Vondy Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Just because for some people "Jewish" and "white" are mutually exclusive. Makes no sense to me either, but then again I've never understood racism from a logical perspective. I'm kind of an outlier case to begin with, but your point is well received. For many white folk, Jews are only "ivory white." Stupid, but then, so is racism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Looks like they're calling Indiana for Bernie. More symbolic than anything, since all Dem primaries allocate delegates proportionally. I'm sure Hillary will be more than happy to continue losing states by single digits through June. It'll be interesting to see if Bernie's stubborn failure to lose moves the platform at all in the general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 How various foreign politicians and diplomats view the prospect of a Trump presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Putin seems to like the idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Argentina? This, I admit, is true. That being said (for the 2005 default, anyway), Argentina was also not a democracy for much of the period in which this external debt was incurred. In fact, Peron is probably the one guy you can point to and be all Jerry Pournelle. "See, this is how democracies always fail in the end!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Putin seems to like the idea... Which, for me, disqualifies it as a palatable choice. Putin playing Stalin to Trump's Hitler isn't a thing the world would benefit from seeing. gewing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Putin seems to like the idea... The article I linked to points out one big reason why: Trump is on record as not supporting the continuation of NATO, which Putin sees as the biggest threat to Russian dominance in Eastern Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 Kasich is gone now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptnStrawberry Posted May 4, 2016 Report Share Posted May 4, 2016 "Every country has the government it deserves" - Joseph de Maistre Enforcer84 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuSoardGraphite Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 This has to have been the most interesting election season I have ever witnessed. Between Trump and Bernie bucking the establishment, it gives me hope that the people will eventually wake up to the fallacy of the two party system and realize that they have more than two choices available to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 It's definitely Chinese curse* season here. *Disclaimer: "May you live in interesting times" cannot be attributed to the Chinese and seems to be an apocryphal expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 This has to have been the most interesting election season I have ever witnessed. Between Trump and Bernie bucking the establishment, it gives me hope that the people will eventually wake up to the fallacy of the two party system and realize that they have more than two choices available to them. Duverger's Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Actually, given that there were 17 candidates on one side and 6 on the other, I don't see how the voters were limited to only two choices. If you're an independent, yes, you may not have a say in who the two choices will be. That is the price paid for being an independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Posted 18 December 2015 - 02:29 PM Meanwhile, I've come to the conclusion that Trump will be the 2016 GOP presidential nominee, for three reasons: 1. Trump is gaffe-proof. This is because people already expect Trump to say ridiculous and offensive things, and because his base wants him to say ridiculous and offensive things. Could Jeb! get away with demanding the deportation of all Muslims? Lol no. 2. The nuclear option. There is nothing stopping Trump from running as an independent, and I have no doubt that he would if the establishment GOP forced him out. 3. He's one of the more electable GOP candidates. This is all relative, but don't forget that Trump was a registered Democrat at one point, and some of his economic positions are almost socialist by 2015 standards. And he's clearly the most charismatic of all the GOP candidates. Seriously, anything can happen between now and February, but at this point Trump would have to kick puppies on live TV for him to drop in the polls. From the previous (and now locked) thread. What do I win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vurbal Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Ternaugh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Actually, given that there were 17 candidates on one side and 6 on the other, I don't see how the voters were limited to only two choices. If you're an independent, yes, you may not have a say in who the two choices will be. That is the price paid for being an independent. Voters are limited to a choice of two parties. Different candidates may represent a variance in the party platform, but I think their ability to really steer the party platform is limited. So at the end of the day, you only get to chose between two platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 As a practical matter, even in parliamentary, multiparty systems, your choices are generally limited to 2 or 3 major parties, and often those systems are dominated by 2(or even a single party). Sure, you can vote for the We Only Have One Seat Party, but don't expect their policy agenda to be implemented any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuSoardGraphite Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 Actually, given that there were 17 candidates on one side and 6 on the other, I don't see how the voters were limited to only two choices. If you're an independent, yes, you may not have a say in who the two choices will be. That is the price paid for being an independent. I was talking just Republican and Democrat. On the Libertarian ticket, there are close to 10 candidtes. The Green Party seems to skew toward Jill Stein only, but it is an alternative for utra liberals to vote for....provided they get enough signatures to get put on the ballot in your state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 So, Trump laid out his agenda for the first 100 days: 1. Design the border wall 2. Impose the ban on Muslim immigration and visitation. 3. Audit the Fed 4. Repeal the Affordable Care Act I'm not seeing the pivot to the general here. This looks like doubling down to me. gewing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuSoardGraphite Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 So, Trump laid out his agenda for the first 100 days: 1. Design the border wall 2. Impose the ban on Muslim immigration and visitation. 3. Audit the Fed 4. Repeal the Affordable Care Act I'm not seeing the pivot to the general here. This looks like doubling down to me. #3 is long overdue. I support that. I have no problem with #2 as long as it is temporary to put better technology or techniques in place to discover radicalized elements trying to find their way into the country. #1 sounds like a pipe dream. Too expensive and theres no way mexico will pay for it. #4 is odd. I thought Trump said he didnt want to revisit "deals" that previous presidenta already made... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 2 is flatly unconstitutional on its face, since it's religious discrimination. It would have to be redesigned to simply delay admission long enough for background checks. gewing and Ragitsu 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 2 is also a frelling awful predictor of risk. The number of Muslims travelling to the USA is huge compared to the number who have actually committed terrorist attacks on your country. It's simple xenophobic nonsense spouted by a demagogue for his crazed constituency. It's simply mind-boggling that there are citizens of the USA who even passingly entertain the option. Your borders are not impermeable; if fanatics of any stripe want to get in and do you harm, they will, and picking on their religion will only fuel the desire of that vanishingly small minority of the Umma which wishes physical harm to be inflicted on your people to find those cracks in your borders, as well as fuelling the propaganda machines of Daesh and the Taleban whose purposes are only aided by demonstrating such mindless hatred. Are the US border agencies going to investigate every single person coming to the country who claims not to be a Muslim? Just to check that anyone isn't lying? No. So it won't even work. Trump is just feeding his trolls. Or at least dangling morsels in their cages so they get all riled up. wcw43921, Shadow Hawk and Lord Liaden 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted May 5, 2016 Report Share Posted May 5, 2016 So, Trump laid out his agenda for the first 100 days: 1. Design the border wall 2. Impose the ban on Muslim immigration and visitation. 3. Audit the Fed 4. Repeal the Affordable Care Act I'm not seeing the pivot to the general here. This looks like doubling down to me. A. "Nominate a Supreme Court Justice" should be in there somewhere as well. B. Given the large number of prominent Republicans who have already expressed that they won't be endorsing or supporting Trump (Romney, McCain, both Presidents Bush, et. al.), I don't know that any of this matters. I expect he, like the rest of us, will be watching what President Clinton does in her first 100 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 Considering how far we've come since Donald Trump looked like nothing but a joke candidate, I'm not taking anything for granted at this point. Starlord 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted May 6, 2016 Report Share Posted May 6, 2016 You make a good point, I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.