|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 26, 2016 20:43:11 GMT -5
What? Haha The GOP is still suffering from the Bush era. If the GOP loses to the most beatable democratic nominee in recent memory, that's all you have to know. Actually, the fact this race is even close and Trump is the nominee says that the GOP is still suffering from the Bush era. If they lose, it will be a minimum four cycles since they have won. And that party will be at more of a crossroads than in 2008. What would it say if the Dems lose to he most beatable Republican nominee in recent memory? The fact that the election is so close even with Trump the nominee speaks volumes on the Democrat side of things. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 27, 2016 9:32:35 GMT -5
What? Haha The GOP is still suffering from the Bush era. If the GOP loses to the most beatable democratic nominee in recent memory, that's all you have to know. Actually, the fact this race is even close and Trump is the nominee says that the GOP is still suffering from the Bush era. If they lose, it will be a minimum four cycles since they have won. And that party will be at more of a crossroads than in 2008. What would it say if the Dems lose to he most beatable Republican nominee in recent memory? The fact that the election is so close even with Trump the nominee speaks volumes on the Democrat side of things. The only issue with that thinking, is that it's the Democrats who hold the White House. Lastly, Clinton becoming nominee makes sense. She was the next in line and would have been nominee if Obama had not shown up in 2008. However, Trump? The Republican ranks were SO THIN that Trump became the Republican nominee. Think about that for a second. Republicans went from Bush, to Romney (the Republican counter part of Hillary) to Trump. You nominated Trump. The party of Reagan nominated someone who in no way reflects the ideals of the Republican party. That's how back wash that party is. Trump being nominee speaks far more about the health of the Republican party than Clinton being a nominee. Once again, AT LEAST Clinton logically makes sense. At least if she loses, the party won't go through an existential crisis. I'm not sure Trump winning helps the Republican party or if him losing helps. The Republican party is in a no-win situation. If you win, then you get a guy who doesn't believe in one shred of what you believe in. Think about that. A party that has lost his party purity. Trump doesn't remotely reflect Reagan, Bush, or Romney. But you're saying that party still isn't feeling the shock waves of Bush's demise? Besides, even if Trump loses then you just lost the White House again. Clinton losing is just Clinton losing. A Trump win or lost reflects a demise of the Republican party, whether it's by way of finding a new direction after another lost or the concept of the moderate Republican fading into the distance with a Trump win. Either way, a section of that party won't feel like it's part of the party anymore. Essentially, you're comparing apples to oranges. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 9:49:03 GMT -5
Voter turn out this year is going to be historically bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Jul 27, 2016 21:33:28 GMT -5
Is Trump having some competition with himself to see if he can made himself look even more moronic? Seems that every time I check the news he's said something even worse than the last time.
