Cruz drops, Trump win likely

[Moreau]

This is going to continue being an ugly, hate-filled, half-truth spouting, despicable political race.

I am seriously considering turning off all news outlets because this election cycle is the worst I have seen in history.

 

I agree with this. (Not the random racist connotation thrown in at the end or the claim that the race is somehow equal.) 

 

I can't wait to see Rozalia acting all sheepish on the forum WHEN baby fingers Trump loses to old lady Hillary.

 

Trump losing to a Women has to be the ultimate insult for this cult.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Moreau III

[Lannan13]

Beat you to it also mate: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/12692-indiana-results-yuge/

 

Aren't you a Libertarian? Trump isn't your guy or anything but I'd think he'd be better for you than you know, Clinton. 

 

Also speaking of God he apparently told Cruz it was his time to President and the Priesthood according to Glenn Beck was rising. As we can see that did not happen as the Donald was making deals to get himself that spot. 

 

 

Funny considering I'm pretty sure I've seen you accuse others of conspiracy theories. Yes Trump has spent tens of millions of his own money to get Clinton in the White House when he could... just win and get whatever people would think he'd want from Clinton (if he wants such a thing), and also get the added prestige of being President. People should make up their minds. On one hand they say Trump is narcissistic but then say he'd give up the presidency just like that? Such things conflict. 

 

It falls apart even further when you look at just who could have faced Hillary. Jeb! was low energy and easy prey, someone with a tainted family name. Cruz is a Holy Cruzader, which goes down well in a couple of areas and badly everywhere else. Rubio is inexperienced and weak, a boy. Like Clinton needs to rig the game when thats the competition. 

They're both apalling and I'd probably vote for Johnson or Peterson. 

[Lannan13]

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

America will be Great again, Donald is the only president that can accomplish America being powerful, wealthy, responsible, respected, and great again.

[Rozalia]

Because more bombs definitely beats guerilla groups... There is a reason why non-conventional tactics in asymmetric warfare is the go-to strategy against world powers mate.

 

You speak as if that was what I was what I was getting at. America opposes fanatics while arming fanatics (or pretending not to see their "allies" do it), arms that always seems to find their way into the hand of the "bad ones". There are political games for why that is but indications are Trump won't bother with such things. That alone is significant. Two powers like that having a unified goal can achieve big things. 

 

I can't wait to see Rozalia acting all sheepish on the forum WHEN baby fingers Trump loses to old lady Hillary.

 

Trump losing to a Women has to be the ultimate insult for this cult.

 

Losing to a woman the ultimate insult? I heard that was your boys' game. Additionally now it'll bother Trump? I thought he was a Clinton plant? If so why would he get upset?

 

Calls others a cult while supporting the death cult of ISIS. Incredible. 

[Hodor]

What exactly about Trump appeals to you?

[Rozalia]

What exactly about Trump appeals to you?

 

I've seen this many times across the net mate, not exactly the thread for it, an odd response to what I put, and I'm sure I see your posts before you make them on the matter. If you want to make a statement then go ahead, I'll respond to that.

[Hodor]

It was just me being curious and wanting to understand. I find a lot of what is written on his website's official position to be quite appealing, however his campaign rhetoric rarely comes close to the material on his website.

 

Okay, specifically, what is the appeal of a continued interventionalist policy in the Middle East?

[Rozalia]

It was just me being curious and wanting to understand. I find a lot of what is written on his website's official position to be quite appealing, however his campaign rhetoric rarely comes close to the material on his website.

 

Okay, specifically, what is the appeal of a continued interventionalist policy in the Middle East?

 

Do understand that I've seen such questions be a lead in to, "You only listed three things to my short answer? You're racist, uneducated, an idiot, so on" far too many times. I personally prefer when people just go all out immediately so I know what I'm dealing with immediately.

