Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's why most people don't care about Clinton's emails: it's too complicated for a low information voter to care about.

 d-usa wrote:
That's why most people don't care about Clinton's emails: it's too complicated for a low information voter to care about.

Yeah... that's true.

Hence one of the reason why I keep banging that drum that HRC will skate.

If she skates... Patreous should demand a pardon as his infraction was small potatos compared to HRC.

Still... Biden might jump in anyways... and it'll be gloriously fugly:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/25/hillary-vs-biden-would-get-ugly-fast.html?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

 whembly wrote:

“I think America is pissed. Trump’s the first person that came out and voiced exactly what everybody’s been saying all along,” one man said. “When he talks, deep down somewhere you’re going, ‘Holy crap, someone is thinking the same way I am.’”

Umm, hate to break it here, but Sanders has been saying the same gak, and for longer than Trump... Good googly moogly, people are dum


Also Trump: "Go back to Univision"

That right there is the sound of 11 million Latino voters flocking to the "other" candidate regardless of their politics.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

“I think America is pissed. Trump’s the first person that came out and voiced exactly what everybody’s been saying all along,” one man said. “When he talks, deep down somewhere you’re going, ‘Holy crap, someone is thinking the same way I am.’”

Umm, hate to break it here, but Sanders has been saying the same gak, and for longer than Trump... Good googly moogly, people are dum

Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).

Also Trump: "Go back to Univision"

That right there is the sound of 11 million Latino voters flocking to the "other" candidate regardless of their politics.

That was awesome because Jorge is an activist jackass.

To be fair to Trump, towards the end of the meeting, he engaged and answered Jorge's questions. Said something like "Are we good? Are you good? Great... we'll talk in a year or so". #heh

 whembly wrote:

Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).

As I said, people are dumb. Sanders may not have the instant recognition, but he has been saying things that, every single one of his supporters says, "man, we think just alike"

 whembly wrote:

Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).

People have short memories. Sanders has traditionally been the Liberal version of Ron Paul (Trump has simply taken Paul's place on the Republican side this year) and with the Republican primaries being so loud, and Trump especially, he's simply getting more media attention at the moment.

Warren is likely to not run, but she gave Sanders and endorsement.

I was living back in NY when Trump made local news, he has always been a punk

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).

People have short memories. Sanders has traditionally been the Liberal version of Ron Paul (Trump has simply taken Paul's place on the Republican side this year) and with the Republican primaries being so loud, and Trump especially, he's simply getting more media attention at the moment.

True. I'm just waiting for the inevitable Trump-flame-out and is very surprised that it hasn't happened yet.

Why would it need to? He isn't under any real pressure yet because it's still so far from the primaries. When he's under proper pressure we'll see him drop out and either wait until next cycle or go all out independent

That's because there's 20+ candidates on the Republican side. We probably won't see that start to narrow to a point Trump falls out for another 2-3 months (well after his big mouth has significantly hurt the Republican candidates).

 LordofHats wrote:
That's because there's 20+ candidates on the Republican side. We probably won't see that start to narrow to a point Trump falls out for another 2-3 months.

Indeed.

It's just that Trump is all bedazzle, but no substenance. Folks will get tired if his shtick soon.

 whembly wrote:
Folks will get tired if his shtick soon.

Depends on what folks you're talking about... my FB feed is full of a mixture of political articles, both pro and "con" (though really the con ones are more satirical, or poking fun at the guy than anything).... Nearly every time I see one, there's minimum 2-3k comments with a large amount saying "OMG, I can't WAIT till Trump is in the WH. #Trump2016" or something to that effect.


He clearly resonates with the scariest/worst voter class (and this swings both ways): the ill informed, or just plain stupid voter.

 whembly wrote:

1) why the feth you reading Breibart? That need to change that fething website name.

Because Breitbart.com is a reliable source for extreme, conservative opinions; that's the basis of the Breitbart brand. I'm not sure why you believe the website should change its name, as you regularly link to websites with names that brand them as extremely conservative, indeed you did so by linking to a Fox Youtube channel.

 whembly wrote:

2) Here's the video:


I report... you decide.

That video is the same as the one posted by the Breitbart reporter, and does not feature Trump stating that Ramos was being removed for "speaking out of turn" as you claimed. Trump did state that Ramos was not called on to ask a question, and subsequently mocked him for being a Univision journalist, in keeping with his position on immigration.

 whembly wrote:

To be fair to Trump, towards the end of the meeting, he engaged and answered Jorge's questions. Said something like "Are we good? Are you good? Great... we'll talk in a year or so". #heh

I can't find any evidence of that happening.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.

Only Sith deal in absolutes.

Says the guy who used another guy's wife to assassinate him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

They look like identical litmus tests.

Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.

Its that subtle.

There are many ways to support the legality of abortion, there's only one way to support the illegality of it. As such the Democratic position is inclusive relative to the Republican position.

Blah blah horse gak nonsense. Both parties have equal litmus tests. You'll never get a pro-life candidate in the Democratic Party again.

 Frazzled wrote:


Blah blah horse gak nonsense. Both parties have equal litmus tests. You'll never get a pro-life candidate in the Democratic Party again.

Well that's not really true. There are Pro-Life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans, but those guys/gals will never win a Presidential election (not anytime soon anyway)

Oh wow you found one. Whats the DNC plank?

 Frazzled wrote:
Oh wow you found one. Whats the DNC plank?

That women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and that abortion should be legal as a result. What did you think it was?

