|
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 09 2016 10:18 Sermokala wrote:
I'm surprised if anyone would be Paul Ryan anti trump I'd expect xDaunt to join me on that island.
Trump is a loser and has no chance in the fall. Any support for him now is a bad bet.
People have been thinking this since he announced his candidacy. He could very well win the whole thing.
|
In the past 12 years, the U.S. has spent more than $1.4 billion funding abstinence programs in Africa. They're part of a larger program — called the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief — aimed at stopping the spread of HIV around the world.
Many health officials consider PEPFAR a success. It is credited with giving lifesaving HIV drugs to more than 5 million people and preventing nearly 1 million babies from getting HIV from their mothers.
But a study, published Monday in Health Affairs, finds the abstinence programs have been a failure.
When President George W. Bush proposed PEPFAR in 2003, it was an unprecedented plan. The program would give billions of dollars to test and treat people for HIV in Africa. No one had ever given this much money to fight a single disease.
Congress funded the program with bipartisan support. But one part of the plan was controversial: A third of the money going toward HIV prevention was earmarked for programs teaching abstinence before marriage and faithfulness. This included sex education classes in schools and public health announcements on billboards and the radio.
Some critics worried the abstinence programs would use aid to impose American values on Africans, says John Dietrich, a professor of political science at Bryant University.
The earmark was added to please some Republicans, Dietrich says, "who wanted to make sure the money wouldn't be spent on anything that might be seen as promoting teenage sex or promiscuity."
At the time, there was little evidence to suggest abstinence programs work. Randomized-control trials in the U.S. had shown that abstinence education programs didn't prevent teenage pregnancies or decrease high-risk sexual behavior.
Source
|
Politicians supporting an unsound program because their ideology prefers it? I'm shocked! but mostly by the pikachu i'm holding.
|
On May 09 2016 11:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. Since Cruz is also hated by a lot of republicans, and was his main opponent at that time; I don't think it says that. It looks like many may've simply stayed home and not voted because their options were terrible. So I'm unsure if a majority of republicans actually support him now. Is there national polling data; or some sort of direct indications that factor in all republicans? and a snide remark: That he managed to do better than the national Republican party doesn't count for much, given how poorly the national Republican party is viewed/what it's done.
There have already been a record 26 million GOP primary votes, and there are still 5 states left, including California, the most populous state in the country, which alone had 2 million voters in 2012. It doesn't seem realistic to say people have been staying home.
|
WASHINGTON — GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump on Sunday suggested that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would face consequences for not endorsing the businessman as the party’s presidential nominee.
Speaking with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Trump would not rule out trying to remove the Wisconsin congressman from his post as chair of this summer’s GOP convention, a role traditionally granted to the speaker of the House, if Ryan did not come around.
“If he can’t endorse you, do you think he should be chair of the Convention?” Todd asked.
“I don’t want to mention it now. I’ll see after,” Trump said. “I will give you a very solid answer, if that happens, about one minute after that happens. Okay? But there’s no reason to give it right now. But I’ll be very quick with the answer. Let’s see what happens.”
The growing feud stems from Ryan’s announcement Thursday that he is not prepared to endorse Trump for president, after his two remaining opponents, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), exited the race and cleared the way for the real estate mogul to claim the nomination.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
It is just sheer ignorance enabling the acceptance of magic problem and solution finding. a guy who suggests default as a solution to the 'debt problem' is seen as offering real solutions and identifying real problems.
|
On May 09 2016 11:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 11:07 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2016 11:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:39 m4ini wrote:On May 09 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:29 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2016 10:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2016 09:37 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
World leaders are expressing concern over his remarks, particularly South Korea and Japan. There's also all of the people, foreign and domestic, who express that the state of US politics has become a circus and that as Trump moves further and further along the election process, the standing of the US is dwindling lower and lower. Also, when you're running for the highest political office of the nation, it would be best to have some kind of actual data and plan for foreign policy, unemployment, social services, infrastructure rehabilitation, trade policies, healthcare, and education.
