US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Tom Sawyer]

Self-edited edited to delete content that was derailing the conversation.

Anyway, it looks like Trump is setting up to drop out of the race soon. This return the election to some degree of normality. But hopefully he draws this thing out until the new year, so that he can continue to fracture the GOP into the Tea Party, the dip shits who would currently vote for Trump, the religious right, and the tiny number of conservative intellectuals (yes, they do actually exist). Conservatives won't know who to vote for come election day--besides Just Not Hillary. And most of them will rally behind whomever the GOP nominates, but there will be a significant number who will cast a third party vote. This, along with the further alienation of the Hispanic vote, should be enough for Hillary to stroll into the White House.

Where'd you get that from? From what I've seen, he looks to just be warming up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Self-edited edited to delete content that was derailing the conversation.

Anyway, it looks like Trump is setting up to drop out of the race soon. This return the election to some degree of normality. But hopefully he draws this thing out until the new year, so that he can continue to fracture the GOP into the Tea Party, the dip shits who would currently vote for Trump, the religious right, and the tiny number of conservative intellectuals (yes, they do actually exist). Conservatives won't know who to vote for come election day--besides Just Not Hillary. And most of them will rally behind whomever the GOP nominates, but there will be a significant number who will cast a third party vote. This, along with the further alienation of the Hispanic vote, should be enough for Hillary to stroll into the White House.

Where'd you get that from? From what I've seen, he looks to just be warming up.

Just warming up? He's be on the crazy for a few weeks now. What I find odd is that in '12, a loon candidate would say something the right would love, their polling would skyrocket. Then they'd open their mouths some more and that would be that, typically because of something very stupid. Trump has been flapping garbage from his gums for a while now and his approval continues to rise. He is saying exactly all the whacky shit that the right-wing believes, short of bringing up the birth certificate stuff, and it is drawing a larger and larger crowd.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where'd you get that from? From what I've seen, he looks to just be warming up.

Just warming up? He's be on the crazy for a few weeks now. What I find odd is that in '12, a loon candidate would say something the right would love, their polling would skyrocket. Then they'd open their mouths some more and that would be that, typically because of something very stupid. Trump has been flapping garbage from his gums for a while now and his approval continues to rise. He is saying exactly all the whacky shit that the right-wing believes, short of bringing up the birth certificate stuff, and it is drawing a larger and larger crowd.

Ya, and he doesn't look like he'll be stopping anytime soon. His schtick is catching on and he's dominating the field. He's not going to start toning down the key part of his success and will try and re-up it as much as possible to continue his rolling over the people who try not to be quite so open with their crazy. We have a long time left on this most enjoyable ride.

 

[fromderinside]

Just warming up? He's be on the crazy for a few weeks now. What I find odd is that in '12, a loon candidate would say something the right would love, their polling would skyrocket. Then they'd open their mouths some more and that would be that, typically because of something very stupid. Trump has been flapping garbage from his gums for a while now and his approval continues to rise. He is saying exactly all the whacky shit that the right-wing believes, short of bringing up the birth certificate stuff, and it is drawing a larger and larger crowd.

... He's not going to start toning down the key part of his success and will try and re-up it as much as possible to continue his rolling over the people who try not to be quite so open with their crazy. ...

I just wonder what's gonna happen. So many outliers who get lots of attention wind up on death row./hope

 

[bigfield]

Where'd you get that from? From what I've seen, he looks to just be warming up.

Just warming up? He's be on the crazy for a few weeks now. What I find odd is that in '12, a loon candidate would say something the right would love, their polling would skyrocket. Then they'd open their mouths some more and that would be that, typically because of something very stupid. Trump has been flapping garbage from his gums for a while now and his approval continues to rise. He is saying exactly all the whacky shit that the right-wing believes, short of bringing up the birth certificate stuff, and it is drawing a larger and larger crowd.

I liked the birther nonsense. It gave us this:

[YOUTUBE]2bqEn8AXzJ4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

... He's not going to start toning down the key part of his success and will try and re-up it as much as possible to continue his rolling over the people who try not to be quite so open with their crazy. ...

