GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[pErvinalia]

Just saw a poll with Hillary only 3 points ahead of Trump for preferred Prez. Shit's getting real..

[Forty Two]

Trump has a better than 99% chance of winning the Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island and -- http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... epublican/

This should be a major thumping today by Cruz -- coming off last week's victory in New York, this will be, as Trump is wont to say, Yuge!

I am actually starting to think he's going to win the GOP nomination, and his numbers against Hillary are competitive. Last polls I saw had him only about 3% down off of Hillary, and Trump hasn't even started to take her down a peg.

[Animavore]

He's not getting anywhere near the Whitehouse. As soon as he gets the nom the Repubs will tear themselves apart, while Democrats all get behind Hilary.

[Forty Two]

Anybody but Hillary - good on you.

Shillary? I used to be fairly neutral on Shillary simply because I didn't know much about her. The more I learn, however, the less I like her.

She's detestable, but she's a lot more electable than bernie"I'll die in office if I ever reach office" Sanders, and she's a lor more likeable than trumpzilla or that crazy dominionist cruz

I don't get it - Trump has much more liberal views than Hillary on most issues. Hillary is a free-trading neoconservative, and Trump wants to protest American workers, including union workers, from unfair trade deals, and unfair labor practices overseas undercutting US wages and working conditions. He is fine with trans people using whatever bathroom they like, and abortion is not something he is concerned about (although he says he is personally pro-life, it's not clear whether that means ALWAYS pro life, or whether he has the usual middle ground position that most people have, which is that abortion should be allowed unrestricted to a certain point and then after that, limitations can be imposed). He is in favor of fully funding Planned Parenthood. He was against the Iraq War, and Hillary was in favor of it. He is against US interventionism and neoconservative meddling in other nation's business militarily, and Hillary is in favor of those policies. Based on his avowed policies, he's less likely to involve the US in another war than Clinton - Clinton's positions and history practically guarantee that we'll be increasing drone strikes and toppling another dictator. And, the neocon war hawks support Hillary over Trump -- http://inthesetimes.com/article/18998/n ... risetheyve

Trump has concrete proposals for healthcare reform to fix the Obamacare debacle.

Trump is proposing tax relief for working families -- any joint filers making $50k and under would pay $0 in federal taxes (single income filers would pay $0 up to $25,000. There would be four brackets, 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. And, the marriage penalty would be eliminated, and the tax code would be simplified. Anyone paying taxes in the US beyond the 1040EZ folks knows that simplification is much needed.

And, something has to be done about illegal immigration in the US. I know it's a hot potato and nobody wants to be called racist, which is the go-to slur when folks talk about limiting illegal immigration to the US. But, no other country in the world would put up with the level of illegal immigration that the US has endured for a generation now. It's absolutely over the top. It's not about keeping Mexicans out or whatever nonsense is sold in the media -- it's about having a border and requiring people to enter the country in a legal, orderly fashion. The US already admits more visitors, grants permanent residence to more people, and grants citizenship to more citizens annually than any other country in the world both in absolute terms and in per capita. Calling the someone racist for wanting to get a handle on the MILLIONS of people coming to the US illegally is missing the point. We can argue about how best to do it, and the mechanisms for doing it, but something reasonable needs to be done.

[laklak]

Yeah, if you actually look at his position papers he's not as batshit as he first appears.

[Svartalf]

When it comes to foreign policies, trump is a total loose cannon, his attitude to Mexico being proof of that... I don't know if he'll really bring back the boys in the East, a good thing to do if he does, but I simply don't want a guy like him anywhere near the Nuclear Suitcase...

As far as unfair trade practices are concerned, it's the US that has practices protectionism and advocated excessively pro private sector methods in the first place. The US is pushing stuff in TAFTA that is simply unacceptable, while not seeming ready to comply with fair trade and reciprocal practices themselves.

I'm not sure Obamacare is such a disaster, or that his proposed 'remedies' are such good ideas.

[Svartalf]

Yeah, if you actually look at his position papers he's not as batshit as he first appears.

But I don't know if those papers are even a reflection of his true positions, and he DOES look completely batshit.

[Forty Two]

Yeah, if you actually look at his position papers he's not as batshit as he first appears.

Not at all - that's what's weird. And, I can't fathom all these lefties and self-identified liberals thinking Cruz is the more stable candidate. I mean, it's bizarre. That guy is truly fucked up and an arch-social-conservative. He is a religious nutter, and a "Christian nation" guy. Trump doesn't give a fuck about that. Trump is focused on economics, tax, trade and immigration.