I've yet to read or hear anything that resembles a coherent and concrete idea from him that I can nod and think, "Okay, not bad Trump, not bad." They are expressing concern because Trump is openly threatening their national interests with his foreign policy and trade policy statements. or because they show a deep ignorance of the rest of the world's history and diplomatic situations. No, I think Trump is sufficiently aware of what's going on. He simply finds the current situation unacceptable and wants to chart a different course. Perhaps he is, but his statements did not show that. Based on the evidence of his statements, it shows a profound ignorance. Trump doesn't give a shit about including the details in his statements because he knows that they don't matter at this point. He isn't tailoring his message for the relative few who are sufficiently learned to understand policy nuance. His is a message for the masses. Do you actually believe this bullshit, or is it just that you don't really have an excuse for the dumb shit he constantly fabricates? Message for the masses. Right. God i hope he wins. I'd love to see idiocracy come true. You people are grossly misreading Trump if you truly think that he's an idiot. You don't do what he was done without some intellectual firepower at your disposal. I think people loath him so much that they aren't willing to believe he's doing all this as a mastermind. It is infuriating for people to imagine this all being the elaborate game that it is. He's a guy who realized you can take a totally different route to being president and that he could take this route by exploiting and capitalizing on his strengths/situation. This is not just some random oops that happened. This was calculated perfectly from the beginning. Exactly. And once you come to this conclusion, you start seeing him and everything that he has done recently (especially the birther thing) from a new perspective.
Does it really matter why a man acts like a child when he's running for President?
I don't see what perspective is to be gained from seeing Trump's horrifyingly dumb and revolting personality as a calculated and insincere ploy. It doesn't make him more appealing to me in any way.
And, further, I also think it's delusional.
Let's remember that Trump's election began with him losing his show on NBC, and losing his beauty pageant. Part of his brilliant plan?
And that is the same Trump that people remember from 10 years ago. And 10 years before that. Offensive, brash... and rich. His election-campaign is a brilliant ploy to win over the dumb voters, but in secret, once elected, he will become "so presidential" and have a face-lift of the personality? Maybe.
Or maybe this is just who he actually is,
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oT41FYI.jpg)
and telling yourself otherwise is either extreme partisan-adherence or extreme wishful-thinking.
|
On May 09 2016 10:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 10:18 Sermokala wrote:
I'm surprised if anyone would be Paul Ryan anti trump I'd expect xDaunt to join me on that island.
Trump is a loser and has no chance in the fall. Any support for him now is a bad bet. I find Paul Ryan to be tremendously disappointing on multiple levels. We are talking about a guy who is supposed to be a policy wonk, yet he got schooled by Biden (of all people) in a debate. I'd rather roll the dice with Trump. More to the point, I am incredibly disappointed with the hypocrisy of the GOP. They made Trump sign a pledge to support the eventual nominee of the party. But now that Trump is the nominee, they are not unequivocally supporting him like they should. How many times did the GOP tell its constituents to support and rally behind McCain and Romney, both of whom were highly questionable to the conservative base? Call me back old fashioned, but I believe in democracy and the rule of law. What the GOP is doing demonstrates outright contempt for the will of it constituents.
Paul Ryan is doing what's best for the party. And that is to now concede the election and prepare for 2020. There is no path to victory for trump it's not a roll of the dice it's a suicide pact.
They made trump sign the pledge beacuse he specifically was saying he would run third party. You don't get to run like a heaving ass hole throughout the campaign and then wonder why the establishment gets cold feet about your chance at winning.
I mean fuck he makes hillary's like ability numbers a strong point. If he only gets the 85 percent party support he has now he's done. He has so many things going against him and the map is blue leaning to begin with. If anything Obama and bush shows its that Hispanics are the only swing vote that matteres.
And he called then rapists and drug dealers at one if his first press conferences.
|
On May 09 2016 11:48 Leporello wrote:
Let's remember that Trump's election began with him losing his show on NBC, and losing his beauty pageant. Part of his brilliant plan?
There are federal equal time rules for broadcasters, and he sold Miss Universe. Even ignoring legal questions, do you expect a nominee for POTUS to concurrently have a reality TV show and beauty pageant?
|
On May 09 2016 11:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 11:28 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. Since Cruz is also hated by a lot of republicans, and was his main opponent at that time; I don't think it says that. It looks like many may've simply stayed home and not voted because their options were terrible. So I'm unsure if a majority of republicans actually support him now. Is there national polling data; or some sort of direct indications that factor in all republicans? and a snide remark: That he managed to do better than the national Republican party doesn't count for much, given how poorly the national Republican party is viewed/what it's done. There have already been a record 26 million GOP primary votes, and there are still 5 states left, including California, the most populous state in the country, which alone had 2 million voters in 2012. It doesn't seem realistic to say people have been staying home.
hmm, agreed; people don't seem to be staying home. Primary votes are normally alot lower than main election votes of course; I'm not sure if there's any known trends on how that affects how much support a candidate has from the party.
It seems quite unlikely (though theoretically possible) for different sets of the base to show up for primaries based on the candidates available.
(Trump bashing section) I still wish there'd been an actual highly competent businessman running instead of Trump. And I'm more fit to be president than Trump 
|
As I have said before, Trump is not stupid. He is actually quite street smart, and bombards people with so much useless trite that people don't even know where to start to dissect him. (Kudos for his policies being absolute shit though I suppose). I guess the English saying is wolf in sheep's clothing, but I doubt that fits Trump. Nope, thank my Chinese ancestors, they have a better saying "a tiger in pig's skin." (Most commonly used for villains who act like buffoons, but are malicious or actually very dangerous.)
|
As the joke goes:
(Con) I don't like Hillary because you can't believe anything she says.