 Frazzled wrote:
Oh wow you found one. Whats the DNC plank?

That's kind of been my point... The Party has a position, and that position has the effect of alienating a large segment of the voting population, a much larger segment than the opposite position. To make it worse, the Republican position is harsher, going beyond mere "Abortion bad" to include religion and "Americanness." The Democratic position takes no moral or ethical position on the issue besides "abortion should be legal" which is far less exclusive and much more open for people of divergent opinion. The parties have boiled a complex political question into two all or nothing positions sure, but one party's position is much more open while the others has become mired in radical talking points.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Oh wow you found one. Whats the DNC plank?

That women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and that abortion should be legal as a result. What did you think it was?

Exactly. Its a litmus test. Same for the Republicans. Nothing wrong with it, just own it and quit the "we're better than they are NAH NAH" nonsense.

Both parties suck because they are made of people, who also suck.

Not like dogs.

I would think dogs would simply subject all candidates to the bacon test (which candidate provides more bacon?)

 LordofHats wrote:
I would think dogs would simply subject all candidates to the bacon test (which candidate provides more bacon?)

 Frazzled wrote:

Exactly. Its a litmus test. Same for the Republicans. Nothing wrong with it, just own it and quit the "we're better than they are NAH NAH" nonsense.

Why are you trying to put words in the mouths of Democrats? None of them are arguing "we're better than they are NAH NAH", that is what Republicans are trying to convince their base Democrats are saying.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Exactly. Its a litmus test. Same for the Republicans. Nothing wrong with it, just own it and quit the "we're better than they are NAH NAH" nonsense.

Why are you trying to put words in the mouths of Democrats? None of them are arguing "we're better than they are NAH NAH", that is what Republicans are trying to convince their base Democrats are saying.

You mean other than LordofHats?

 Frazzled wrote:

You mean other than LordofHats?

Why are you assuming LordofHats is a Democrat?

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You mean other than LordofHats?

Why are you assuming LordofHats is a Democrat?

Umm... because Democrats are "posh" and wear hats... .and if he's the Lord of Hats, then he's clearly a democrat, right?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Umm... because Democrats are "posh" and wear hats... .and if he's the Lord of Hats, then he's clearly a democrat, right?

I believe Texans are famous for being Republican supporters, and hat wearers.

 Frazzled wrote:
You mean other than LordofHats?

It's pretty obtuse to equate a critique of the Republican party platform and how it plays in the electorate as a statement of superiority.

It's an observable problem that Republicans have been dealing with (and arguably helped to cost them the last 2 elections, with Romney and McCain both struggling to gain support from the Pro-Life end of the party). It's not even a new observation. Political analysis have been saying for years that the Republican party has been running into trouble with insularity. That isn't saying the Democratic Party is plain superior, only that the Democratic position on abortion plays better with the electorate. Itself a recent development, prior to 2004-2008, the Republican position probably played better, but public attitudes on Abortion have shifted markedly since then.

EDIT: Though to be honest, it is a major issue I have with the Republican Party. "Feth you you didn't work hard enough. Feth you you shouldn't have grown up poor. Feth you you weren't born here." I know that's a broad brush, but that's what a part platform is. I don't like way it often plays out in society or in political discourse, and it really makes me reluctant to back Republicans when I disagree with the party in general on economic and social policy. Granted I have issues with the Democrats too, but my issues with them are much less off putting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



Umm... because Democrats are "posh" and wear hats... .and if he's the Lord of Hats, then he's clearly a democrat, right?

I was wearing Fedoras on the internet before it was cliche;

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You mean other than LordofHats?

Why are you assuming LordofHats is a Democrat?

Umm... because Democrats are "posh" and wear hats... .and if he's the Lord of Hats, then he's clearly a democrat, right?

Dang fedora heads! You know who else wore a hat? Stalin!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You mean other than LordofHats?

It's pretty obtuse to equate a critique of the Republican party platform and how it plays in the electorate as a statement of superiority.

It's an observable problem that Republicans have been dealing with (and arguably helped to cost them the last 2 elections, with Romney and McCain both struggling to gain support from the Pro-Life end of the party). It's not even a new observation. Political analysis have been saying for years that the Republican party has been running into trouble with insularity. That isn't saying the Democratic Party is plain superior, only that the Democratic position on abortion plays better with the electorate. Itself a recent development, prior to 2004-2008, the Republican position probably played better, but public attitudes on Abortion have shifted markedly since then.

EDIT: Though to be honest, it is a major issue I have with the Republican Party. "Feth you you didn't work hard enough. Feth you you shouldn't have grown up poor. Feth you you weren't born here." I know that's a broad brush, but that's what a part platform is. I don't like way it often plays out in society or in political discourse, and it really makes me reluctant to back Republicans when I disagree with the party in general on economic and social policy. Granted I have issues with the Democrats too, but my issues with them are much less off putting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



Umm... because Democrats are "posh" and wear hats... .and if he's the Lord of Hats, then he's clearly a democrat, right?

I was wearing Fedoras on the internet before it was cliche;

Which supports my argument. Be honest, you've never voted for a Republican before.

Nope. I voted for McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012. I liked Romney. I think he'd have made a decent president. I'm also a registered member of the Republican Party (In case I ever decide to vote in a primary... which I don't ).

Though I suppose that is more something I've just never bother changing. I've moved away from most conservative political positions over the past few years.

In that case I stand corrected.