|
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 September 18 2016 13:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +A former CIA director, [Robert] Gates said Clinton's failure to predict the chaos that would follow Western intervention in Libya had raised credibility questions, as had her shifting position on the Iraq war.
Gates assailed Clinton's opposition to a pending Asian trade agreement she once supported, said she had been vague on dealing with Vladimir Putin's Russia, said she offered few specifics about North Korea, and had no clear strategy toward "a Middle East in flames."
But on credibility, Gates added, "Trump is in a league of his own."
"He has expressed support for building a wall between the US and Mexico; for torturing suspected terrorists and killing their families (and) for Mr. Putin’s dictatorial leadership."
Trump had expressed support "for withdrawing US troops from Europe, South Korea and Japan," while being "cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons." He had insulted servicemen, their families and military leaders, Gates wrote.
Trump is "willfully ignorant" about the world, the US military and "about government itself," Gates said. Yahoo
"They're both awful and we're fucked either way."
|
On September 18 2016 13:50 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 07:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I honestly refuse to believe that you can win an election in the US without women, hispanics, african americans, asians and college grads. This is what I have wondered. It would be quite something if white males managed to outweigh them.
What?
Trump demolishes with white men, 58-32 or so, wins with white women, wins with everyone white but the youngest population... Which imo is due to their lack of experience, but anyway.
So the fact that he carries 2/3rd of the population means he should win easily.
Trump does well with Asians, however Muslims and Asians are almost negligeble parts of the population. The issue is he loses 15% of the population 90/10 since Black and other minority black people don't like him.
And then with another 15% of the population, the Hispanics, he will be 70-30... And then the remaining few percent usually aren't the most fond of him either, and he gets roughly 25% of that vote.
So as you can see:
60-40 with white people 65%
10-90 with african americans 15%
30-70 with hispanics 15%
25-75 with natives/asian/middle east/mixed 5%
So quickly putting that in my phone calculator, that's suggest that Trump would get some 46.25% of the vote in a head to head, though in practice white people are better are coming out to vote, so it'd be a bit closer.
Either way, point is, what I've been saying all along, white people don't decide elections anymore, even though they are a sizable majority, one that is shrinking quickly, hence why Trump is so keen on saying there won't be a country left. A 60-40 sweep of white people is very realistic for Trump, so it's just interesting that such a dominant performance with the overwhelming majority race in the country isn't enough to win. Not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying that's the reality of the situation.
Hopefully that clears up some demographic issues people have. It's annoying to see people think that the only people Trump appeals to are uneducated white men. Trump wins with college educated whites, most white women, with highest salary earner whites, etc. Just go look at a recent (last two weeks) demographics poll.
Edit: Unfortunately they don't put the other races in age demographics and such since there isn't enough of them polled. Either way, I'd expect this trend to be similar, and I have no doubt that Trump is more or less tied with Hillary in demographics like 65+ English speaking Hispanics.
|
On September 18 2016 17:30 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Hopefully that clears up some demographic issues people have. It's annoying to see people think that the only people Trump appeals to are uneducated white men. Trump wins with college educated whites, most white women, with highest salary earner whites, etc. Just go look at a recent (last two weeks) demographics poll.
Could you link me something that corroborates this? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm having trouble finding a poll that confirms or denies this.
Also, I don't think Trump is 25-75 with the other minorities. Most of the numbers I've seen put him at ~50-50 with them. But like you said, they won't change the numbers much.
|
Keep in mind that this year with how well stein and Gary are doing that Trump doesn't need anymore then 45ish% to win.
|
On September 18 2016 17:49 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 17:30 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Hopefully that clears up some demographic issues people have. It's annoying to see people think that the only people Trump appeals to are uneducated white men. Trump wins with college educated whites, most white women, with highest salary earner whites, etc. Just go look at a recent (last two weeks) demographics poll.
Could you link me something that corroborates this? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm having trouble finding a poll that confirms or denies this.
It wasn't true in August or in early September (I haven't seen more recent analyses). Clinton is leading him among college educated whites, something no Democratic candidate has been able to do in years. Obviously, polls are still volatile and this has to be taken with a grain of salt.
|
Neither is he winning with white women (edit: this seems to vary, in some polls he leads in some he doesn't). Also he doesn't have +20 with the white vote overall, from the polls I've checked it's around +11.
On September 18 2016 17:30 FiWiFaKi wrote:Either way, point is, what I've been saying all along, white people don't decide elections anymore, even though they are a sizable majority, one that is shrinking quickly, hence why Trump is so keen on saying there won't be a country left. A 60-40 sweep of white people is very realistic for Trump, so it's just interesting that such a dominant performance with the overwhelming majority race in the country isn't enough to win. Not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying that's the reality of the situation.