He is what we need. Get off the navel-gazing bullshit. Stop it with the fucking amendments to the constitution to make same-sex marriage illegal. Stop it with the incessant moralizing and "family values" horseshit, and the arguing over the number of angels that can fit on the head of pin. Fuck off with the "culture war" and the "war on Christmas" and the incessant whining about cultural issues.

The President's fucking job is to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces and lead our foreign policy arm. He is also there to be the Chief Executive of the country, leading the federal departments and bureaus to enforce the laws. He is also there to head up our international trade interests. He's not there to be a social justice warrior or to make sure "Christian values" are held in high esteem.

[Forty Two]

Yeah, if you actually look at his position papers he's not as batshit as he first appears.

But I don't know if those papers are even a reflection of his true positions, and he DOES look completely batshit.

Fair question to ask, but given the track record of every past President in living memory, and each candidate in the offing, isn't it true that the position papers of ever one of those people is just as questionable? Do we really know what Hillary's true positions are? Hasn't she flip flopped, and held her finger up to the political wind? Same with Cruz. Doesn't he just adopt positions to move himself to the right to pander to his base, or back to the center to broaden his appeal to moderates?

They're all fucking playing a shell game, so this concern is not something that is particularly applicable to Trump. In fact, it's probable that Trump is more likely to be speaking from his true thoughts on a topic, because he has a track record now of taking positions one would think would be detrimental to him politically (criticizing George W. Bush in South Carolina, opposing the Iraq War, and saying that trans people can use whatever bathroom they like, and Planned Parenthood is a good organization whose funding he will continue, etc.). He has really tread political paths that seem counterintuitive to someone who wants conservative Republican votes.

[Forty Two]

Lena Dunham, would kill herself if she was a man, and will move to Canada if Trump is elected President - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/m ... ham-887432

Not sure why she won't move to Canada if Cruz is elected, since Cruz is far worse on abortion, contraception, Planned Parenthood and women's health issues than Trump. I really don't get the vitriol against Trump, when he is clearly a more liberal alternative to Cruz. Is it his tone?

[Animavore]

It's that he's hideously under-qualified for the position of President. As well as being a grade A buffoon.
You could ask why Cruz isn't getting the vitriol Trump is getting, or more. That would be a valid objection. But Trump is getting a perfectly proportional amount of vitriol.

[Forty Two]

It's that he's hideously under-qualified for the position of President.

That's an interesting assertion, but let's examine it in comparison. Nobody said Mit Romney was underqualified, and all he did was be a businessman and he had a short stint as Governor of Massachusetts - a far cry from being President. Ted Cruz has zero private sector economic experience. He's a career politician who knows how to run campaigns and run for office, and he was a lawyer handling court cases as solicitor general or something, and then he was a Senator. All Senators do is show up for votes, read bills, and negotiate backroom deals on legislation. Is Cruz "hideously underqualified?"

I would suggest that a person who built and ran a billions of dollars enterprise has the management experience necessary to run and organize a large organization of people. He has negotiation and business skills, and a practical knowledge of economics and trade. He hasn't held elected office, but frankly, the notion that being a representative or a senator qualifies a person for the Presidency is something that is more taken as given than established.

Many Presidents never served in Congress -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan was an actor, ran the screen actor's guild, and then was Governor of California for a few years. Eisenhower was a soldier and never held elected office anywhere before becoming President. Woodrow Wilson held no elected office -- he was previously President of Princeton University (not even a large university at the time, it was a small, snobby, upper-crust school). Ulysses Grant was a soldier -- that's all - no elected offices. Bill Clinton was, for a short time, governor of a tiny state, Arkansas (easier to run than a large corporation).

There are many ways to become qualified to be President. One need not hold elected offices in order to become qualified.

As well as being a grade A buffoon.

Based on what? His demeanor, or his accomplishments?

You could ask why Cruz isn't getting the vitriol Trump is getting, or more. That would be a valid objection. But Trump is getting a perfectly proportional amount of vitriol.

Oh, I don't know. He has Cruz and Kasich colluding together to as the "not Trump" candidates, as if they offer some more sober alternative. And, the media constantly pokes at him, and then complains when he pokes back. It's like the Rubio thing, when Rubio implied Trump had a tiny todger because of his small hands. Did the media focus on the impropriety of Rubio's comment? No, of course not. It was Trump who "went over the line" by responding to the off-color assertion.

