against a Democratic nominee that embraces their corrupting influence. If that doesn't raise a flag for Democrats I don't know what could on the topic of campaign finance. So you're saying that Hilary is more beholden to corporations than the guy who's corporation literally has his name on it? I'm saying she's exploiting CU more than any other candidate ever and that makes her a bad champion for campaign finance reform. Trump and his supporters are going to point that out frequently. That should raise some flags for Democrats imo.
So the resourceful politician accused of getting stuff done will use all options at her disposal to get stuff done?
What's trump going to do, "Oh, I don't believe in corporations using money doing politics, which is why the Trump Corporation is using its money to run a politician for president"
You're being really weird right now, like, more than usual. Cool off bro.
|
Anyone else think Cruz concedes tomorrow? I know he has maintained his commitment, but I also don't take him as the type to beat a dead horse. I do think he has a chance if he wins IN, but that is looking extremely unlikely. If he loses IN, he even more certainly loses CA. I think he'll cash in his book deal and be done with all this, tbh.
|
On May 03 2016 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone else think Cruz concedes tomorrow? I know he has maintained his commitment, but I also don't take him as the type to beat a dead horse. I do think he has a chance if he wins IN, but that is looking extremely unlikely. If he loses IN, he even more certainly loses CA. I think he'll cash in his book deal and be done with all this, tbh.
If the plan is still a brokered convention then he will stay in. If he drops Trump clinches.
|
It's been pretty obv that Trump is going to convention with most delegates, Kasich and Cruz look to be sticking out this race to its sorry conclusion
|
Yeah, I suppose I was under the impression that the convention is only contested if Trump can't hit 1237. But with an IN win, doesn't 1237 become pretty likely? As soon as Trump is guaranteed, doesn't the party want to suddenly unite?
|
I think Cruz will stay in; there's still a not-insignificant chance of Trump imploding before California votes in June, and Trump cannot reach 1237 before California unless I missed some math.
Plus it's not like Cruz actually cares about the party uniting or the party itself. The only person who cares less about the party than Cruz is Trump.
|
On May 03 2016 01:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think Cruz will stay in; there's still a not-insignificant chance of Trump imploding before California votes in June, and Trump cannot reach 1237 before California unless I missed some math.
Plus it's not like Cruz actually cares about the party uniting or the party itself. The only person who cares less about the party than Cruz is Trump.
Trump will probably wrap up the nomination with California. Both California and Indiana are winner-take-all states. Wins in those two states alone (which seem probable at this point) would push him up to 1,225 delegates.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If Trump clinches the nomination then loses to Hillary, how do you think that Cruz and Kasich will be considered in the next primary? Will people think of them as undermining the R party, or as brave heroes who stood up to the evil Trump, or will they simply just forget or not care?
|
On May 03 2016 01:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 01:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think Cruz will stay in; there's still a not-insignificant chance of Trump imploding before California votes in June, and Trump cannot reach 1237 before California unless I missed some math.
Plus it's not like Cruz actually cares about the party uniting or the party itself. The only person who cares less about the party than Cruz is Trump. Trump will probably wrap up the nomination with California. Both California and Indiana are winner-take-all states. Wins in those two states alone (which seem probable at this point) would push him up to 1,225 delegates.
No, their winner-take-all systems are mixed. Delegates are distributed depending on both who wins the states and who wins individual districts.
|
On May 02 2016 23:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2016 13:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2016 13:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 13:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 02 2016 12:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's saying after 4 years and Citizens United is still active will you be pissed or glad that the Democrats who are in power are using it. I don't think either Clinton or Bernie would have the ability to somehow get rid of money in politics in 4 years. I also think 4 years in the future is plainly silly to speculate about. Did we see this election coming 4 years ago? 4 years in politics is like a different era. So four years is an "era", but not enough time to get something done that 2 out of the 3 viable presidential candidates are already doing and the other claims she supports, done? Don't think that quite adds up. I'm curious who you think would stop it and how? High attendance in local elections is the only way to get it overturned. Get the house and senate Blue, get a Blue president, and then have the congressmen pressure the executive branch to push for the overturning of citizens united. You know, actual politics and not danke memes. Why is it so absurd to ask Hillary to join the other two viable candidates in not having superPAC's and not coordinating with them, and not using her Victory Fund like she has? I shouldn't have to convince the Democrat nominee to only exploit Citizens United as little as her Republican opponent (which, to date, is not at all). Right now if I was a Trump supporter I could be making the argument that Trump needs to get a superPAC, otherwise he's unilaterally disarming against a Democratic nominee that embraces their corrupting influence. If that doesn't raise a flag for Democrats I don't know what could on the topic of campaign finance. So you're saying that Hilary is more beholden to corporations than the guy who's corporation literally has his name on it? I'm saying she's exploiting CU more than any other candidate ever and that makes her a bad champion for campaign finance reform. Trump and his supporters are going to point that out frequently. That should raise some flags for Democrats imo. So the resourceful politician accused of getting stuff done will use all options at her disposal to get stuff done? What's trump going to do, "Oh, I don't believe in corporations using money doing politics, which is why the Trump Corporation is using its money to run a politician for president" You're being really weird right now, like, more than usual. Cool off bro.
