Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 06, 2016, 06:39:41 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

 on: Today at 04:45:34 am 
Started by #TheShadowyAbyss - Last post by SillyAmerican
Is he just saying what Republican voters want to hear to win the nomination and then swing hard center when he wins?

Setting aside my current hate for him for a second:

Notice that every time he takes a strong position on something - it's the strongest and the most extreme one he can take without actually getting totally stumped. Deportation of illegals, The Wall, China Muslim ban now serve as a few examples. By comparsion his moderate positions are barely ever mentioned even though they are bigger in number. Why does he do this? Several reasons:

1) To dominate the news cycle - He says something outrageous that puts him in the media spotlight for days.

2) The truthful hyperbole - Trump describes this oxymoron in The Art of the Deal - he has been using it for years - by friendly exaggeration you draw the attention to the issue at hand and force others to discuss it, making them realize that there is actually a problem, even if it is not as big as anyone presents it.

3) To appear as the leader on the issue so he can frame the discussion - the issue of problems of the Middle East is now firmly in Trump's hands, Trump is forcing everyone to react to him and it does not matter than most media and representatives don't support him.

4) To have a strong starting position so he can negotiate down later - Trump won't deport 12 million Mexicans and he won't ban Muslims from entering the country. However, he has put himself into a position to accomplish these goals at least partially once he is done negotiating about them. Do I believe he will try? That door is left to be open who knows what Trump honestly believes?

5) To lock down his base - not much to explain here even though I think it's only a secondary motive.

Trump is obsessed with deals and has been his whole life. This is the biggest one yet and he is playing by the same rules he has always played by... and he is winning.

Do I believe he actually believes all the hateful rhetoric he has been spewing in recent months? Yes, but I can be proven wrong and I'll be the first to admit it if I am.

Either he is the greatest politician in U.S history by trolling everyone or his true self has been revealed and will lead to his inevitable demise.

Now does this mean I will ever support him? No, he pretty much turned me off of him the moment he started making these claims.

For those who continue to be somewhat surprised, The Art of the Deal is what Trump is all about. And he is an absolutely brilliant marketing person, which is why he's doing so well: he knows how to manipulate the media, he knows how to work a crowd, and he understands the concerns people have about the completely ineffective workings of today's mainstream politicians. Is he the answer? Probably not, but that's not gonna stop him from trying to make that case, and thus far, it's a case that's resonating with people. We'll see how this plays out, but it's definitely an interesting year.

 on: Today at 04:34:24 am 
Started by Gustaf - Last post by Kingpoleon

279: Gov. Thomas Dewey(R-NY)/Sen. John Bricker(R-OH)
188: Vice Pres. John Nance Garner(D-TX)/Sen. Harry Truman(D-MO)
64: Fmr. Gov. Huey Long(People's-LA)/Sen. Burton Wheeler(P-MT)

 on: Today at 04:30:39 am 
Started by Barack Van Buren - Last post by MW Representative RFayette
He's too nice of a person, I guess

 on: Today at 04:29:03 am 
Started by TN volunteer - Last post by SillyAmerican
Independents broke hard for Clinton in 2008 because of the competitive primary and they knew that if Obama won, it would steamroll him to the nomination. They said 'not so fast.'

Hillary won Iowa so it makes sense a) that Bernie would receive the 'not so fast' vote and b) he lives next door vote. I could also see Independents breaking for the Republican primary this time because of the ramifications - lower indies in the D primary makes this a closer race but Sanders won't lose this. Hillary is just in it for the delegates. Once the primaries shift to South Carolina and beyond that will tell where this race is headed.

Agreed. Iowa and New Hampshire will recede soon enough, and folks can get down to the real meat of this campaign.

 on: Today at 04:23:31 am 
Started by retromike22 - Last post by retromike22
What is your favorite state? Every 4 days multiple states with the lowest votes will be removed. The first state to 50% wins.

In this round, you can vote for up to 2 states.

Results from last week: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=228115.0


Colorado     (21.2%)
Washington    (18.8%)
Minnesota    (17.6%)
Alaska     (18.8%)

California     (11.8%) Sad
New York     (11.8%)

 on: Today at 04:19:55 am 
Started by marty - Last post by Bro-mentum

Anyways, post updated from misunderstanding.