|
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on Jul 28, 2016 20:05:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 28, 2016 20:31:56 GMT -5
Is Trump having some competition with himself to see if he can made himself look even more moronic? Seems that every time I check the news he's said something even worse than the last time. Whatever he's been doing, it's been working. Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Jul 28, 2016 20:47:31 GMT -5
Is Trump having some competition with himself to see if he can made himself look even more moronic? Seems that every time I check the news he's said something even worse than the last time. Whatever he's been doing, it's been working. Just saying. If by "working," you mean "hoodwinking a bunch of gullible and suggestible right-wingers such as yourself into thinking that he has even a fraction of the expertise and competence necessary to run a country of 300 million people," then he's doing really well!! Long live demagoguery!! |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 28, 2016 21:09:53 GMT -5
Whatever he's been doing, it's been working. Just saying. If by "working," you mean "hoodwinking a bunch of gullible and suggestible right-wingers such as yourself into thinking that he has even a fraction of the expertise and competence necessary to run a country of 300 million people," then he's doing really well!! Long live demagoguery!! And what has Hillary been doing? Telling a sincere story?  |
|
|
|
Post by Binary Sunset on Jul 28, 2016 21:31:19 GMT -5
Is Trump having some competition with himself to see if he can made himself look even more moronic? Seems that every time I check the news he's said something even worse than the last time. Whatever he's been doing, it's been working. Just saying. Give me one actual positive quality that Donald Trump has as a presidential candidate that doesn't involve Hilary at all. There isn't any in my opinion. Not one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 7:35:15 GMT -5
Whatever he's been doing, it's been working. Just saying. Give me one actual positive quality that Donald Trump has as a presidential candidate that doesn't involve Hilary at all. There isn't any in my opinion. Not one. I'm no Trump honk... he is quite good at taking the brunt of the criticism (he clearly doesn't care what anybody thinks) while allowing others to actually get things done in the background. He shields those around him with his over the top personality and stupid manner of speaking, which let's them work without much interference. I never said the argument was a good one... but there it is all the same. I'm still very much undecided as to how I will vote (assuming I vote) come November. |
|
|
|
Post by Binary Sunset on Jul 29, 2016 7:45:47 GMT -5
Give me one actual positive quality that Donald Trump has as a presidential candidate that doesn't involve Hilary at all. There isn't any in my opinion. Not one. I'm no Trump honk... he is quite good at taking the brunt of the criticism (he clearly doesn't care what anybody thinks) while allowing others to actually get things done in the background. He shields those around him with his over the top personality and stupid manner of speaking, which let's them work without much interference. I never said the argument was a good one... but there it is all the same. I'm still very much undecided as to how I will vote (assuming I vote) come November. Although that is a different side of it that I haven't thought of, I'm not really sure that's true. He responds petulantly to pretty much every criticism or remark about him, and carries himself with a temperament that doesn't behoove the most powerful person in the world. Obviously I'm biased, but he's not the person I want having final say on some of the most important decisions in our lifetime. He's not the person I want having nuclear launch codes. The president has to make no-win decisions every day, and can't just be easy to bait into conflict based on a massive ego. Whatever you say of Obama, he composed himself as a mature individual and commanded respect from the rest of the world because of how he carried himself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 7:46:25 GMT -5
Whatever he's been doing, it's been working. Just saying. If by "working," you mean "hoodwinking a bunch of gullible and suggestible right-wingers such as yourself into thinking that he has even a fraction of the expertise and competence necessary to run a country of 300 million people," then he's doing really well!! Long live demagoguery!! I have always found this sentiment a strange sale. What exactly would be enough "expertise" for such a job? You could argue that only previously elected presidents understand the job well enough to be "qualified" for it. And they are not eligible. I'd submit that no one is ever fully qualified to be the president of a large country, but it doesn't matter if you are qualified. What matters is if people are willing to put you in that position. We've had several terrible presidents in the past, but generally who ever gets into office rises to the occasion and respects the office to which they have been appointed. I know that this line of thinking doesn't really jive with all the partisan thinking that goes on today. Ultimately, we are all more closely similar than we are different. No president acts alone to change policy and the "broken" system doesn't allow this with good reason. Now, before you fire back at me, this is not an endorsement of Trump or Hillary. I am not particularly fond of either candidate, but I also understand that once in office, both will have steep challenges working with a divided congress and a supreme court that has been inconsistent more often than not. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 29, 2016 8:45:03 GMT -5