 

His response on Syria was America can't be fighting Assad and ISIS at the same time (as they have), and that if Putin is there willing to help kill ISIS then they should let Putin sort them out (at the time the mainstream was talking how bad Russia was for getting involved). He supports a strong military and a lot of countries want the US on their soil to protect them, something he feels they aren't properly reimbursed for. Doesn't support training of the "rebels". Believes the middle east is/was better with Assad, Gaddafi & Saddam and that he doesn't support " the nation-building business". Those aren't signs of someone who is super interventionist, that would be Clinton. 

Of course you got the grandiose statements like bombing the F out of ISIS (helping the Kurds and Assad clear out many of those fanatics is required at the moment), and the often mentioned ground forces by Moreau. What Moreau neglects to mention is in such a situation he'd like for America's allies to get stuck in (for real) and thus share the cost.

 

Anyway you are correct that his speeches tend to not always get across everything he has down as his positions, it would be I'd say as he does these rallies off the cuff with only a short selection of notes. It's why even though he has had how Mexico is going to pay for the wall up for ages you'll still find some people talking of it like it's complete madness as they think it'd involve Mexico's government physically giving Trump fat stacks of cash or something.

[Moreau]

It was just me being curious and wanting to understand. I find a lot of what is written on his website's official position to be quite appealing, however his campaign rhetoric rarely comes close to the material on his website.

 

Okay, specifically, what is the appeal of a continued interventionalist policy in the Middle East?

 

Insane in the membrane Trump is not to be taken seriously.

 

This clown, this village idiot, this political saboteur... is only rolling out the red carpet for old lady Hillary's presidential election with every ill-conceived flap of his dirty, dirty, tongue. 

[Rozalia]

Insane in the membrane Trump is not to be taken seriously.

 

This clown, this village idiot, this political saboteur... is only rolling out the red carpet for old lady Hillary's presidential election with every ill-conceived flap of his dirty, dirty, tongue. 

 

Would work better if you didn't flip flop on that angle of yours.

[Hodor]

To step away from his policies, as I've said briefly, I may not agree with many of them but they are well outlined on his website and I can respect the fact that they aren't necessarily always just sound bites he uses to pump up his more radical base.

How do you feel about the personality of the man? The fact that he has inspired a decent amount of misguided anger and hatred? Something I admire in leadership is subtlety among many other things. He seems to lack some, in my opinion, necessary traits to lead a country, notably patience, experience where perhaps it might matter most (foreign affairs), thick skin, and the ability to admit when he has done wrong.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I agree with this. (Not the random racist connotation thrown in at the end or the claim that the race is somehow equal.) 

I actually was able to see a Madagascar clip of its parliament where there were tribal representatives wielding spears in anger, threatening to lob one into the chest of another rep. It was not a racist jab. It is reality. Honestly it is because of politics I wish dueling made a comeback.

[Moreau]

I actually was able to see a Madagascar clip of its parliament where there were tribal representatives wielding spears in anger, threatening to lob one into the chest of another rep. It was not a racist jab. It is reality. Honestly it is because of politics I wish dueling made a comeback.

 

I wish every parliament had a televised duel to the death were nobody makes it out alive. 

[Rozalia]

To step away from his policies, as I've said briefly, I may not agree with many of them but they are well outlined on his website and I can respect the fact that they aren't necessarily always just sound bites he uses to pump up his more radical base.

 

How do you feel about the personality of the man? The fact that he has inspired a decent amount of misguided anger and hatred? Something I admire in leadership is subtlety among many other things. He seems to lack some, in my opinion, necessary traits to lead a country, notably patience, experience where perhaps it might matter most (foreign affairs), thick skin, and the ability to admit when he has done wrong.