I just wonder what's gonna happen. So many outliers who get lots of attention wind up on death row./hope

I originally thought that he'd flame out and putter off at around the end of August but his grab bag of empty angry rhetoric does seem to be resonating with the base that the GOP has spent so long cultivating. We may enjoy having him around until the end of autumn. Beyond that just might be too much to hope for.

 

[fromderinside]

I liked the birther nonsense. It gave us this:

[YOUTUBE]2bqEn8AXzJ4[/YOUTUBE]

Yes. ...and more recently this:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWuaFgWgnPQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[blastula]

Trump only has a plurality of a large field. As the field narrows, his lead could easily fall. He does worse than other repubs in head to head polling vs dems. They need to do head to head polling among the repubs to see a better picture.

 

[angelo]

While the US was neutral in WW2 it was keeping Britain afloat against the might of the German forces by supplying arms and other much needed goods. Had it not been for the US, Britain would have fallen by the time the U S joined the fight against the Axis powers.

When the Lend-Lease policy came into effect in 1941, the US was no longer neutral, so it doesn't count.

Bilby is likely referring to the period before 1941. An American alliance with Britain and France prior to 1939 would have convinced the German High Command that they did not have the military might to prosecute a war in Europe.

As it was, they were forced to commence in 1939 because they were convinced that French and British rearmament would overtake Germany by the early 40's. A combined British-French-American alliance would have been the dominant power.

By choosing to remain neutral until 1941, the US missed an opportunity to save millions of lives and avoid massive economic losses. That is fuck-up rivalled only by the likes of the Great Leap Forward in China.

If that was the case Germany would not have launched operation Barbarossa. You forget that a madman was their leader. He himself said of the WW1 that Germany lost that war because it was fighting on more than one front. So what's he do? Why he starts a war in multiple fronts.

 

[angelo]

While the US was neutral in WW2 it was keeping Britain afloat against the might of the German forces by supplying arms and other much needed goods. Had it not been for the US, Britain would have fallen by the time the U S joined the fight against the Axis powers.

And had the US declared war on Germany in 1939, Hitler could have been crushed like a bug before France was even invaded. The support given by the US to Britain in the period between the British declaration of war in 1939 and the bombing of Pearl Harbour some two years later just serves to highlight that the US knew Hitler was bad news, and to make the decision to remain neutral even less good.

Your response doesn't support your contention that invading Iraq was "the worst decision ever made by a US administration"; if anything it highlights just how wrong you are.

Roosevelt was all for joining the war. The opinion of the population in general was to stay neutral. Congress refused to go to war. But for all intent and purpose, America was supplying both Russia and Britain with arms, food etc. The only thing not supplied until 1942 were soldiers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And had the US declared war on Germany in 1939, Hitler could have been crushed like a bug before France was even invaded. The support given by the US to Britain in the period between the British declaration of war in 1939 and the bombing of Pearl Harbour some two years later just serves to highlight that the US knew Hitler was bad news, and to make the decision to remain neutral even less good.

Your response doesn't support your contention that invading Iraq was "the worst decision ever made by a US administration"; if anything it highlights just how wrong you are.

Roosevelt was all for joining the war. The opinion of the population in general was to stay neutral. Congress refused to go to war. But for all intent and purpose, America was supplying both Russia and Britain with arms, food etc. The only thing not supplied until 1942 were soldiers.

Seriously Aussies. Do you really feel the need to re-derail this thread?

 

[RavenSky]

This is where, much as James Brown notes, money factors in. I don't think the poll numbers at this point for the Republican candidates actually indicate who their voters are interested in hearing from. The numbers reflect who has the largest name recognition and/or the largest pockets for advertising.

Moreover, just in the interest of fairness in elections (I know... expecting fairness from Republicans) they really need to allow every candidate equal time in the debates.

There are 17 candidates running. Have two-part debates with the candidates in each chosen at random. As the field narrows when candidates drop out, then consolidate to one debate.

