Donald Trump is a nut

DeletedUser

Guest
BlueTattoo said:
First off, the insane amount of time that a candidate has to campaign... around 2 years.
Click to expand...

I for one like this; allows more time for the populace to get to know the candidate and what they want their "establishment" to stand for. Plus this like the a 2 year super bowl for any political science majors out there.


BlueTattoo said:
Secondly, the primary/caucus process... by the time my state got to vote, more than half the candidates had dropped out. And there are still states that have not voted. The candidates are chosen by states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, etc. And then once a candidate starts to get a decent lead, the media presents them as a runaway candidate. If you were even considering voting for someone other than the frontrunner, you get an earful of "why bother? They can't win anyway". Oh, and there's the fact that I couldn't vote in either the Republican primary or the Democrat caucus because I'm a registered independent.
Click to expand...

The caucus are ran like a focus group. For instance, everyone knows California is primarily liberal--- hence why the republic caucus in California is so important to a republic Caucasus. Each party is able to gather the demographics of the state and project long term outcomes. If they can't win after a certain point, the PACs, even common people will realize its' a lost cause.

You can't caucus because your independent as I am. The last time a caucus went beyond party lines we called it Watergate.

BlueTattoo said:
Fourth, the money. Billions upon billions of dollars thrown at the election. Free healthcare for all and a free education! There's the money to pay for it right there! Given that K-12 is supposed to be free (unless you decide to go to a private school) and compulsory, and we struggle with a higher dropout rate than most would like to see, would free university really improve anything? If you are invested in your education, you are more motivated to go. Have it handed to you on a platter, and it's worthless.

Trump? I like to think it's a joke that's gotten completely out of hand.
Click to expand...

The Dollar is a monetary based on trust. The value of the dollar is factored by who & how leads our trust, like the The President.

So Putin can back Trump---- Hillary & Bill keeps campaigning speeches around the world--- Bernie just does what Bernies does...

Michael Corleone. said:
Mainstream Media is a joke. CNN owned by Time Warner has donated to Hillary hence why its so pro Hillary. I just think this election is the result of the decline of America.
Click to expand...

I don't think its' a joke. Even editorials and column pieces all have bias, Hunter S. Thompson taught me you can't eliminate bias--- at least for the most part.

With Mainstream Media I know they have more money than the candidates themselves, and are more bought by exclusive interviews than money. How they spin it from there is up to their professionalism, which is why I personally stick not to just FOX, CNN, or CBS--- but between them as to see how they disseminate bullmanure. Editorials are also a great forum of free-journalism, but at that level that seems who can SEO the best.

Michael Corleone. said:
I encourage people to read Plato's The Republic. Its quite amazing on things hes said centuries ago appear to be happening in America today.

Oh and to expand on my last post. America is not a full democracy. If anything, it is a mixture of Plutocracy and Democracy.
Click to expand...

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

What if I told you the Pultocracy leaves loopholes in the laws they're entrusted to make in congress so they could abuse those holes for themselves? The Democracy that knows about it be like, "We don't get paid enough to care."
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I like the idea of a caucus, but not every state does them, and even states that do them don't do them for both parties. So the entire process is inconsistent. That's my main argument. That, and the fact that not all states primary/caucus at the same time. California hasn't even had their election yet... by the time they do, they have Trump/Cruz or Bernie/Hillary. When Iowa held their caucus, there were many more candidates on each side. Who is to say who the frontrunner would have ended up being had other states gone first?

Especially with being independent and left out of the entire election process until it's time to vote in November, I don't need 2 years to "get to know the candidates". I don't get a choice in who is on the ballot, so I really couldn't care less until there actually is a ballot.
 

Asylum Escapee

Guest
Many states allow temporary registration on the day of the primaries, it really depends on where you are. Some of the states, like New York, are super anal about it though.

Could be worse, in Canada what often happens is the party goes in a room, there are 2 solid candidates, but they hate each other and end up compromising on some dingbat that nobody likes.

Happens a LOT where the guy with 5% vote share ends up winning in the end
 
Last edited:

Asylum Escapee

Guest
Well one county had 80 percent turnout which is sketchy at best, I don't think betting websites give your money back in the case of election fraud so I guess it's good I couldn't bet. Oh well.
 

Asylum Escapee

Guest
It was Waukesha county.

