The Next American President Thread (2016)

17374767879198

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Continued focus on this Russian story will only hand the election to Trump, rightly so in my view.

    It's best for the Dems not to focus on this MIC sideshow. Kerry's embarrassment when Lavrov was asked about it yesterday in his presence said it all (his look was priceless).

    I do think it's a valid question though. Regardless if this investigation hands over the buttons to Trump or Clinton. The fact that another country is able to topple elections with just one hacker....is a worrisome prospect.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/the_dnc_hack_is_watergate_but_worse.html
    If you can't see what a sideshow this is then I don't know what to tell you. There is no story here, except that the Russians hack servers from time to time (as does the US). Anything that's on a server is hackable, including what was on Hillary's private one. Still a sideshow.

    The we disagree. Underestimating cyberhacking is quite reckless and to me also a sign of not willing to properly secure a country.

    Cyberattacks are obviously damaging. But these are also the new 'warfare'. Back in the old days, tank divisions did the job. Nowadays China, and to a lesser extend, consistently use hacking as means of espionage...and sometimes even as means to release stuff that can be damaging.


    @PanchitoPistoles What do you mean with "Completely Corrupt"? I find that such grotesque remarks, especially if you don't get the facts straight. The Wikileaks indeed showed a lot of the party apparatus and how it uses marketing strategy to favor a certain candidate. IMO a big mistake, but still something completely different from the actual Watergate Scandal. In the end the DNC did not release negative ad campaigns at all with regard to Bernie Sanders. In the end the actual Clinton campaign -which you can also read from the leaks- decided against mentioning of smears like the supposed atheism of Bernie.

    On top of that......I prefer how the DNC in the end put Donna Brazile front-center as the new chairwoman in which she issued the most humble apologies to all Bernie supporters for the above. And in the end, the DNC was already moving heavily to the left-side of the Democrats ideology, by adopting a lot of Bernie's ideas in the current, most progressive party platform ever. Thanks to Bernie!

    That's a whole lot different on what the GOP did. Ted Cruz -a man with a more evangelical vision on the future of the USA- got booed for asking to vote with conscience. And attempts by the Republican Log-Cabin gays to get more liberal LGBT issues on the GOP-platform, were completely ignored.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Continued focus on this Russian story will only hand the election to Trump, rightly so in my view.

    It's best for the Dems not to focus on this MIC sideshow. Kerry's embarrassment when Lavrov was asked about it yesterday in his presence said it all (his look was priceless).

    I do think it's a valid question though. Regardless if this investigation hands over the buttons to Trump or Clinton. The fact that another country is able to topple elections with just one hacker....is a worrisome prospect.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/the_dnc_hack_is_watergate_but_worse.html
    If you can't see what a sideshow this is then I don't know what to tell you. There is no story here, except that the Russians hack servers from time to time (as does the US). Anything that's on a server is hackable, including what was on Hillary's private one. Still a sideshow.

    The we disagree. Underestimating cyberhacking is quite reckless and to me also a sign of not willing to properly secure a country.

    Cyberattacks are obviously damaging. But these are also the new 'warfare'. Back in the old days, tank divisions did the job. Nowadays China, and to a lesser extend, consistently use hacking as means of espionage...and sometimes even as means to release stuff that can be damaging.
    Again, you can distract all you want with meta-discussions. All that's happening is it's playing into Trump's argument that this house of cards needs to collapse in order for it to be reformed. The Dems are doing more to help Trump than they realize at this point. The public is not as stupid as some assume.

    Obama is playing into it as well, he just doesn't know it yet. He will.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Continued focus on this Russian story will only hand the election to Trump, rightly so in my view.

    It's best for the Dems not to focus on this MIC sideshow. Kerry's embarrassment when Lavrov was asked about it yesterday in his presence said it all (his look was priceless).

    I do think it's a valid question though. Regardless if this investigation hands over the buttons to Trump or Clinton. The fact that another country is able to topple elections with just one hacker....is a worrisome prospect.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/the_dnc_hack_is_watergate_but_worse.html
    If you can't see what a sideshow this is then I don't know what to tell you. There is no story here, except that the Russians hack servers from time to time (as does the US). Anything that's on a server is hackable, including what was on Hillary's private one. Still a sideshow.

    The we disagree. Underestimating cyberhacking is quite reckless and to me also a sign of not willing to properly secure a country.

    Cyberattacks are obviously damaging. But these are also the new 'warfare'. Back in the old days, tank divisions did the job. Nowadays China, and to a lesser extend, consistently use hacking as means of espionage...and sometimes even as means to release stuff that can be damaging.
    Again, you can distract all you want with meta-discussions. All that's happening is it's playing into Trump's argument that this house of cards needs to collapse in order for it to be reformed. The Dems are doing more to help Trump than they realize at this point. The public is not as stupid as some assume.