Name recognition and large pockets for advertising are, for better or worse, key aspects to winning an election campaign. If you can't get people to care who you are, there's less cause for your taking up the time where the people who have done that can explain their positions to the voters.

While I don't expect much from a GOP debate, it would be better to have a few candidates who've proven their viability and can spend time actually discussing topics than it would to have a bunch of non-viable ones up there who's only goal in the debate is to get in one soundbite that'll get him some later airplay. If you want to have an undercard debate where the second tier can waste time trading zingers in the hopes that they'll get five seconds in the news cycle for one of them, then fine. Don't derail the mian debate with that, though.

The problem is that some of the candidates who might be viable, who might be able to actually discuss topics, will not be the ones on the stage.

Donald Trump will.

It will be a comedy show, not a political debate.

 

[RavenSky]

Just warming up? He's be on the crazy for a few weeks now. What I find odd is that in '12, a loon candidate would say something the right would love, their polling would skyrocket. Then they'd open their mouths some more and that would be that, typically because of something very stupid. Trump has been flapping garbage from his gums for a while now and his approval continues to rise. He is saying exactly all the whacky shit that the right-wing believes, short of bringing up the birth certificate stuff, and it is drawing a larger and larger crowd.

I liked the birther nonsense. It gave us this:

[YOUTUBE]2bqEn8AXzJ4[/YOUTUBE]

Still one of my favorites moments from his Presidency

 

[angelo]

How will Obama's presidency be remembered in the years and decades ahead? A weak president who went soft on terrorism? Or a strong president who fought for the man in the street?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How someone sees the Iran deal, and Obama's response to criticism. [I quote.]
How very fascist. So, Obama is saying that if Congress doesn’t play ball on approving the Iran deal, he might just go ahead and do it anyway. That violates the Constitution and the law. Technically he can’t do it – oh, but he will. Notice how Kerry sidestepped the issue? If Obama does this and isn’t made to answer for it or stopped, that’s the end of our Constitutional Republic and the actual beginning of a dictatorship. Even if a conservative is elected in 2016, by then $150 to 200 billion will have gone to Iran, effectively arming our enemies for our destruction. This president has gone rogue and we must reign him in – legally and physically if need be.

From TheBlaze:

Following a White House meeting, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) seemingly suggested this week that President Barack Obama might be prepared to go “beyond what’s allowed by law” to push through the Iran nuclear deal.

The Hill reported Wednesday that Sherman said Obama appeared ready to ignore Congress if members don’t sign off on the deal. The comments came after the president invited top Democrats to the White House to give them a personal presentation on the Iran deal.

“The main meat of what he said is, ‘If Congress overrides my veto, you do not get a U.S. foreign policy that reflects that vote. What you get is you pass this law and I, as president, will do everything possible to go in the other direction,’” Sherman said, according to The Hill.

“He’s with the deal — he’s not with Congress,” the California congressman added. “At least to the fullest extent allowed by law, and possibly beyond what’s allowed by law.”

According to The Hill, Sherman suggested Obama may just refuse to enforce the law.

Sherman, who has appeared skeptical of the deal, previously grilled Secretary of State John Kerry about whether the administration would follow the “law” if Congress moved to override a veto to block the deal.

At the time, Kerry ducked the question, saying he was “not going to deal with a hypothetical.”

When you eliminate impeachment as a possibility and both sides of the political aisle are complicit in a Marxist agenda, you get this type of behavior. Obama is a narcissist with delusions of grandeur and a pen and a phone. Of course he won’t obey the law… he’ll flaunt it whenever he can get away with it. If leaders won’t go along with him, he’ll blackmail them or use leverage of some sort against them to get these so-called leaders to see things his way. This type of bowing before our enemies such as Iran, Russia and China will get millions of Americans killed. Obama knows and doesn’t care. This is treason you are watching unfold in the Oval Office.