 

It is as you said, misguided and in many cases simply dishonest. His own supporters have by comparison been angels unlike the "protesters", quotations as many are paid to do such things. With globalisation ruling the roost anybody who speaks out against immigration and putting a country's own people first are labeled racists and whatever else, doesn't matter how civil you act. Lets for example take the Blacks who Trump's sole mention since running was that they were screwed over by illegal immigration and that as he's bringing back jobs they'll benefit greatly from his presidency. The opposition however has fed many that Trump wants to "make America white again", wants to take jobs away from black people, and other nonsense. 

 

Obviously Trump has an abrasive personality that doesn't appeal to everybody, but it gets the job done and gets through all the nonsense that the establishment tries. The Republicans got demolished no matter what they tried as will the Democrats. We all may want someone who is a nice guy who is quiet, says all the proper things, and such but... look where trying such a thing got Sanders (well it's what he was going for anyway). 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Rozalia

[Hodor]

Okay, I disagree with that entirely. I have many friends who've protested Trump, and I've also the lovely privilege of living in a very republican, heavily Trump area. Sure anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily compelling, but the evidence of white supremacy among Trump supporters is far more compelling than the evidence that protesters are paid plants.

I'm not arguing that a leader should be timid. You seem to admire Putin to an extent and I'd argue he is a good example of the personality I admire and tried to describe above, despite disagreeing with most of his policies.

 

A leader that you seem to see in Trump should be able to exercise a certain level of control over his supporters, meaning he should not have to rely on ambiguous rhetoric which can easily and often is used to support white supremacy.

 

I guess the thing that most bothers me on the personality issue is that he overwhelmingly draws votes from the uneducated (not a bad thing) and angry (very much a bad thing). It seems to me this is not some anomaly and freak accident but instead a goal of his campaign and his speeches. A man who uses such negative energy to his advantage may be a political genius, but not a good person.

[Rozalia]

Okay, I disagree with that entirely. I have many friends who've protested Trump, and I've also the lovely privilege of living in a very republican, heavily Trump area. Sure anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily compelling, but the evidence of white supremacy among Trump supporters is far more compelling than the evidence that protesters are paid plants.

 

I'm not arguing that a leader should be timid. You seem to admire Putin to an extent and I'd argue he is a good example of the personality I admire and tried to describe above, despite disagreeing with most of his policies.

 

A leader that you seem to see in Trump should be able to exercise a certain level of control over his supporters, meaning he should not have to rely on ambiguous rhetoric which can easily and often is used to support white supremacy.

 

I guess the thing that most bothers me on the personality issue is that he overwhelmingly draws votes from the uneducated (not a bad thing) and angry (very much a bad thing). It seems to me this is not some anomaly and freak accident but instead a goal of his campaign and his speeches. A man who uses such negative energy to his advantage may be a political genius, but not a good person.

 

Such people always comes out of the woodwork as a Trump supporter said on camera, means nothing. A KKK guy endorsed Hillary and was met with the peep it deserved. Will Trump put in action white supremacy? No (and they know that), so irrelevant. They're voting for him based on policy, in their case immigration and America first. As for the "protesters", many are paid no doubt about that. Soros is involved who normally merely funds such protests with his organisations but they've admitted to organising such things now. Funding, organising, groups like Black Lives Matter involved... it's not hard to figure out.

 

Trump asking his supporters to make a pledge to vote for him was met with calling him Hitler for making people make a "Nazi salute". If he does or doesn't do it doesn't matter, it's spun as a negative and Trump the master of media knows it I'm sure. There is no point pandering to people who are 100% against you, they'll just find some other way to hit you. Additionally what have the alleged Bernie supporters been up to? A lot more violence and hate spewing last I checked and yet no one has ever attacked him on his non-action and on how it keeps happening again and again. 