    Obama is playing into it as well, he just doesn't know it yet. He will.

    Ooowh well call it 'meta discussions'. I am very very worried about these things. I already said that Trump will probably win.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Continued focus on this Russian story will only hand the election to Trump, rightly so in my view.

    It's best for the Dems not to focus on this MIC sideshow. Kerry's embarrassment when Lavrov was asked about it yesterday in his presence said it all (his look was priceless).

    I do think it's a valid question though. Regardless if this investigation hands over the buttons to Trump or Clinton. The fact that another country is able to topple elections with just one hacker....is a worrisome prospect.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/the_dnc_hack_is_watergate_but_worse.html
    If you can't see what a sideshow this is then I don't know what to tell you. There is no story here, except that the Russians hack servers from time to time (as does the US). Anything that's on a server is hackable, including what was on Hillary's private one. Still a sideshow.

    The we disagree. Underestimating cyberhacking is quite reckless and to me also a sign of not willing to properly secure a country.

    Cyberattacks are obviously damaging. But these are also the new 'warfare'. Back in the old days, tank divisions did the job. Nowadays China, and to a lesser extend, consistently use hacking as means of espionage...and sometimes even as means to release stuff that can be damaging.
    Again, you can distract all you want with meta-discussions. All that's happening is it's playing into Trump's argument that this house of cards needs to collapse in order for it to be reformed. The Dems are doing more to help Trump than they realize at this point. The public is not as stupid as some assume.

    Obama is playing into it as well, he just doesn't know it yet. He will.

    Ooowh well call it 'meta discussions'. I am very very worried about these things. I already said that Trump will probably win.
    I'm beginning to feel that way with each passing day, and it's entirely down to the opposition's seeming desperation and stupidity. The biggest weapon Trump has at the moment is Obama himself, who is elevating Trump every time he mentions him.

    If you want to talk cyber security, perhaps we should start with private email servers. I noticed this thread was deadly silent during the revelations.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Continued focus on this Russian story will only hand the election to Trump, rightly so in my view.

    It's best for the Dems not to focus on this MIC sideshow. Kerry's embarrassment when Lavrov was asked about it yesterday in his presence said it all (his look was priceless).

    I do think it's a valid question though. Regardless if this investigation hands over the buttons to Trump or Clinton. The fact that another country is able to topple elections with just one hacker....is a worrisome prospect.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/the_dnc_hack_is_watergate_but_worse.html
    If you can't see what a sideshow this is then I don't know what to tell you. There is no story here, except that the Russians hack servers from time to time (as does the US). Anything that's on a server is hackable, including what was on Hillary's private one. Still a sideshow.

    The we disagree. Underestimating cyberhacking is quite reckless and to me also a sign of not willing to properly secure a country.

    Cyberattacks are obviously damaging. But these are also the new 'warfare'. Back in the old days, tank divisions did the job. Nowadays China, and to a lesser extend, consistently use hacking as means of espionage...and sometimes even as means to release stuff that can be damaging.
    Again, you can distract all you want with meta-discussions. All that's happening is it's playing into Trump's argument that this house of cards needs to collapse in order for it to be reformed. The Dems are doing more to help Trump than they realize at this point. The public is not as stupid as some assume.

    Obama is playing into it as well, he just doesn't know it yet. He will.

    Ooowh well call it 'meta discussions'. I am very very worried about these things. I already said that Trump will probably win.
    I'm beginning to feel that way with each passing day, and it's entirely down to the opposition's seeming desperation and stupidity. The biggest weapon Trump has at the moment is Obama himself, who is elevating Trump every time he mentions him.

    If you want to talk cyber security, perhaps we should start with private email servers. I noticed this thread was deadly silent during the revelations.

    I don't give a shit. If Trump wins than it's for the most part also the current sentiment in the Western world. Establishment candidates are considered 'traitors', 'losers'. Populism is the new 'law of the land'. If you think Clinton can win easily, then you are wrong. In the end the current political situation on the whole favors Trump, like it favored Obama in 2008. 'Status quo' is a dirty word.
  • Posts: 315
    If by zero bounce you mean he jumped an average of seven points and is now leading Hillary, then correct.
    Reading is fundamental. Learn it.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3709042/Latest-poll-claims-Trump-NO-bounce-Cleveland-convention-stuck-Clinton.html
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-no-post-convention-bounce-donald-trump-n616426
    https://politicalwire.com/2016/07/26/tracker-shows-no-bounce-for-trump/

    "Do you want cheese on that Whopper?" is your peak.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,110
    FLeiter wrote: »
    If by zero bounce you mean he jumped an average of seven points and is now leading Hillary, then correct.
    Reading is fundamental. Learn it.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3709042/Latest-poll-claims-Trump-NO-bounce-Cleveland-convention-stuck-Clinton.html
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-no-post-convention-bounce-donald-trump-n616426
    https://politicalwire.com/2016/07/26/tracker-shows-no-bounce-for-trump/

    "Do you want cheese on that Whopper?" is your peak.