When paid protesters go to Trump rallies for the purpose of causing trouble, do they get blamed for their conduct? No. Trump supporters get blamed for reacting to the provocations, and then Trump is blamed for creating the climate of hate and violence. None of Trump's supporters goes out and pursues opposition supporters to attack them -- it's the opposition supporters organizing to disrupt Trump - but, it's Trump's fault -- he causes people to dislike him so much that they come to events to disrupt and get violent, so it's Trump's fault He needs to not talk about building a wall, because people then wouldn't get pissed off and come and disrupt his events.

That's what Trump is facing -- you have a media that shows Donald Trump on stage, and refuses to pan the arena to show the 15 or 20 thousand supporters there, and they don't mention how his support is avid and large. When it was Obama, for example, the major media outlets made a point to show the adoring fans cheering. Trump has called the media outlets out on this several times -- and that is one of the things that get the vitriol against Trump up -- people don't like getting called out. But, if he didn't call them out on it, they'd just create the narrative they want.

[Animavore]

There are many ways to become qualified to be President. One need not hold elected offices in order to become qualified.

You're trying to point at many ways that someone can be qualified, and I can agree, but you're ignoring the things that I think make him under-qualified. To take just two, not giving a shit about anyone but Drumpf, and certainly not the poor, who he would think are deserving, and being grossly, dangerously, uneducated in science for a person going for the role of one of the most powerful people in America (so are the other Republicans). He said that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to undermine the American economy. This isn't just denialism, this is a conspiracy theory on par with something from Alex Jones, David Icke or Milton William Cooper, and we laugh at those people. We certainly wouldn't elect them.

I'm not saying he's under-qualified because he has never held office before. I probably should have made that clear so that one is on me.

Based on what? His demeanor, or his accomplishments?

Neither. His past displays of flagrant disregard for others. For instance that debacle in Scotland with the golf course.

Oh, I don't know.

Rubio said, "You know what they say about men with small hands. [pause] You can't trust them." I think that gives Rubio plausible deniability that he wasn't referring to Drumpfs manhood, even if I don't buy that.

Maybe the media isn't being fair in not coming down as heavily on the other nominees, but that's not an argument that they are coming down unfairly on Drumpf.

[Forty Two]

There are many ways to become qualified to be President. One need not hold elected offices in order to become qualified.

You're trying to point at many ways that someone can be qualified, and I can agree, but you're ignoring the things that I think make him under-qualified. To take just two, not giving a shit about anyone but Drumpf, and certainly not the poor, who he would think are deserving,

What has he possibly said that makes you think he doesn't care about the poor? He is interested in helping the poor, by taking action to provide them with good, well-paying jobs and preserving/expanding American industry and business in the US so Americans can go there and work and earn a decent living. That's one of the best things that can be done for the poor.

How has he shown a greater selfishness than any of the other candidates? Are the other candidates, Hillary included, altruists and philanthropists or something? Who do you think has given more to charity -- Trump, Cruz or Hillary?

He supports GirlUp, which is a campaign of the United Nations Foundation that gives girls the opportunity to channel their energy and compassion to raise awareness and funds for programs of the United Nations that help some of the world’s hardest-to-reach adolescent girls and provides funds and assistance for education and advancement for girls. Also he's a major contributor the New York City Police Foundation and the Police Athletic League and the Eric Trump Foundation, which raises money for children battling cancer and other diseases at the St. Jude's Research Hospital.\

Donald Trump has also supported the following charities:

Arnold Palmer Foundation
Celebrity Fight Night Foundation
Children with AIDS
David Foster Foundation
DoSomething.org
Friends of Scotland
Jimmy Fund
Los Angeles Police Memorial Foundation
Make A Child Smile Appeal
Make-A-Wish Foundation
Mississippi Animal Rescue League
Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center
Neurofibromatosis, Inc.
Operation Smile
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Pediatric Epilepsy Project
Raising Malawi
Reef Relief
Smile Train
St. Francis Food Pantries and Shelters
The Doe Fund
UNICEF
Wounded Warrior Project

Let's see about Hillary Clinton's charity efforts -- do you know them?

and being grossly, dangerously, uneducated in science for a person going for the role of one of the most powerful people in America (so are the other Republicans).