 

Well it's good you didn't say the often said that having the support of the uneducated is a bad thing, just snobbery that. Of course it ain't an accident, anybody could have told you that the people are there and they just need someone to give them hope, doesn't take a genius to work that out. As for "negative energy" I don't see such talk as credible. Anything that goes against the globalist's policies is "negative". The people at the bottom many who support Trump deserve to be heard too, they've suffered greatly and they've always blamed things like immigration, Trump didn't just magic the thought into their minds. Now in regards to why the more educated are less likely to vote Trump I'm sure there is plenty to say on that. With how education tends to be in the west there does seem to be very much a leftist, well "centre-left" I should say bent in such institutions and with education usually meaning wealthy (the rich don't support Trump) they know they're living it large with globalisation as after all they don't get to experience the negative side effects like the poor do. 

[Hodor]

Let's not discuss media bias, as I haven't made claims that it doesn't exist. What I did claim is that you've got a man who is incredibly popular, overwhelmingly so, with several subsets of society that preach hate. This same man encourages, instead of refocuses their anger. I hate Bernie supporters who act irresponsibly just as much as I hate Trump supporters who act irresponsibly. Bernie hasn't been as outspoken as he should be but he has at several points told his supporters to chill out. The opposite can be said for Trump who encourage violence against dissidents. Likewise to make the claim that Trump is the only candidate who puts "America first" is just silly. The 3 remaining candidates all put America first, they just differ on what exactly that means.

I won't argue that the poor working class whites have gotten shafted in society (but to say they are the only ones is again ridiculous), but that is where the educated part comes in. You said they believe it is due to immigration, I'd argue that's the least of their issues. Are there problems with immigration in the US? Of course, but these are not the sources of their poverty and circumstances. Again, the source of their dismay is up for debate, but immigration would not even make the top 10. So what are the actual issues? I'd argue they are employment, education, wealth inequality, and government inefficiency. Trump's proposals to fix these are weak at best.

[Rozalia]

Let's not discuss media bias, as I haven't made claims that it doesn't exist. What I did claim is that you've got a man who is incredibly popular, overwhelmingly so, with several subsets of society that preach hate. This same man encourages, instead of refocuses their anger. I hate Bernie supporters who act irresponsibly just as much as I hate Trump supporters who act irresponsibly. Bernie hasn't been as outspoken as he should be but he has at several points told his supporters to chill out. The opposite can be said for Trump who encourage violence against dissidents. Likewise to make the claim that Trump is the only candidate who puts "America first" is just silly. The 3 remaining candidates all put America first, they just differ on what exactly that means.

 

I won't argue that the poor working class whites have gotten shafted in society (but to say they are the only ones is again ridiculous), but that is where the educated part comes in. You said they believe it is due to immigration, I'd argue that's the least of their issues. Are there problems with immigration in the US? Of course, but these are not the sources of their poverty and circumstances. Again, the source of their dismay is up for debate, but immigration would not even make the top 10. So what are the actual issues? I'd argue they are employment, education, wealth inequality, and government inefficiency. Trump's proposals to fix these are weak at best.

 

No you're going off what they've been spinning for a long time, you dismissed the protesters being paid so why not dismiss the smears of the media? When you follow globalism you don't put your country and it's people first no. Sanders is the only other who approaches that but even he is for a vital element of globalism which is mass immigration, as many on the left are as they feel they'd be hypocrites or something otherwise. Hasn't refocused? You are aware he is refocusing their concerns and problems to win him the election so he can put in place what he has said right? Every politician outside the failed ones successfully refocus the concerns of the poeple into votes, same deal with Clinton, same deal with Bernie. You've got that double standard again that you'll attack Trump on having supporters who hate minorities, yet no peep about Bernie having supporters who hate the rich (hence they're going with him, the Socialist who attacks the rich at every opportunity). Even good old Bernie has a group he attacks, it's simply deemed more acceptable because they are by and large rich white guys. 