That's an interesting use of an "ends justify the means" argument. How much has Trump's corporation donated to his campaign?
|
On May 03 2016 01:17 LegalLord wrote:
If Trump clinches the nomination then loses to Hillary, how do you think that Cruz and Kasich will be considered in the next primary? Will people think of them as undermining the R party, or as brave heroes who stood up to the evil Trump, or will they simply just forget or not care?
I don't know enough Republicans to guess from personal experience.
My general guess would be that the primary efforts would largely be a wash. The establishment will like that they went against Trump, the Trump supporters will probably be annoyed some; but mostly I expect it to be a "that was a dismal time and we don't talk about it" situation.
Cruz will probably still be hated by the alot of the establishment because he'll probably continue doing things to annoy them in any case.
|
And it starts...
Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.
Trump gets 41 percent to Clinton's 39 percent in the new poll.
This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3 point lead over Trump, 47.4 to 40.1 percent.
Just last week, Clinton and Trump tied in another Rasmussen poll in which each won 38 percent. In that survey, voters were also allowed to answer that they would stay home and not vote for either candidate.
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15 percent of respondents would prefer some other candidate and 5 percent were undecided.
The recent poll also found that Trump does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans in a matchup between the two candidates.
Trump takes 15 percent support of Democrats in a general election matchup between Trump and Clinton, but Clinton takes just 8 percent of GOP voters.
Trump has 73 percent support of Republicans, and Clinton has 77 percent support of Democrats in a matchup.
The survey was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points.
Source
|
On May 02 2016 23:16 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 11:01 oBlade wrote:On May 02 2016 10:20 kwizach wrote:On May 02 2016 10:12 oBlade wrote:
This is apparently your discovery of hindsight. It's "unmistakably" the Nazi salute because it happened in the past and we now have the photo's context. And you're not listening. I'm asking you what you expect me to say to you right now. As in what was your goal here? ...except everyone but you recognized it for what it was before she confirmed it was the Nazi salute and before we had context, because it looks like the Nazi salute and not like anything else -- no need for hindsight. I'm not expecting you to say anything. You're the one who started replying to me for no reason except to say "nuh-uh!", and you've declined repeatedly my invitations to either stop replying or take it to PM. What are you trying to achieve here? I'm having a discussion - don't you share that goal? Surely you didn't copy/paste to me a dozen times just to restate that you thought it was 100% certain that the woman was doing a Nazi salute? Did you think I wasn't aware of your opinion? What's so different about the picture of the man I showed you, besides the angle of the shot, that makes the gesture totally different than the woman's? What discussion are you having? You didn't seem to be aware of my point given you kept ignoring it and going on tangents instead. Perhaps if you stopped attributing to me positions you imagined in your head, it'd be easier to have an actual discussion. You're the one asking me what you should be responding to me, so you don't even seem to know what point you want to argue -- again, you're the one who replied to me. The gestures are not "totally different", since both obviously have their arms up and extended, but they're sufficiently different to know for sure that the woman was doing the Nazi salute looking at how she deliberately kept her hand straight, while the guy could be doing any kind of of salute given his hand muscles are relaxed and not keeping the hand straight. Again, this was obvious to everyone in the thread, without context of hindsight (contrary to what you falsely claimed).
So this is why it's going nowhere as usual: You think questions are strawmen and your idea of a discussion is repeating the same thing ad nauseam. Your opinion has been read, really. Even Rubio only repeats himself 3 times. People down in the Mafia forum now know what you think. We've all got it.
|
On May 03 2016 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:And it starts... Show nested quote +Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.
Trump gets 41 percent to Clinton's 39 percent in the new poll.
This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3 point lead over Trump, 47.4 to 40.1 percent.
Just last week, Clinton and Trump tied in another Rasmussen poll in which each won 38 percent. In that survey, voters were also allowed to answer that they would stay home and not vote for either candidate.
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15 percent of respondents would prefer some other candidate and 5 percent were undecided.
The recent poll also found that Trump does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans in a matchup between the two candidates.
Trump takes 15 percent support of Democrats in a general election matchup between Trump and Clinton, but Clinton takes just 8 percent of GOP voters.
Trump has 73 percent support of Republicans, and Clinton has 77 percent support of Democrats in a matchup.
The survey was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points. Source
Now the dueling head to head polls of questionable accuracy and relevance can be discussed on TV until the end of time, securing the salaries of those talking, while leaving the public vaguely more informed.
|
On May 03 2016 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:And it starts... Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.
Trump gets 41 percent to Clinton's 39 percent in the new poll.
This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3 point lead over Trump, 47.4 to 40.1 percent.
Just last week, Clinton and Trump tied in another Rasmussen poll in which each won 38 percent. In that survey, voters were also allowed to answer that they would stay home and not vote for either candidate.
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15 percent of respondents would prefer some other candidate and 5 percent were undecided.