 

[bigfield]

How someone sees the Iran deal, and Obama's response to criticism. [I quote.]
How very fascist. So, Obama is saying that if Congress doesn’t play ball on approving the Iran deal, he might just go ahead and do it anyway. That violates the Constitution and the law. Technically he can’t do it – oh, but he will. Notice how Kerry sidestepped the issue? If Obama does this and isn’t made to answer for it or stopped, that’s the end of our Constitutional Republic and the actual beginning of a dictatorship. Even if a conservative is elected in 2016, by then $150 to 200 billion will have gone to Iran, effectively arming our enemies for our destruction. This president has gone rogue and we must reign him in – legally and physically if need be.

From TheBlaze:


Following a White House meeting, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) seemingly suggested this week that President Barack Obama might be prepared to go “beyond what’s allowed by law” to push through the Iran nuclear deal.


The Hill reported Wednesday that Sherman said Obama appeared ready to ignore Congress if members don’t sign off on the deal. The comments came after the president invited top Democrats to the White House to give them a personal presentation on the Iran deal.


“The main meat of what he said is, ‘If Congress overrides my veto, you do not get a U.S. foreign policy that reflects that vote. What you get is you pass this law and I, as president, will do everything possible to go in the other direction,’” Sherman said, according to The Hill.


“He’s with the deal — he’s not with Congress,” the California congressman added. “At least to the fullest extent allowed by law, and possibly beyond what’s allowed by law.”


According to The Hill, Sherman suggested Obama may just refuse to enforce the law.


Sherman, who has appeared skeptical of the deal, previously grilled Secretary of State John Kerry about whether the administration would follow the “law” if Congress moved to override a veto to block the deal.


At the time, Kerry ducked the question, saying he was “not going to deal with a hypothetical.”


When you eliminate impeachment as a possibility and both sides of the political aisle are complicit in a Marxist agenda, you get this type of behavior. Obama is a narcissist with delusions of grandeur and a pen and a phone. Of course he won’t obey the law… he’ll flaunt it whenever he can get away with it. If leaders won’t go along with him, he’ll blackmail them or use leverage of some sort against them to get these so-called leaders to see things his way. This type of bowing before our enemies such as Iran, Russia and China will get millions of Americans killed. Obama knows and doesn’t care. This is treason you are watching unfold in the Oval Office.

Source:
http://rightwingnews.com/legal/obam...my-iran-deal-ill-ignore-the-law-do-it-anyway/

1. Don't copy/paste full articles from other sites.

2. rightwingnews.com :laughing-smiley-014

 

[Derec]

The first Republican debate is tomorrow.
Democrats haven't even scheduled one yet to my knowledge. I guess DNC is in full "protect the coronation" mode. In 2008 there were debates and look how that turned out for the Chosen One.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The first Republican debate is tomorrow.
Democrats haven't even scheduled one yet to my knowledge. I guess DNC is in full "protect the coronation" mode. In 2008 there were debates and look how that turned out for the Chosen One.

Well, there are six democratic debates scheduled. The first is scheduled for September. I just think that the press isn't paying as much attention to the democratic race because Dems are a little more united.

 

[4321lynx]

And I thought angelo was quoting Netanyahu!

 

[Derec]

Well, there are six democratic debates scheduled.

As far as I am aware, nothing has been scheduled yet, although they seem to be planning six. When the dates and locations are TBD you can't really speak of schedule.
2016 Democratic Primary Debate Schedule
Compare with the GOP.
2016 Republican Primary Debate Schedule

The first is scheduled for September.

What date? What is it called? Where will it take place? Who will air it?

I just think that the press isn't paying as much attention to the democratic race because Dems are a little more united.

You don't think it has anything to do with DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz being a big Hillary surrogate and her seeking to protect the heiress apparent as much as possible?

 

[laughing dog]

The first Republican debate is tomorrow.
Democrats haven't even scheduled one yet to my knowledge. I guess DNC is in full "protect the coronation" mode. In 2008 there were debates and look how that turned out for the Chosen One.

FFS, there are 17 Republican candidates announced for the POTUS compared to 4 for the Democrats. So there is a lot more potential for immediate winnowing in the Republican field at this time.