 

Uh... what? I see what you're going for but it falls apart from the word go. Poverty, lack of employment, wealth inequality,  are by those with immigration as a concerned all seen as being so due to immigration. As such fixing immigration they see will fix those things. Wealth inequality and poverty due to no longer having millions and millions depressing wages, with employment companies either have to stay or move back if they don't want to be hit with a significant tariff (America is a very important market lets not forget). In regards to government inefficiency it's well known Trump will cutting a lot of things so I'm not sure what the deal with that is. He won't be wasting so much on expensive useful programs so... he's got you sorted I suppose. Education wise he's said he'll do away with common core, some think thats good others not. 

[Hodor]

No you're going off what they've been spinning for a long time, you dismissed the protesters being paid so why not dismiss the smears of the media? When you follow globalism you don't put your country and it's people first no. Sanders is the only other who approaches that but even he is for a vital element of globalism which is mass immigration, as many on the left are as they feel they'd be hypocrites or something otherwise. Hasn't refocused? You are aware he is refocusing their concerns and problems to win him the election so he can put in place what he has said right? Every politician outside the failed ones successfully refocus the concerns of the poeple into votes, same deal with Clinton, same deal with Bernie. You've got that double standard again that you'll attack Trump on having supporters who hate minorities, yet no peep about Bernie having supporters who hate the rich (hence they're going with him, the Socialist who attacks the rich at every opportunity). Even good old Bernie has a group he attacks, it's simply deemed more acceptable because they are by and large rich white guys.

 

Uh... what? I see what you're going for but it falls apart from the word go. Poverty, lack of employment, wealth inequality, are by those with immigration as a concerned all seen as being so due to immigration. As such fixing immigration they see will fix those things. Wealth inequality and poverty due to no longer having millions and millions depressing wages, with employment companies either have to stay or move back if they don't want to be hit with a significant tariff (America is a very important market lets not forget). In regards to government inefficiency it's well known Trump will cutting a lot of things so I'm not sure what the deal with that is. He won't be wasting so much on expensive useful programs so... he's got you sorted I suppose. Education wise he's said he'll do away with common core, some think thats good others not.

Again it's fair that he turns the anger into votes, I even called it genius at some point, I only argue it undesirable.

 

Show me how immigration has had an impact on jobs that the poor working white might take? Here's evidence to the opposite:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2015/08/28/how-do-illegal-immigrants-affect-american-workers-the-answer-might-surprise-you/#2be54f476b10

 

Here's another which compiles lots of data and finds effects on wages hover around zero (+\- 2%) depending on several factors.

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigrations-real-impact-wages-employment

 

That seemed to be the main point you addressed. Doing away with common core and vague rhetoric about trimming government fat aren't exactly substantive enough to make proper counter arguments to.

[Hodor]

Double post: I tend to have no problem with Trumps opinions on trade.

[Rozalia]

Again it's fair that he turns the anger into votes, I even called it genius at some point, I only argue it undesirable.

 

Show me how immigration has had an impact on jobs that the poor working white might take? Here's evidence to the opposite:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2015/08/28/how-do-illegal-immigrants-affect-american-workers-the-answer-might-surprise-you/#2be54f476b10

 

Here's another which compiles lots of data and finds effects on wages hover around zero (+\- 2%) depending on several factors.

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigrations-real-impact-wages-employment

 

That seemed to be the main point you addressed. Doing away with common core and vague rhetoric about trimming government fat aren't exactly substantive enough to make proper counter arguments to.

 

You could say the same of Sanders, your point? Why aren't you addressing that exactly by the way? Where is your defense of the rich, a small minority, 1% in fact you could say, that Sanders has taken every opportunity to attack? Lets have some fairness. 

 

I've done this rodeo many times, the nature of opposing globalism which a great deal of people follow zealously. I mean I'll hit one piece of it, "and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English". This is talked about as if some grand boon but of course it doesn't take into account the millions unemployed. The rest I'll not bother with, it's all cooked up nicely I'm sure for consumption for globalists looking for reinforcement but it doesn't cut the mustard with me.