    Well if the Daily Mail said it, it must be true! :))

    If these are your sources, best just to stick with your pictures in future! =))
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    bondjames wrote: »
    Continued focus on this Russian story will only hand the election to Trump, rightly so in my view.

    It's best for the Dems not to focus on this MIC sideshow. Kerry's embarrassment when Lavrov was asked about it yesterday in his presence said it all (his look was priceless).

    I don't think the Dems are focusing on it as much as the media is (and might) as the story unfolds.

    To think, the U.S. may elect a President who's in bed with the Russians.

    62180610.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @TripAces, they (the media) are focusing on Russia because they are implicated in the leaks - & shown to be the hacks that we all know them to be. Chuck Todd (a disgrace to legends like Russert) & Tapper particularly.

    The DNC knew about the leaks months in advance. So the cover up story was set then too.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 4,619
    @FLeiter Those are based on a single poll, sonny boy. (Btw, why post three different articles ALL based on the same NBC News poll?) This is is the average of all significant polls: http://i.imgur.com/9t6Igrq.png
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I for one welcome our new Russian overlords. Yea! Go Putin ! =D>
    ( That should keep me safe ) ;)
  • Posts: 4,619
    "USC/LA Times tracking poll shows Hillary Clinton getting negative bounce during convention" http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/07/27/uscla-times-tracking-poll-shows-hillary-clinton-getting-negative-bounce-during-convention/

    :)) =)) :))
  • Posts: 11,119
    As I said earlier, OUR style of unity (where differences are acknowledged and worked out) beats yours (where they are stifled only to erupt in Cruz fashion) to my mind. We'll see which the American public prefers.

    First, I am not a Republican. Heck, I am not even American. I am a common sense independent who believes Donald Trump would be a far better president than Rodham Clinton.

    I am curious though. Are you.....

    --> Leaning more left-wing of center?
    --> Leaning more right-wing of center?
    --> Leaning more progressive of center?
    --> Leaning more conservative of center?

    1276_left_right_usa.png

    I am asking this, just out of curiosity. But also....because many times it seems people in here do not even wish to address the above questions anymore. In my country the actual candidates / people running for an office are important, but still more important are the party programs / platforms, the sum of all ideas and solutions; the ideology agenda.

    But it seems we become more and more dependent on the persons instead of the parties. So wouldn't it be a good idea if guys like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump actually create their own political movements...or parties? Wouldn't that be healthier for democracies in the long-term?

    Actually, that question has been asked today as well by http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-bernie-sanders-supporters-in-philadelphia-getting-what-they-want/

    Still no answer :-)

  • edited July 2016 Posts: 4,619
    @Gustav_Graves I am left-wing on many issues, while right-wing on others. Just a few examples: under my rule, all drugs would be completely legal, and I would completely separate church and state (so no parties such as Merkel's Christian Democratic Union in the parliament). Those are left wing ideas. A few of my right-wing views: I am completely against accepting any refugees, even if they are from war torn countries. I would guarantee free speech (which does not exist in many European countries thanks to left-wing governments) and I would ban organized islam.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Why do people have to be categorized into simplistic boxes? Left? Right? Aren't we all complex beings with a diversity of views based on our personal experiences and how those have shaped us?

    Easier to categorize and label perhaps, and consequently for marketers and politicians to target.
  • It has to be admitted that Trump got a bounce out of his convention, and I suspect that Clinton will ultimately get a bounce out of hers.

    One poll (NBC) suggested no bounce for Trump, while several others disagreed. The only fair way is to take an average of all major polls and examine the average, which is exactly what RCP do.

    On the eve of the Republican convention (July 17) the RCP poll average looked like this:

    Clinton 43.8 Trump 40.6

    Today it is:

    Clinton 44.6 Trump 45.7

    This morning's LA Times/USC poll even has the eye popping figures of:

    Trump 47 Clinton 40

    We'll see if others follow. It'll all settle down soon. It's still pinch of salt time. In 1988 Mike Dukakis roared out of his convention with a 55-38 lead over Vice President Bush, and we all know how that turned out.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,110
    Hillary Clinton has spent 57 million dollars on adverts. Trump has spent 4 million. The fact that he is winning should scare the Liberal elites. Too bad they're so closed off to the outside world that they won't act until its too late. Trumps greatest strength has been others consist ability to underestimate him.
  • There is no doubt that the bubble and the echo chamber can be deadly. They shouldn't underestimate Trump. I don't think they will. If they do, they deserve to lose.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's not Trump they are underestimating. It's his movement.
  • Posts: 315
    HA! Poor Mendes and Pancho are so lost here. They need to go back to the 2012 :experts" that predicted a Romney win. Here you go:

    1. Dick Morris: “This is going to be a landslide. It will bethe biggest surprise in recent American political history.”
    2. Roger Kimball: “Oboma is toast .. Romney is going to win, big time.” I
    3. Karl Rove: “At least 279 electoral votes.” “It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney,”
    4. Peggy Noonan: “There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now.”
    5. Larry Kudlow: “A landslide. Yes, that’s right: 330 electoral votes.”
    6. Fred Barnes: “Romney will be elected the 45th president of the United States.”
    7. Michael Barone: “Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections.” Barone predicted a 315-223 Romney blowout in which Romney took easy Obama states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
    8. Dean Chambers: “The race has shifted profoundly in favor of Mitt Romney.”
    9. Newt Gingrich: “A Romney landslide.” . “My personal guess is you’ll see a Romney landslide, 53 percent-plus in the popular vote, 300 electoral votes-plus,”

    Thanks, boys. Here's the late great Miss Cleo with a message from beyond.

    pwe2e.jpg
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 4,619
    @FLeiter Those same experts predicted that Trump would NEVER win the GOP primaries, and are now predicting a Clinton win. =))
  • Posts: 615
    In the "LEFT/RIGHT" chart posted above, why is "Communism" placed under the "Left" heading but "Fascism" is not listed under the "Right" column?

    A glaring omission.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why do people have to be categorized into simplistic boxes? Left? Right? Aren't we all complex beings with a diversity of views based on our personal experiences and how those have shaped us?

    :)
    13529227_1748468355438943_4390898311292048488_n.jpg?oh=ae0612f944c87164d9fc07ca7f71f2ee&oe=57F5E765
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why do people have to be categorized into simplistic boxes? Left? Right? Aren't we all complex beings with a diversity of views based on our personal experiences and how those have shaped us?

    Easier to categorize and label perhaps, and consequently for marketers and politicians to target.

    And after all these weeks and months.......I still don't know where you stand when it comes to policy, ideology and solutions. You never speak out about that.

    This is not just to...put you in boxes or leave you for dumb. I simply don't understand where you stand for. And it always makes discussing with you very hard.

    Moreover, the categorization is very logical IMO, because the elections upcoming November are also black-and-white. In the end you have to weigh all your own personal ideas, and re-allign them with the presidential candidate you stand for. Then you cast your vote.

    Unless you don't give a damn about policies, ideas and solutions and only vote for 'the guy you like most'.
  • Posts: 315
    @FLeiter Those same experts predicted that Trump would NEVER win the GOP primaries, and are now predicting a Clinton win. =))

    Sorry, Poncho. Put your coloring book down and sit with Newt.

    Facebook-1c8317.png
  • Posts: 315
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why do people have to be categorized into simplistic boxes? Left? Right? Aren't we all complex beings with a diversity of views based on our personal experiences and how those have shaped us?

    Easier to categorize and label perhaps, and consequently for marketers and politicians to target.

    And after all these weeks and months.......I still don't know where you stand when it comes to policy, ideology and solutions. You never speak out about that.

    This is not just to...put you in boxes or leave you for dumb. I simply don't understand where you stand for. And it always makes discussing with you very hard.

    Moreover, the categorization is very logical IMO, because the elections upcoming November are also black-and-white. In the end you have to weigh all your own personal ideas, and re-allign them with the presidential candidate you stand for. Then you cast your vote.

    Unless you don't give a damn about policies, ideas and solutions and only vote for 'the guy you like most'.

    post-2321-0-52521400-1417733698.jpg

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    @Gustav_Graves, I wouldn't bother honestly. I think some people who don't even have a stake in the game are just stirring the pot to get a rise out of people for arguments sake.
    @bondjames, Are you even living in America? just curious.
  • Posts: 11,119
    FLeiter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why do people have to be categorized into simplistic boxes? Left? Right? Aren't we all complex beings with a diversity of views based on our personal experiences and how those have shaped us?

    Easier to categorize and label perhaps, and consequently for marketers and politicians to target.

    And after all these weeks and months.......I still don't know where you stand when it comes to policy, ideology and solutions. You never speak out about that.

    This is not just to...put you in boxes or leave you for dumb. I simply don't understand where you stand for. And it always makes discussing with you very hard.

    Moreover, the categorization is very logical IMO, because the elections upcoming November are also black-and-white. In the end you have to weigh all your own personal ideas, and re-allign them with the presidential candidate you stand for. Then you cast your vote.

    Unless you don't give a damn about policies, ideas and solutions and only vote for 'the guy you like most'.

    post-2321-0-52521400-1417733698.jpg

    I will MAKE people care for that. Because that's what democracy is about as well! Stating our voting preferences :-).
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    :x The love on this thread is awesome to behold.
This discussion has been closed.