How do you know this? And, what sort of science education does Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders have? Are you referring to a good science education, or are you really saying that he hasn't advanced the proper ideological view? Hillary doesn't know shit about science and has zero science education. She majored in Political Science as an undergrad (which is not "science" -- and then she went to law school. How is she educated in science?

Trump attended Fordham University and the esteemed Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania -- one of the top economics programs in the world at the time. He majored in Economics. As a teenager, he attended the New York Military Academy, which is prominent and well-renowned school for middle school and high school.

So, while Trump does not have a STEM education, he has a solid Economics and business education from a premier university. Compare this education to Hillary's "political science" degree, and it falls short. Hillary has a law degree too, which is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not science.

He said that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to undermine the American economy.

He has said, specifically, more than once, confirmed on Politifact, that he jokes about it being a Chinese invention. He does point out, however, that China does jack-shit to combat climate change, while the US and other western countries take on the costs of reducing emissions and such. The Chinese use this to undercut us on prices, and he is absolutely right about that.

This isn't just denialism, this is a conspiracy theory on par with something from Alex Jones, David Icke or Milton William Cooper, and we laugh at those people. We certainly wouldn't elect them.

We also ought not quote mine and take things out of context. He said these things in jest, but the serious part of it is that China does, in fact, use the climate change issue to gain a competitive advantage because they do not adhere to climate rules - at all. Have you seen fucking China? The cities are the most smog-ridden places in the world. It's disgusting. Their environmental regulations are nonexistent, and the western countries are incurring one-sided costs in this regard. It allows them to undercut. What he's talking about is holding china to the same standards we're held to.

I'm not saying he's under-qualified because he has never held office before. I probably should have made that clear so that one is on me.

So far the only thing you said is that you think he only thinks of himself, which you did not back up with any evidence. If generosity and charity is any indication of not thinking only of himself, then I think I've established that he is probably the most giving of the current crop of candidates, Democrat or Republican. And, the second point you made was on education, and none of the candidates has a science education at all. None of them know dick about science. If you're looking for people to parrot a view you think is correct, that's one thing - but, don't confuse that with being "educated" on a subject. Further, the point you made about him being a conspiracy theorist is out of context, and ignores that he said he was joking and he clarified what his point is regarding China and climate change.

Based on what? His demeanor, or his accomplishments?

Neither. His past displays of flagrant disregard for others. For instance that debacle in Scotland with the golf course.

One, you'll have to demonstrate that the other candidates display a demonstrable regard for others that outstrips Donald Trump. If that's a factor in your decisionmaking, it makes no logical sense for it to only apply to one candidate.

Also - the "debacle" you refer to isn't really a debacle, it's politics in Scotland. Trump applied for permits and built a golf course. He built a nice golf course, but some people in the area didn't like it. The debacle, however, was when Trump objected to the massive wind farms that the Scottish government was going to build around the coast. Trump had good points about how these wind farms amount to blights on the environment and are not advisable.

He didn't do anything bad to Scotland and the golf course was fully permitted and approved in advance. Later, they want to stick in wind farms next to his course, and Trump objects. What's so wrong about that?

Oh, I don't know.

Rubio said, "You know what they say about men with small hands. [pause] You can't trust them." I think that gives Rubio plausible deniability that he wasn't referring to Drumpfs manhood, even if I don't buy that.

Nobody buys that, because "they" don't say that about men with small hands. That's not a saying. Rubio is a fucking bullshitter and totally disingenuous when he tries to claim he wasn't referring to what "they" really say about men with small hands.

Maybe the media isn't being fair in not coming down as heavily on the other nominees, but that's not an argument that they are coming down unfairly on Drumpf.

Except it is. The news media is supposed to at least try to be neutral. Commentators and pundits are one thing, but news is supposed to be dispassionate and not politically motivated. They aren't supposed to push a narrative.

[Animavore]

Why do you keep going on long-winded speils about what the other politicians are at when I say something about Trump? Saying I think x about Trump doesn't mean I de facto think the opposite of the others. Stick to Trump please.

I'll consider what you said about his charitable works.

When I'm talking about a lack of education in science I mean a lack of the basics. I don't think you need a degree. I would just expect politicians to listen to and understand the experts and not buy into denialism, conspiracy theory, or psuedoscience. A politician who can't make sound decisions on matte4s and policy related to science is no politician.

Even if Trump was joking about China, and not just back-peddling, pointing out the inaction (which isn't even true, China are doing things about climate change) of other countries isn't an excuse for your own inaction.