Hey America, Britain has already had two female Prime Ministers. And they were both Tories at that, too. Here, have some tea with that humble pie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 9:34:43 GMT -5
Hey America, Britain has already had two female Prime Ministers. And they were both Tories at that, too. Here, have some tea with that humble pie. I appreciate your passion for this subject, but you are really not helping us reach an amicable level of quality discourse. Carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Jul 29, 2016 12:27:31 GMT -5
If by "working," you mean "hoodwinking a bunch of gullible and suggestible right-wingers such as yourself into thinking that he has even a fraction of the expertise and competence necessary to run a country of 300 million people," then he's doing really well!! Long live demagoguery!! I have always found this sentiment a strange sale. What exactly would be enough "expertise" for such a job? You could argue that only previously elected presidents understand the job well enough to be "qualified" for it. And they are not eligible. I'd submit that no one is ever fully qualified to be the president of a large country, but it doesn't matter if you are qualified. What matters is if people are willing to put you in that position. We've had several terrible presidents in the past, but generally who ever gets into office rises to the occasion and respects the office to which they have been appointed. I know that this line of thinking doesn't really jive with all the partisan thinking that goes on today. Ultimately, we are all more closely similar than we are different. No president acts alone to change policy and the "broken" system doesn't allow this with good reason. Now, before you fire back at me, this is not an endorsement of Trump or Hillary. I am not particularly fond of either candidate, but I also understand that once in office, both will have steep challenges working with a divided congress and a supreme court that has been inconsistent more often than not. This is an interesting question. I think one important measure of competence is experience. I'd say that one needs to have experience in important political positions, whether that be as a congressman, governor, cabinet member, etc. Of course, there's also how well one has done in those positions to consider, which is more a matter of opinion than one of objectivity. Let's look at Clinton for a sec. There's no doubt that she has the experience, having served as senator and Secretary of state, among other things. Whether she's done the best job is subjective, but imo, while not spectacular, she's done far from an awful performance. In contrast, we can't even begin to have the same discussion with Trump because he's never held public office. We have absolutely nothing to go off of when determining how he would govern other than his own word, which we can totally trust when it comes to politics. You're right in thinking that former presidents are best at determining who would be fit for the job. It's important to keep in mind that Trump has received no endorsements from anyone who has ever served as president. Theoretically, none of this may matter should enough people vote for a candidate, but if we're not going to base our votes at least partly on experience and qualifications, then how will we put a good person in the most important position of government? |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 29, 2016 21:16:46 GMT -5
Donald Trump's Denver Rally, for the absolute win. #Trump16
|
|
smash
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 462
|
Post by smash on Jul 29, 2016 22:45:25 GMT -5
For the record, Beady's Mighty Eye is certainly not the only American on this forum, and believe me, he/she/it doesn't speak for all (or perhaps any) of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by glider on Jul 29, 2016 23:03:19 GMT -5
P.S: Wtf happened to this Coldplay?  |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Jul 31, 2016 6:07:20 GMT -5
So @liv4evr, you are voting for Trump because he is the Republican nomination right? Regardless of policy or personality. The guy that gets away with this shit. www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36935175I honestly can't fathom why people would consider voting for him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 6:20:52 GMT -5
I don't think many people will be voting for Trump or Clinton, it's 'Not Clinton' vs. 'Not Trump'
|
|
|
|
Post by Elie De Beaufour 🐴 on Aug 1, 2016 21:16:46 GMT -5
Need some help, US folk: Where is David 'EVERYONE IS ZIONIST EXCEPT ME AND MY SHEEP' Duke running for the senate?
|
|
|
|
Post by As You Built The Moon on Aug 1, 2016 23:53:48 GMT -5
Need some help, US folk: Where is David 'EVERYONE IS ZIONIST EXCEPT ME AND MY SHEEP' Duke running for the senate? Louisiana. He came in second in the Republican primary for governor in 1991. |
|
|
|
Post by Elie De Beaufour 🐴 on Aug 2, 2016 0:18:49 GMT -5
Need some help, US folk: Where is David 'EVERYONE IS ZIONIST EXCEPT ME AND MY SHEEP' Duke running for the senate? Louisiana. He came in second in the Republican primary for governor in 1991. Thanks a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Aug 2, 2016 9:10:01 GMT -5
I think Donald Trump confuses being on the offensive with being offensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2016 9:12:15 GMT -5
I think Donald Trump confuses being on the offensive with being offensive. You assume he understands what large words like "offensive" and "being" mean. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5