Not really a misunderstanding, it's just stupid.

I fully understood the original post. I just thought it was funny that hookers were among the examples of things that everyone would supposedly want in an ideal world..  It seemed like the poster projecting onto other people.

 on: Today at 04:19:18 am 
Started by marty - Last post by SillyAmerican
I don't think that "underdog" is the appropriate word to use, since he's up by at least 10 in the polls right now, and is still the overwhelming favorite in prediction markets.  I think "toss-up" is as far as I'd go.  But yes, he has some real structural problems. 

Yes. Two points.

(1) Whether the lead is 3% or double digits, the fact is that Trump is leading. We'll see Tuesday what happens, but I think the true contest begins in the south.

(2) It's a bit interesting that Trump is doing as well as he is, given the fact that others have much better organizations on the ground. Trump is taking advantage of the strong anti-establishment sentiment that's being felt across the board this cycle. Whether he can ride this to the nomination remains to be seen, but I don't think those who continue to say that Trump's support is about to collapse are giving enough credit to the electorate's unrest right now.

Trump is not an "underdog", although he might not be the invincible option his supporters portray him to be. It's a very interesting year, to say the least...

 on: Today at 04:15:44 am 
Started by Tik on a blueberry boat - Last post by Governor Leinad
I played golf with my dad, and I've found I'm still really bad at it (like, terrible) but I wasn't as awful as I predicted. I can think strategically enough to manage my crapness--I shank it in an area that maximizes my chances to eventually put the ball in an area close to the hole.

I did hit the best golf shot I've ever hit, though. 40-yards or something, chipped it, and it rolled onto the green...about a foot from the hole.

That made up for the 20+ times I topped it and it went only about 10 feet. Again, I'm terrible at golf.

 on: Today at 04:12:54 am 
Started by pikachu - Last post by NE Rep. RGN (Fed-NY)
Yes, it does look like schools are measured more than individuals.
It's more of the schools' performance.

 on: Today at 04:11:48 am 
Started by Clinton 2016 - Last post by Governor Leinad
This is correct, Rubio has done next to nothing. But lots of people don't really care about that--just talking. It's funny how my dad supports Rubio this year, but in 2008 acted like Obama was some nobody that walked in from the street, when in reality they have about the same experience (a few dull years in the senate, several years in the state legislature, and...speeches).

Oh, and wolfsblood:

If you take away free speech, even the "bad" free speech, by giving the government the ability to stop it, your nation is thoroughly screwed. Ayn Rand said: "In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners." I used to have that on my signature for a while. It's a very important point.

The thing is, what's "good" or "bad" is often very subjective, especially from a legal standpoint. So, personal attacks are bad? What's a personal attack, and what's simply a fair critique? There's no objective way to know! Or is it only "vulgar" attacks? But how do you objectively define what's vulgar? Should we ban talking about gay sex? Fortunately we can't single out them, so it would have to be more all-encompassing. Certainly you won't ban talking about sex in general?

And what if anti-theists--not atheists, but anti-theists--take charge and ban Christianity? I mean, if they feel it's "bad," why should they not based on your precedent? (I'm presuming you're a Christian. And if you are, let me put it this way: what will happen if a pharaoh arises who knows not Joseph?)

This is the same BS nonsense behind not only McCarthyism and censorship laws, but every totalitarian dictatorship ever. Big government controlling our speech--this is literally right out of the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four!

Do you believe in "American exceptionalism?" I don't believe that America is naturally exceptional, but I believe the idea of America is. And it is NOT because we're white, or Christian, or whatever. It's because we value LIBERTY. Liberty to live how you want without hurting others (and "hurt feelings" doesn't count). No official religion, and (ideally) no limits on free speech.

I just can't stand big-government conservatives. People who think "traditional values" means gay marriage should be banned, but think that things like the Constitution only matter when they want it too.

(By the way, guys, I figured out how to get Leinad in the "trigger the preceding poster" thread--attack the first amendment.)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines