GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[Forty Two]

Well he certainly won't while people keep refusing to accept him as a genuine candidate.

No, it's that we're already more than half way through the voting nationally, so unless he not only gets accepted as a genuine candidate, but wins in an absolute landslide for all the remaining states (taking 2/3 of all remaining delegates) he can't possibly win. It's math, not sentiment.

I'm talking about before the voting began.

Before the voting began, he was accepted as a serious candidate. He is still accepted as a serious candidate. Just because he doesn't have much of a chance to win doesn't mean he's not a serious candidate.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Of course I have. Arguably truthful on all of them. And, that's all that matters.

You've done a superb job of convincing yourself that Trump isn't lying, and that's all that matters to you. Why all this effort to defend him? Why does it matter to you? You're completely willing to point out that Clinton is a liar, but when it comes to Trump, it appears that your standard has changed.

Differences of opinion, even reasonable ones, don't make what one side or the other side says "false." These are really silly "fact checks" and they're using a standard they don't apply to the other candidates. I've read a lot of Politifact's stuff. Where there is an issue like the Iran nuclear weapons thing, if the words were uttered by Hillary, they'd rate it "mostly true" with the caveat that experts aren't sure...

We have your assertion that there is a double standard. That counts for nothing.

None of theme can be deemed lies, let alone "blatant" lies. Differences of opinion on the likelihood of Iran having nuclear weapons after the iran treaty expires are not blatant lies, particularly when the expert cited by the Poltiifact to debunk Trump actually comes fairly close to agreeing with Trump.

As I pointed out, Trump didn't express it as an opinion, he predicted what would happen in no uncertain terms.

The assertion that he owns the winery "100%" was a blatant lie. The assertion that "Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries" was a blatant lie. Only a person desperate to "win" a discussion would say otherwise.

I went to the link, and I went down, one by one, the statements you said were Trump lies. The Club for Growth statement is not a Trump lie.

You're misrepresenting what I said. I invited you to look at the page I linked and pick out some statements from Trump. I never said that everything on the page would be one of his lies. Your desperate attempt to defend that colossally dishonest mountebank is rather pathetic.

[L'Emmerdeur]

"Former Trump strategist disavows support for GOP front-runner in scathing tell-all column — 'Trump never intended to be the candidate, but his pride is too out of control to stop him now’"

A former strategist for a pro-Donald Trump Super PAC claimed in a shocking column that even the GOP front-runner himself was surprised at his electoral success and never had any real intention of being President.

The man does not know policy, nor does he have the humility to admit what he does not know — the most frightening position of all.

I remember watching the second Trump debate and thinking, After this, he is going to have to start hammering it home on policy; the country needs substance to make an informed decision.

I wished for it six months ago and am still waiting for it today. He had an opportunity after the terror attacks in Belgium and instead he used the opportunity to talk about closing the borders and what a mess that country had become. I was appalled that he offered no condolences or words of support; he merely gave his “build a wall” stump speech and talked about his greatness.

I felt sad for him at that moment.

And now, with the latest horrifying terror attack in Pakistan, my sadness has turned into anger.

I consider myself a part of the silent majority that led to Trump’s rise, which is why I want you to know that I am with you — I wanted Trump to be real, too.

He is not.

He even says so himself. His misogyny? That’s the character.

His presidential candidacy? That’s a character, too.

The problem with characters is they are the stuff of soap operas and sitcoms and reality competitions — not political legacies.

[source]

[laklak]

We changed our name when we immigrated, turned "Mac" into "Mc". That was immigrating to Ireland, though.

[JimC]

There's something about this thread that reminds me of theologians debating how many angels can fit on the end of a pin...

[pErvinalia]

You can put as much or as little weight on my personal knowledge, which is that in our local dialect 'Drumpf' is short for 'Dummkopf'. It does amuse me as much as the name of police Sergeant Gamble, who worked in the NSW Special Gaming Squad, or that of the 30th Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Sin. I can probably find an online reference for one of the three, but to me they are as funny with as without such provenance.

Fair enough. Even if you are correct, it really says nothing about Donald Trump. If he changed his own name, sure. But, his grandfather changing his name? In the US, that's not even uncommon.

So if it's common why did he make fun of John Stewart for doing it?

Is this really that difficult? Because Stewart changed his name for show biz purposes, because he was embarrassed by his real name. Trump never changed his name.

Moreover, of what import is it that Trump made fun of Stewart? Does that suddenly make it funny that Trump's grandfather changed his name?

You've got to be taking the piss. I've never seen anyone so wilfully ignore the point.

[pErvinalia]

Well he certainly won't while people keep refusing to accept him as a genuine candidate.

No, it's that we're already more than half way through the voting nationally, so unless he not only gets accepted as a genuine candidate, but wins in an absolute landslide for all the remaining states (taking 2/3 of all remaining delegates) he can't possibly win. It's math, not sentiment.

I'm talking about before the voting began.

Before the voting began, he was accepted as a serious candidate. He is still accepted as a serious candidate. Just because he doesn't have much of a chance to win doesn't mean he's not a serious candidate.

Of course he wasn't accepted as a serious candidate. You only need to read what people have said here, and see the bias in the media against him (Washington Post has been extreme). Hillary is the serious candidate. The best example is a mate of mine who is largely pretty similar politically to me (that is, Sanders is a MUCH closer alignment to his politics than Cunton) but he right from the start backed Hillary as he thought that she was the only chance of beating a republican. Now he's looking increasingly silly as he's digging in over Hillary (by posting glowing press articles about her, some even disparaging Bernie), despite polls now showing Sanders a bigger chance of beating the repubs than her.

[laklak]

I'm have trouble taking any of this clown car cavalcade seriously. There's the Shrill Old Man, the Harridan, Bombastic Shit Hair, and the Pervy Worship Leader. What a choice.

[Tero]

From Seattle paper, The Stranger:
And over on the Republican side, things are a million times worse (as always). Forty thousand people have signed a petition to allow guns at the convention in July. As fervent as the Hillary and Bernie supporters can get, Trump is the only candidate whose rallies are a regular forum for violent attacks. So if you can only attend one convention this year, I'd recommend skipping the one with armed lunatics.

[pErvinalia]

Seth will be there!

[piscator]

I'm have trouble taking any of this clown car cavalcade seriously. There's the Shrill Old Man, the Harridan, Bombastic Shit Hair, and the Pervy Worship Leader. What a choice.

Boo hoo. A southern white boy can't vote for the lyin' whore Democrat bitch wife of America's first black President, so Trump is the only way to vote against her at this point.
It's not a lack of choice for y'all. You made your choices a long time ago.

[Tero]

Snopes investigates Trump Jesus and Muslims
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-jesus-muslims/

[Animavore]

Drumpf supporters first pepper spray, then yell “n****r lover” to 15-year-old protester in Paul Ryan’s hometown

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/trump_s ... socialflow

[Forty Two]

You can put as much or as little weight on my personal knowledge, which is that in our local dialect 'Drumpf' is short for 'Dummkopf'. It does amuse me as much as the name of police Sergeant Gamble, who worked in the NSW Special Gaming Squad, or that of the 30th Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Sin. I can probably find an online reference for one of the three, but to me they are as funny with as without such provenance.

Fair enough. Even if you are correct, it really says nothing about Donald Trump. If he changed his own name, sure. But, his grandfather changing his name? In the US, that's not even uncommon.

So if it's common why did he make fun of John Stewart for doing it?

Is this really that difficult? Because Stewart changed his name for show biz purposes, because he was embarrassed by his real name. Trump never changed his name.

Moreover, of what import is it that Trump made fun of Stewart? Does that suddenly make it funny that Trump's grandfather changed his name?

You've got to be taking the piss. I've never seen anyone so wilfully ignore the point. [/quote

You've got to be pretending. You're the one that asked "if it's so common why did he make fun of John Steward for doing it?"

Dude -- it WAS common, 100 to 150 fucking years ago, among immigrants moving to the US. Trump never changed his damn name. Stewart did change his name. It makes sense that one can be made fun of for something one has done oneself. To be made fun of for something one's grandfather does kind of falls rather flat, doesn't it? Like if your grandfather slipped on a banana peel and people laughed at you for it, would that make sense?

[Forty Two]

Well he certainly won't while people keep refusing to accept him as a genuine candidate.

No, it's that we're already more than half way through the voting nationally, so unless he not only gets accepted as a genuine candidate, but wins in an absolute landslide for all the remaining states (taking 2/3 of all remaining delegates) he can't possibly win. It's math, not sentiment.

I'm talking about before the voting began.

Before the voting began, he was accepted as a serious candidate. He is still accepted as a serious candidate. Just because he doesn't have much of a chance to win doesn't mean he's not a serious candidate.

Of course he wasn't accepted as a serious candidate. You only need to read what people have said here, and see the bias in the media against him (Washington Post has been extreme). Hillary is the serious candidate. The best example is a mate of mine who is largely pretty similar politically to me (that is, Sanders is a MUCH closer alignment to his politics than Cunton) but he right from the start backed Hillary as he thought that she was the only chance of beating a republican. Now he's looking increasingly silly as he's digging in over Hillary (by posting glowing press articles about her, some even disparaging Bernie), despite polls now showing Sanders a bigger chance of beating the repubs than her.

He's appeared to be a serious candidate for the last several months here in the US. I can't vouch for the reporting where you are, but here he has much more major media support than Trump, or any Republican candidate for that matter. Now, clearly, Hillary is the establishment candidate, that's for sure. So, the Democratic Party itself has been pushing Hillary. Hillary has the backing of Wall Street and such, but Sanders still has been taken seriously.

He has a reasonable point of view, your friend, when he says he supports Hillary as the one with the better chance to beat the GOP. There is a factual basis for that, and if one views a GOP President as far worse than a Hillary Presidency over Sanders in an overall balancing test, then that's a reasonable position to take. He may be, ultimately, wrong -- but maybe not. He may be right.