The problem with this analysis is that the premise is based on the by far biggest Trump outlier (USC/LA Times) and the conclusion (this not being enough to win) is based on aggregators or at least other polls. If he were to win the white vote by +20 that would be enough to comfortably win the election, he's +6.7 overall in that poll. For this to be of any worth you'd have to use both the demographic breakdown and chance to win from the same source or averaging multiple sources, rather than cherry picking opposite extremes for those two values.
|
Trump won't win 40-60% of the white vote lol.
|
|
|
I wonder if his lawyers informed him that "irresponsible intent" is not a cause of action for slander or libel 
|
On September 18 2016 22:47 farvacola wrote:I wonder if his lawyers informed him that "irresponsible intent" is not a cause of action for slander or libel
That's what his lawyers told him, he's just saying it, a lot of people have told him that.
|
That right there is what a presidential candidate said. His lawyers want to sue for libel because of irresponsible intent. He won't do it for now but is going to keep an eye on the media outlet.
|
There's something ironic about Trump citing "irresponsible intent".
|
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
|
On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state.
|
On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state.
Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything.
The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate.
|
On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state.
you could encourage responsible gun ownership and offer classes, and have people trained enough to protect themselves. We haven't reached the level of domestic violence to justify such measures, but that is a far better alternative than an authoritarian state. Might not be able to stop these trash bomb tactics, but will help vs the crazies that use conventional tactics. Either way I agree with you that relying on the government to stop these individually motivated acts of terror is completely impossible. These 2 bombs cost a miniscule amount, and now the citizens have fear instilled in them, and the government has to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources that will likely do nothing. The solution to domestic terrorism is actually in the 2nd amendment.
|
On September 19 2016 00:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. you could encourage responsible gun ownership and offer classes, and have people trained enough to protect themselves. We haven't reached the level of domestic violence to justify such measures, but that is a far better alternative than an authoritarian state. Might not be able to stop these trash bomb tactics, but will help vs the crazies that use conventional tactics. Either way I agree with you that relying on the government to stop these individually motivated acts of terror is completely impossible. These 2 bombs cost a miniscule amount, and now the citizens have fear instilled in them, and the government has to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources that will likely do nothing. The solution to domestic terrorism is actually in the 2nd amendment.
As a non-American, I can't tell if you are sarcastic or not. If not, might I ask if you are actually college educated, like your name suggest? Curious.
|
On September 19 2016 00:06 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:03 biology]major wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. you could encourage responsible gun ownership and offer classes, and have people trained enough to protect themselves. We haven't reached the level of domestic violence to justify such measures, but that is a far better alternative than an authoritarian state. Might not be able to stop these trash bomb tactics, but will help vs the crazies that use conventional tactics. Either way I agree with you that relying on the government to stop these individually motivated acts of terror is completely impossible. These 2 bombs cost a miniscule amount, and now the citizens have fear instilled in them, and the government has to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources that will likely do nothing. The solution to domestic terrorism is actually in the 2nd amendment. As a non-American, I can't tell if you are sarcastic or not. If not, might I ask if you are actually college educated, like your name suggest? Curious.
How about you just respond to what I wrote instead of getting butt hurt
|
On September 19 2016 00:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:06 ACrow wrote:On September 19 2016 00:03 biology]major wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. you could encourage responsible gun ownership and offer classes, and have people trained enough to protect themselves. We haven't reached the level of domestic violence to justify such measures, but that is a far better alternative than an authoritarian state. Might not be able to stop these trash bomb tactics, but will help vs the crazies that use conventional tactics. Either way I agree with you that relying on the government to stop these individually motivated acts of terror is completely impossible. These 2 bombs cost a miniscule amount, and now the citizens have fear instilled in them, and the government has to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources that will likely do nothing. The solution to domestic terrorism is actually in the 2nd amendment. As a non-American, I can't tell if you are sarcastic or not. If not, might I ask if you are actually college educated, like your name suggest? Curious. How about you just respond to what I wrote instead of getting butt hurt
Lets shut the discussion short, because noone is going to convince anyone.
About half the americans believe that you can solve any problem with privately owned guns.
The rest of the world and the other half of the americans think that is silly.
Talking about this does not change what the other side believes, so talk about other stuff.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate.
If Trump plays this smart he could easily turn the question into, "why should we trust Hillary to stop Islamic terrorism when it was her incompetence that caused the issue in the first place?"
And that's going to be a hard hole to dig herself out of. Her FP really does suck ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