 

The second does the often done tactic of immigrants == illegal immigrants. Immigration can be a positive that much is certain, I'm for careful controlled immigration myself for that matter. Illegal immigration however is a different ball game entirely. By virtue of being an illegal immigrant they are taking a job, no ifs or buts on that. At the very end realising this weakness it tries a real weak effort but I'd have to see more on what exactly they're on.

 

Like I said, I'm used to these globalist word games. They can cook and ready their statistics how they like, I ain't going to be falling for it. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Rozalia

[Hodor]

 

You could say the same of Sanders, your point? Why aren't you addressing that exactly by the way? Where is your defense of the rich, a small minority, 1% in fact you could say, that Sanders has taken every opportunity to attack? Lets have some fairness.

 

I've done this rodeo many times, the nature of opposing globalism which a great deal of people follow zealously. I mean I'll hit one piece of it, "and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English". This is talked about as if some grand boon but of course it doesn't take into account the millions unemployed. The rest I'll not bother with, it's all cooked up nicely I'm sure for consumption for globalists looking for reinforcement but it doesn't cut the mustard with me.

 

The second does the often done tactic of immigrants == illegal immigrants. Immigration can be a positive that much is certain, I'm for careful controlled immigration myself for that matter. Illegal immigration however is a different ball game entirely. By virtue of being an illegal immigrant they are taking a job, no ifs or buts on that. At the very end realising this weakness it tries a real weak effort but I'd have to see more on what exactly they're on.

 

Like I said, I'm used to these globalist word games. They can cook and ready their statistics how they like, I ain't going to be falling for it.

You keep addressing me like I'm a Sanders supporter which I've not once said I am. My first paragraph was not even targeted against trump, but people who mobilize anger.

 

So you're not willing to acknowledge any statistics or just statistics you see as biased? I'm sure we can find a study among the countless that have been done which demonstrate that immigration, both legal and illegal, have little effect on the employment and wages of the working class. I've a feeling this point will have to be left unresolved.

 

You made a point about illegal immigrants being more or less job stealers simply because they are illegal. I'm not exactly sure how that logic plays out, but I've got an issue with using the term illegal as to somehow imply all laws are just or right. Obviously this is a very liberal view so I'll try and shape it into a discussion of policy. What is your definition of a controlled immigration policy?

[Rozalia]

You keep addressing me like I'm a Sanders supporter which I've not once said I am. My first paragraph was not even targeted against trump, but people who mobilize anger.

 

So you're not willing to acknowledge any statistics or just statistics you see as biased? I'm sure we can find a study among the countless that have been done which demonstrate that immigration, both legal and illegal, have little effect on the employment and wages of the working class. I've a feeling this point will have to be left unresolved.

 

You made a point about illegal immigrants being more or less job stealers simply because they are illegal. I'm not exactly sure how that logic plays out, but I've got an issue with using the term illegal as to somehow imply all laws are just or right. Obviously this is a very liberal view so I'll try and shape it into a discussion of policy. What is your definition of a controlled immigration policy?

 

I'm not. I'm bringing him up because by the whole fairness has not been done. All such things are also criticisms of Sanders, but you speak as if it's some unique factor to him.

 

??? That wasn't what I said. I don't have to disbelieve what they put down for it to be dishonest. Popular tactics is to not give the full context (like the first link) or to play word games and lump all immigrants into the illegal immigrant pile (like the second link). They could be fully accurate (and I doubt this, especially these illegal numbers and unemployment numbers such groups always lowblow), but only under the rules they've put down to purposely push their agenda. 

 

You need borders. You need a nation. The globalist insanity of no borders and all the rest isn't even idealistic, it's just so they can make more money. 

 

Not difficult. Reduce immigration to begin with. Deport illegals. Those who come legally should be given no trouble however no special treatment and the "swallowing up" of towns needs to be tackled. Push integration and if some of them want to become citizens then of course that can be done. The key of immigration should be to get good, loyal, culturally integrated people on board to make a stronger nation, not to create states within states.