The recent poll also found that Trump does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans in a matchup between the two candidates.
Trump takes 15 percent support of Democrats in a general election matchup between Trump and Clinton, but Clinton takes just 8 percent of GOP voters.
Trump has 73 percent support of Republicans, and Clinton has 77 percent support of Democrats in a matchup.
The survey was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points. Source Now the dueling head to head polls of questionable accuracy and relevance can be discussed on TV until the end of time, securing the salaries of those talking, while leaving the public vaguely more informed.
Now Trump wont be completely lying when he says he leads her in polls.
|
On May 03 2016 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:And it starts... Show nested quote +Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.
Trump gets 41 percent to Clinton's 39 percent in the new poll.
This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3 point lead over Trump, 47.4 to 40.1 percent.
Just last week, Clinton and Trump tied in another Rasmussen poll in which each won 38 percent. In that survey, voters were also allowed to answer that they would stay home and not vote for either candidate.
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15 percent of respondents would prefer some other candidate and 5 percent were undecided.
The recent poll also found that Trump does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans in a matchup between the two candidates.
Trump takes 15 percent support of Democrats in a general election matchup between Trump and Clinton, but Clinton takes just 8 percent of GOP voters.
Trump has 73 percent support of Republicans, and Clinton has 77 percent support of Democrats in a matchup.
The survey was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points. Source
I'm not a fan of big fan of Hillary but that's a Rasmussen poll. We also have 6 more months of Trump being Trump.
Edit: Yeah just as I expected, Rasmussen one way, everyone else the other: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
|
On May 03 2016 02:30 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:And it starts... Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.
Trump gets 41 percent to Clinton's 39 percent in the new poll.
This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3 point lead over Trump, 47.4 to 40.1 percent.
Just last week, Clinton and Trump tied in another Rasmussen poll in which each won 38 percent. In that survey, voters were also allowed to answer that they would stay home and not vote for either candidate.
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15 percent of respondents would prefer some other candidate and 5 percent were undecided.
The recent poll also found that Trump does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans in a matchup between the two candidates.
Trump takes 15 percent support of Democrats in a general election matchup between Trump and Clinton, but Clinton takes just 8 percent of GOP voters.
Trump has 73 percent support of Republicans, and Clinton has 77 percent support of Democrats in a matchup.
The survey was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points. Source I'm not a fan of big fan of Hillary but that's a Rasmussen poll. We also have 6 more months of Trump being Trump. Edit: Yeah just as I expected, Rasmussen one way, everyone else the other: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
They do all show her lead shrinking though (she peaked at 50.4%). I think it's reasonable to imagine they'll be statistically tied by the end of the Republican convention (provided it's not a crime scene).
|
Rasmussen has been feeding into the GOP distortion field for a long time now.
|
On May 03 2016 01:55 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 23:16 kwizach wrote:On May 02 2016 11:01 oBlade wrote:On May 02 2016 10:20 kwizach wrote:On May 02 2016 10:12 oBlade wrote:
This is apparently your discovery of hindsight. It's "unmistakably" the Nazi salute because it happened in the past and we now have the photo's context. And you're not listening. I'm asking you what you expect me to say to you right now. As in what was your goal here? ...except everyone but you recognized it for what it was before she confirmed it was the Nazi salute and before we had context, because it looks like the Nazi salute and not like anything else -- no need for hindsight. I'm not expecting you to say anything. You're the one who started replying to me for no reason except to say "nuh-uh!", and you've declined repeatedly my invitations to either stop replying or take it to PM. What are you trying to achieve here? I'm having a discussion - don't you share that goal? Surely you didn't copy/paste to me a dozen times just to restate that you thought it was 100% certain that the woman was doing a Nazi salute? Did you think I wasn't aware of your opinion? What's so different about the picture of the man I showed you, besides the angle of the shot, that makes the gesture totally different than the woman's? What discussion are you having? You didn't seem to be aware of my point given you kept ignoring it and going on tangents instead. Perhaps if you stopped attributing to me positions you imagined in your head, it'd be easier to have an actual discussion. You're the one asking me what you should be responding to me, so you don't even seem to know what point you want to argue -- again, you're the one who replied to me. The gestures are not "totally different", since both obviously have their arms up and extended, but they're sufficiently different to know for sure that the woman was doing the Nazi salute looking at how she deliberately kept her hand straight, while the guy could be doing any kind of of salute given his hand muscles are relaxed and not keeping the hand straight. Again, this was obvious to everyone in the thread, without context of hindsight (contrary to what you falsely claimed). So this is why it's going nowhere as usual: You think questions are strawmen and your idea of a discussion is repeating the same thing ad nauseam. Your opinion has been read, really. Even Rubio only repeats himself 3 times. People down in the Mafia forum now know what you think. We've all got it.
Ah, yet another post where you ramble on without making any point related to the actual topic being discussed -- thanks for proving my point  Your questions were you imagining a possible position for me that I never defended, and then asking me about that position (me being personally bothered by your skepticism, or me calling Trump guilty by association). That's a very productive way of conducting a conversation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
