Elections 2015

[Angry Canine]

I wonder how differently the election would turn out if everyone in the USA was forced by law to vote... instead of just whinging about what the other / next / previous guy did / didn't / will / won't....

Yeah, that would really go over with Republicans that put so much effort into making sure people who would vote against them, don't get to vote at all.

[mockbee]

I'll be honest, he's an ex-pat and has been in the states for the last 20 years. But "the general public" is probably an even worse comparison?

Anyway, I'm trying to learn from you lot about American politics. You live there, I don't.

If you want the inside story, it's that our media is fucked up, and people can't get enough of it.

Currently, and this has always been the case since his rise in popularity, 60-70% of Republicans actively do NOT support Trump. He wins in the polls, for the Republican nomination, because the field is so big. He doesn't even have the support of his own party, there is no way he gains support from Democrats.


The media loves a circus....and I guess so do we.

To avoid any confusion, Mrs. Cleveland put it plainly: “I don’t like Trump.”

In this, the retired teacher, 70, from Hollis, N.H., has ample, baffled and agonized company in New Hampshire as the presidential primary enters its final, frenzied weeks, with Donald J. Trump remaining atop poll after poll of the state’s Republican electorate.

Or is he? So deep is the dislike for him in some quarters that people like Mrs. Cleveland’s husband, Doug, question the accuracy of polls that so consistently identify Mr. Trump as leading the field with around 32 percent. “I’ve never met a single one of them,” Mr. Cleveland said about those said to be backing Mr. Trump. “Where are all these Trump supporters? Everyone we know is supporting somebody else.”

These are the lamentations of the 68 Percent — the significant majority of Republican voters here who are immune to Mr. Trump’s charms and entreaties, according to a battery of voter interviews on Thursday at campaign events for his rivals.

For months, great quantities of ink, political-science brain power and polling resources have been expended trying to dissect, if not exactly diagnose, the Trump phenomenon — precisely who supports him and why. Far less energy has been devoted to sounding out a much larger segment of the electorate: those who reject him.

From Brookline to Laconia, these voters call Mr. Trump “unhinged.” They object to his “temperament.” They doubt his motives.

Their disapproval runs strikingly deep. Several spoke of changing the channel whenever his face (or, more frequently, his New York-accented voice, via telephone) turned up on television.

“I really try not to watch him,” one resident, Paul Brennan, said as he walked out of an appearance by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida in a factory in Brookline, along New Hampshire’s southern border. “I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.”

Trust is a nagging, recurring issue among Trump skeptics. On some level, they do not quite believe that he is really, seriously running for president, despite everything, nor are they convinced that his Republicanism is authentic.

[Matz]

I thought you probably didn't mean to be saying all those things, but the Rothschild thing is a very specific kind of conspiracy (and it *is* antisemitic -- it's a version of same thing the Russian tsarists put out in the form of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a fake document that purported to come from a secret cabal of Jewish leaders)). What's worse, there are no major world corporations left with any Rothschild family members involved... even the one they were a part of has no family on the board of directors, and that company is worth only billions of dollars. .

¨
maybe you're right about the Rothschilds, I hope you are, I think it's extremely scary if one family, them, control half the worlds wealth as quite a few people claim they do.

this article backs me, but perhaps they've got me fooled, who knows

http://www.truthcontrol.com/forum/sir-e ... 20-billion

And by the way, you're right, I had no idea it's considered an antisemitic thing to go after the Rothschilds. Not an antisemit over here of course

[Hype]

I thought you probably didn't mean to be saying all those things, but the Rothschild thing is a very specific kind of conspiracy (and it *is* antisemitic -- it's a version of same thing the Russian tsarists put out in the form of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a fake document that purported to come from a secret cabal of Jewish leaders)). What's worse, there are no major world corporations left with any Rothschild family members involved... even the one they were a part of has no family on the board of directors, and that company is worth only billions of dollars. .

¨
maybe you're right about the Rothschilds, I hope you are, I think it's extremely scary if one family, them, control half the worlds wealth as quite a few people claim they do.

this article backs me, but perhaps they've got me fooled, who knows

http://www.truthcontrol.com/forum/sir-e ... 20-billion

And by the way, you're right, I had no idea it's considered an antisemitic thing to go after the Rothschilds. Not an antisemit over here of course

I had a student last term cite a forum post in an essay as a way to support something. I tried to gingerly explain why this isn't academically acceptable, and why it's just a bad idea to do that. Perhaps the strongest reason is that a forum post, like a chain-letter email, is just some random person saying whatever they want (including me, right now). There's no way to account for what they say, or to hold them accountable, at least in terms of facts. (Logic, as in my post here, is a different story... it can be internally verified.) They might be saying things that are true (or mixing fact and fiction), but you honestly have no independent way of verifying their claim (a second forum post saying the same thing is no good, because it suffers from the same problem, creating an infinite regress of justification), so it's effectively no better than bullshit.