(Lib) Trump says disastrous thing XXXX (e.g. default on debt for no fiscal reason).
(Con) Don't believe anything Trump says, he will moderate once in Office.
|
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever.
|
On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever.
Who, exactly, do you think that the voters at the margin (ie those voters who voted in the GOP primary who normally wouldn't, thereby allowing for the record turnout) voted for?
And your insistence upon ignoring the significance of Trump's large plurality victories in the crowded, early primaries, combined with Trump's recent majority victories, badly betrays your bias. Facts are facts, dude.
|
On May 09 2016 13:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. Who, exactly, do you think that the voters at the margin (ie those voters who voted in the GOP primary who normally wouldn't, thereby allowing for the record turnout) voted for? And your insistence upon ignoring the significance of Trump's large plurality victories in the crowded, early primaries, combined with Trump's recent majority victories, badly betrays your bias. Facts are facts, dude.
Hardly -- he drove turnout, but in both directions. Turnout super high this time around, and he was still stuck at 30-35 percent. I'm not ignoring it, but you are overplaying his appeal. There is no great clamor for Trump. That's my point. It even took forever to him to pass 50% favorability in his own party, and that's only after he began whining about how the system was rigged. That's what put him over the top, not a bunch of people coming around to his message.
Also, I'm not sure what a "large plurality victory" is. Off the top of my head I'd say he won most states by 10% of less.
|
On May 09 2016 13:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. Who, exactly, do you think that the voters at the margin (ie those voters who voted in the GOP primary who normally wouldn't, thereby allowing for the record turnout) voted for? And your insistence upon ignoring the significance of Trump's large plurality victories in the crowded, early primaries, combined with Trump's recent majority victories, badly betrays your bias. Facts are facts, dude.
Give him a month or so, he'll be "reluctantly voting for Trump" though he'll probably never admit to it here. Couldn't even own supporting Cruz for some inexplicable reason.
|
On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle.
He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA).
Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters.
On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York.
In other words, he won.
On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever.
He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states.
|
On May 09 2016 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. Who, exactly, do you think that the voters at the margin (ie those voters who voted in the GOP primary who normally wouldn't, thereby allowing for the record turnout) voted for? And your insistence upon ignoring the significance of Trump's large plurality victories in the crowded, early primaries, combined with Trump's recent majority victories, badly betrays your bias. Facts are facts, dude. Give him a month or so, he'll be "reluctantly voting for Trump" though he'll probably never admit to it here. Couldn't even own supporting Cruz for some inexplicable reason.
I was open to Trump in the beginning, but the constant bitching and incoherence turned me off. Besides, it became more obvious as time went on that he was lying about most of what he said. Maybe the only thing I believe is that he will try to put tariffs on goods from certain countries, and that's a dumb af idea, so that's a turnoff too.
I just don't have a good reason to vote for him.
|
On May 09 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA). Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters. Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. In other words, he won. Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states.
You are ignoring the point. This is something that I've been reading a little bit about. Trump's surge in support post Wisconsin was aligned with his refrain that the "system was rigged." Those 6 northeast states were perfectly timed for a comeback by a liberal republican like him.
I'm not denying he won, but I'm saying the record voter turnout had record numbers voting against him. This isn't a difficult concept. People are convinced Trump is going to bring out legions of new voters and beat Hillary. There is zero proof of this, which is why it's a pity the GOP voters threw away this opportunity vs such a terrible candidate like Hillary. I'd be amazed if Trump pulled it out.
|
On May 09 2016 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. Who, exactly, do you think that the voters at the margin (ie those voters who voted in the GOP primary who normally wouldn't, thereby allowing for the record turnout) voted for? And your insistence upon ignoring the significance of Trump's large plurality victories in the crowded, early primaries, combined with Trump's recent majority victories, badly betrays your bias. Facts are facts, dude. Give him a month or so, he'll be "reluctantly voting for Trump" though he'll probably never admit to it here. Couldn't even own supporting Cruz for some inexplicable reason.
I'm not so sure. You can break down the Republicans into three categories: 1) those who fervently support Trump and his platform (as they perceive it), 2) those who will support whoever is the GOP nominee by default (because they detest the thought of another Clinton in the White House), and 3) those conservative/neoconservative/GOP voters who understand that Trump's platform is largely anathema to their own political ideologies and will thus oppose him vehemently. There are a lot of people on the Right who have a lot to lose if Trump is elected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