Not saying anything necessarily happened, but it's incredibly sketchy. 80% is beyond high for a primary. Usually 50% is a very high number. But it isn't the first sketchy thing to happen in these elections.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser105718

Guest
Donald Trump > Hillary Clinton

Not even an argument really.

They're both shit mind you, but Trump is definitely the better choice of the two.
 

MR.MR

Guest
Nope, waukesha county hittinf 80% is completely plausible. Its the Walker-esque home turf, the conservative talk radio that runs WI operates from Waukesha county. Its always been a top participant putting a ton of votes towards republican candidates, and with how much Walker and his crew pushed the "Wisconsin is where we stop trump band together and vote cruz" it makes sense that everyone who could possibly vote would be out doing so. Being a WI resident and knowing as much as i do about the xs and os of WI political demographics, i would not consider 80% participation to be outrageous. Though im sure there was a lot of ensuring that grandma made it to the polls to vote Cruz, moreso than in a normal year
 

Asylum Escapee

Guest
Perhaps. All I'm saying is that it's quite and outlier even for WI. It's had allegations of fraud in the past, as well.

However, I didn't see any real evidence of fraud unlike Utah where my friend was handed a stack of ballots and told told to 'pass one down'. After side guy walked in with a big box of 'absentee' ballots. When my friend commented that they should be coming in later, they told him it was fine. He then went to check on his friend at another precinct and they gave him another ballot without him asking.

Given that Cruz won by a far greater margin than polls suggested in Iowa, I thought maybe he was up to his old tricks in WI.

But WI is a primary and caucuses are known for being a bit crazy and prone to fraud. I know Wisconsinites are more politically active than average so maybe this was legit.
 

Asylum Escapee

Guest
AeDLhGm.png
 

Asylum Escapee

Guest
Some idiots in a college down there are trying to have people expelled for writing 'Trump 2016' in chalk on the sidewalk. One of the things I like about where I live is the lack of regressive liberals like that. I'm sure there's a few in the feminist studies classes at my university or something, but if they are there, they seem to keep their heads down for the most part.
 

Michael Corleone.

Guest
I think Bill Maher a few weeks ago poked fun at those that were "traumatized" by chalk writings of Trump 2016. Honestly these kids (who are my age) need grow the *blank* up and realize the real world there isn't little safe zones to protect them from the truth and how the world is.
 

DeletedUser65288

Guest
The election is simple:

If you want to build a wall or you like building walls vote trump.

If you like dumping nuclear waste into low income communities and not understanding basic economics vote sanders

If you like lying vote Hillary

If you eat your own boogers vote Cruz
 

Asylum Escapee

Guest
Border walls have been wildly successful in places like Hungary, so I don't see why that's such a huge issue down there. Democrats tried to build a border wall a few elections ago, but it never got funded. Hillary voted for it. I think Obama might have, too. Can't remember.

Surely everyone wants to keep the drug cartels from having free reign over the border? Surely a wall would help both countries immensely?

I challenge you to go visit Mexicans in towns near the border which are being ravaged by the cartels and ask them if building a wall offends them. Most Mexicans don't think too highly of those who illegally cross the border. I'm sure they'd be happy with less cartel presence in their area.

I guess its just partisan bickering as usual.
 

Asylum Escapee

Guest
I know that there's currently a ragged assortment of crappy little fences scattered around the border, I'm not 100% sure what part of the article you are referencing though. I did notice it cited 68% of Americans being in favor of a border barrier.

I think a big wall would be pretty cool, you could make it have real fancy gates and have entry to the US be an awesome experience.

But, I mean, there's a lot more important issues going on than a hypothetical wall.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
JSluggy said:
The election is simple:

If you want to build a wall or you like building walls vote trump.

If you like dumping nuclear waste into low income communities and not understanding basic economics vote sanders

If you like lying vote Hillary

If you eat your own boogers vote Cruz
Click to expand...

The wall seems like the best option from the four.

Does anyone know a good read that exemplifies Sander's lack of depth in economics?
 

Asylum Escapee

Guest
I don't like the idea of a $15 minimum wage. We have had that happen here, and as a result McDonalds fired most of their cashiers and replaced them with a touch screen. The $15 wage isn't implemented for another year or so, but other companies are looking at changes as well. If you force companies to pay too much for low skill jobs, they will just eliminate those jobs if they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top