The evidence that that one Rothschild is worth $20 billion is tenuous, at best, one site, not backed up by anything else (and inserted into Wikipedia with a link to that same site). But as I said above, even if this number is accurate, that still only makes him one billionaire among literally thousands. He was born into that wealth.. so he's basically Paris Hilton. The fact that he was a director at IBM UK and involved with The Economist and some other things doesn't suggest anything different from any other wealthy person's involvement in similar things. There's no evidence that there's anything else going on. There's certainly no evidence that this one Jewish family is "controlling" much at all.

But there is a ton of evidence out in the open for blatant forms of corruption... so why even bother buying into some extravagant belief about some hidden conspiracy, when stuff in front of your face is already more than capable of doing things that are much worse? And the real numbers... the numbers Bernie Sanders has been yelling about for a long time now... are indeed much worse. There is no conspiracy of one secret family controlling everything secretly, but the wealthiest people on the planet have been openly getting wealthier and increasing the gap between their incomes and everyone else's. Meanwhile, there is better evidence that political leaders like Putin really are squirreling away billions of dollars and controlling the banking systems in their countries... So again, why even bother invoking some conspiracy theory widely acknowledged to be bullshit, when public evidence already gives us an explanation for why things are fucked up the way they are?

[Matz]

I agree 100%. Where's the proof that they control half the worlds wealth etc? Nowhere, case closed

[Bandit72]

Just watched a program on channel 4 called 'The Mad World of Donald Trump".

I didn't realise how much of a shit storm the US is in.

[mockbee]

Trump bowing out of last debate before Iowa caucus, because Megyn Kelly moderating.......

(where is chaos btw )


Wow, Republicans going Down in the Flames in 2016. This will have major ramifications down ballot. Either Trump wins after completely thumbing his nose at the establishment and media, or he loses and carries a major contingency away from the winner. Either way they are screwed.



The majority of American's aren't stupid enough to get on this ship.

[Artemis]

I had a good chuckle when I read about Trump declining to join the debate, but I think it's actually a good move on his part. I think DT's absence will highlight how crazy Cruz and Carson are. By comparison, DT will seem like the saner choice.

[Matz]

Dave should start posting in this thread, what a political junkie he's turned into....unexpected to me

[Bandit72]

[Artemis]

Hilarious!

[Artemis]

Do any of you here Caucus?

Is caucusing done only in Iowa or is it in every state?

[Angry Canine]

Do any of you here Caucus?

Is caucusing done only in Iowa or is it in every state?

A few states do. In my state the Republicans caucus, but the Democrats have a Primary....and not even the same month.

Here's a list: http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016 ... endar.html

[Artemis]

Do any of you here Caucus?

Is caucusing done only in Iowa or is it in every state?

A few states do. In my state the Republicans caucus, but the Democrats have a Primary....and not even the same month.

Here's a list: http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016 ... endar.html

Thanks, AC!

I fins that I have to refresh every 4 years on how the caucus and primary business works.

[Hype]

I thought caucusing was only done in Georgia.













Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week.

[Angry Canine]

Now Trump is a certified "loser."

[Artemis]

Clinton vs Sanders is pretty good viewing tonight. I think it's actually a debate and not just insult throwing.

[Artemis]

[Bandit72]

B..bu.....but he did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!

[Hype]

B..bu.....but he did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!

... You've never had non-sexual oral sex? It depends on the meaning of 'is'!

[Bandit72]

B..bu.....but he did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!

... You've never had non-sexual oral sex? It depends on the meaning of 'is'!

Phone sex?

[Larry B.]

And I've never cheated on any of my girlfriends
Well, well except that one little time in Japan but
That was just some head, and head don't count right?
Ah, thanks God I knew you'd understand

[Hype]

[Artemis]

Yay for Sanders!!

Boo for Trump! No doubt he will make a speech about his "YUUUGE" victory and what a winner he is.


I think Carson and Fiorina will "suspend" their campaigns this week.

[mockbee]

Oh those poor young Sanders supporters.
They have no idea what is coming in South Carolina and the rest of the south.

There are not enough young white people and "liberals" in this country to elect Sanders.
Turnout was actually way down in Iowa compared to when Obama in '08.

Hillary is running a terrible campaign.
I hope it doesn't catch up to her in the general.