• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

Latest Wikileaks proves Hilary had input in creating ISIS. Which makes it as plain as day that Micky Mouse could've won the White House had they chosen anyone but Trump.
 
angelo said:
Latest Wikileaks proves Hilary had input in creating ISIS. Which makes it as plain as day that Micky Mouse could've won the White House had they chosen anyone but Trump.
Click to expand...

Wikileaks doesn't 'prove' shit. At best, it alleges.

And Trump was chosen by the GOP primaries; If Republicans thought that they could beat Hillary with a different candidate, they had every opportunity to choose one. It seems highly doubtful that any of the denizens of the GOP clown car could have beaten Hillary; That's just a story GOP supporters tell themselves to justify the popularity of a person that they hate. It's a failure of imagination - I hate candidate X, therefore supporters of candidate X must also hate candidate X, therefore if candidate X wins, it's because of candidate Y, and candidate Z would have won easily.

If you can't understand your opponents, then you are doomed to lose to them almost every time.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/

Most Dem voters say they are voting for Hillary, rather than against Trump. Most Rep voters say they are voting against Hillary, rather than for Trump. In that situation, Trump is unimportant; Replace him with any other GOP candidate, and not much changes.
 
The GOP didn't choose anybody, the conservative voters did. The days when the party elders met and made a choice who was to be their candidate are long over. Trump bellied himself up to the bar and his supporters did the rest. Rubio and Bush, the two most preferable candidates for the old style GOP establishment went down in flames. The rise of the inflammatory right media is responsible for creating a situation where the low information voters, inflamed with conspiracy think and misinformation decided Trump was the man. Good luck with overcoming that, GOP.
 
The election keeps on giving. Gingrich saw a rising star with Trump so he hitched his trailer to Trump and now he is arguing and losing his mind with Fox anchor Megan Kelly. That's right, Trump basers think Fox News is biased against Trump. The channel dedicated to destroying the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton isn't reporting well enough for Trump. And sure, Fox is part of the establishment and they weren't exactly for Trump this entire run, but it seems amusing that Gingrich feels Fox News is complicit in Trump's fall in the polls.

Then you have Limbaugh, who was never really pro-Trump. But he is now in the boat for Trump. Sean Hannity was sounding like a child, referring to the "stupid election" yesterday afternoon. Talking to Buchanan, who may actually have retained his sanity, seemed to almost laugh when Sean Hannity suggested Trump needed to win Minnesota and that was a path to winning for Trump. Hannity seems to be swinging between denial and acceptance of Trump's position.

The whole right-wing machine is breaking down. When Buchanan and Powell are on the same page, at least as far as polling goes, but a growing part of the Establishment Republican machine isn't, that is frightening. Sen. Crapo is back on board with Trump after un-unendorsing him.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Does anyone remember back in the 1980s when Democrats were afraid Reagan would start World War Three?

I'm just wondering if any Hillary supporters remember that.
Click to expand...
As a 'Never Trump' supporter, I remember that some Democrats were afraid. I also remember Tip O'Neil working with Reagan on many issues...

And whatever/whoever one wants to assign 'blame' to, the early period of the Reagan administration, definitely had heightened tensions.
https://www.wired.com/2013/05/able-archer-scare/
“[T]he Reagan administration marked the height of the Cold War,” notes one declassified history published by the National Security Agency. “The president referred to the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire, and was determined to spend it into the ground. The Politburo reciprocated, and the rhetoric on both sides, especially during the first Reagan administration, drove the hysteria. Some called it the Second Cold War. The period 1982-1984 marked the most dangerous Soviet-American confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis.”
Click to expand...
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Does anyone remember back in the 1980s when Democrats were afraid Reagan would start World War Three?

I'm just wondering if any Hillary supporters remember that.
Click to expand...

I remember that he didn't start WWIII. People have told me that this was because Reagan was a loser who didn't know how to win. Just sad.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Does anyone remember back in the 1980s when Democrats were afraid Reagan would start World War Three?

I'm just wondering if any Hillary supporters remember that.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Pretty clearly. But Hillary doesn't appear to think that America of today is the country described in Boy's Life of 30 years ago...
 
Honestly, I don't, I was a very small boy at the time.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Does anyone remember back in the 1980s when Democrats were afraid Reagan would start World War Three?

I'm just wondering if any Hillary supporters remember that.
Click to expand...

Don't count me as a Hillary supporter, but...
Yes, I remember quite vividly. In fact I drank some of that kool-aid at the time. Now I realize that all-out war was never on the table. It was then as it is now; the M/I complex needs a "threat" to be enduring and significant-sounding enough to funnel funds their way, but not actually real enough to pose a threat to the production of arms and war gear. ISIS is a perfect example of a non-threat "threat" whose seriousness can be manipulated day-to-day as required to maintain an ongoing need for more guns and bombs.
 
Shadowy Man said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Does anyone remember back in the 1980s when Democrats were afraid Reagan would start World War Three?

I'm just wondering if any Hillary supporters remember that.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if any Hillary supporters think this is relevant to a 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't relevant. Going from opposing someone who might start WWIII to supporting someone who might start WWIII is completely normal.

I'm still looking for the anti-war left that disappeared in January 2009.
 
There's a big difference between supporting someone who might start world war 3 and supporting someone who some guy on the internet says might start world war 3.

Reagan did support a belligerent policy towards the Soviet Union, which was a credible threat. It did not lead to war, fortunately. I give him full credit for this bold move, which probably did contribute to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Donald Trump has ties to Russia, and accuses Clinton of being hostile to Russia.

Russia is not the threat the Soviet Union was, and Clinton's policy towards it will not be dramatically different than what we had today.

Trump's hostile and absurd stance towards China goes unremarked on by his supposedly not-republican supporters. As does his completely opposite stance towards Russia from Reagan: servile appeasement versus firm opposition.

Since Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union actually worked, is it not good to support those who espouse a similar policy towards Russia? That is to say Obama and Clinton. In other words, analyze history and learn from it, rather than slavishly support the nominee of a party one pretends not to support, but does in every way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom