I think you don't exactly understand why his supporters like him if you fear he may lose a bunch of them in the general election. Trump will most definitely dampen himself(not sure how much) to appease to much more people, but I strongly doubt he will be losing any of his supporters just because of that. Not to mention that they may even see it as him "pretending" to be more central in order to win, so I don't see his voters having a problem with it. Hillary is still most likely going to win regardless as I believe there's more people voting for democrat than there is on the republican side. Trump will need to have democrat voters vote him instead of Hillary, but I'm not sure how he plans to do that. I can see it happening with a few Bernie supporters as some really hate Hillary a lot, but they're a small enough number for it not to matter much. At this point it'll depend on how debates between Trump and Hillary go I'd say.
You are right in that I have not a clue of why anyone would like trump as president however I never said he would loose support from his current base. I said he would have to backtrack and basically change his rhetoric which would be a betrayal to his current base. But not that he would loose support from it. That said, it would be quite fun if trump rhetoric shies away from the racist, xenophobe and violent stuff which apparently made him popular and that costs him his base. It's unlikely but it would be funny....
You are right in that I have not a clue of why anyone would like trump as president however I never said he would loose support from his current base. I said he would have to backtrack and basically change his rhetoric which would be a betrayal to his current base. But not that he would loose support from it. That said, it would be quite fun if trump rhetoric shies away from the racist, xenophobe and violent stuff which apparently made him popular and that costs him his base. It's unlikely but it would be funny....
I don't agree that they should be arrested unless they extremely overdo it, but regardless I have no sympathy at all for heavily disruptive protesters.
Btw those that end up punched and thrown out with more violence aren't the innocent victims you make them out to be
It's not about having sympathy for them. I don't necessarily have any sympathy for anyone who is loud and obnoxious, but the law is the law.
Why are there any victims of violence at all? I'm not debating numbers or implying they would all beat the shit out of someone for protesting. But Trump has literally encouraged such things, so implying that all of this is in fact coincidental is just bullshit dude lol.
Has anyone asked her about it? A member of the KKK endorsing a democrat borders on troll behavior as it is. In the past when the KKK had way more influence in the south, the Democratic party had a completely a different makeup. We had Democratic and Republican members of congress who were members of the KKK.
I'm not naive, a reporter asking him about Duke's endorsement is clearly fishing for something, since this shit usually isn't addressed at all. But it's still relevant due to what has surrounded the campaign and what Trump has said himself. This sort of question is what is called a softball, a layup....but Trump didn't hit it out of the park at all. He just played dumb instead. Regardless of what he said afterwards, how can anyone think that something like this is anything but deliberate?
I don't see the point of insulting followers, but whatever floats your boat.
Put up with it in what way? The republican voters probably got played for the nomination, and from what it looks like he'll be the nominee. So it's almost unavoidable at this point. And from what it looks like it'll be Hillary on the other side. At the very least you can't disagree that this could be highly entertaining in the general election.
You've done the same by implying that the violent protesters are somehow characteristic of Sanders supporters.
I'm talking about expecting Trump to be different if he actually gets the election. It's one thing to hope, but what people say should mean something. And he's said a ton of awful things even before this campaign ever started. But that was back when he was a tabloid star just looking for his name in print, not running for leader of the free world. I'd like to think that I wouldn't be supporting him if he had stayed a Democrat either. Well, perhaps against Clinton....but we'll never know that will we?
Why "second choice"? I didn't say he's my second choice, I just prefer him over Hillary in the democrat side and wanted him to win that one.
Hm? What, are you regretting inviting me? I'm just saying that you're not the perfect role model of civil discussion either, but whatever. I'll try to tone it down with any ad hominems on my part.
Maybe, but it should be better than doing nothing at all I assume. No I wouldn't be happy, but it's not like Germans are currently anyone's problem. At least I see why those offensive generalizations are coming into play there. Btw did Trump say much about Germany? Afaik he only criticized Merkel but that's about it.
Yeah that reason is a bit silly. I guess people feel more attached to a guy who seems upfront and open? But it otherwise doesn't have much political meaning.
Maybe I'm just guessing since you didn't address it in your PM, but it seems that you dislike Merkel a lot, especially with how she's handled the immigration crisis over there. Not sure I can really blame you for that. You're probably drawn to Trump because he seems to view things in the complete opposite way, but these situations are NOT the same. Trying to suggest the same policies and attitude towards it is a big mistake.
But a lot of the people who go into the booth don't need many reasons to vote for someone. They're either the cynic who is voting against someone more than they are endorsing the person they vote for. Some only vote for the party they belong to, irrespective of who the person is or what they've done. Some vote for the person who mentions God the most. And yes, many vote for the person with the shittiest rhetoric, a la Trump.
Yes I did, did you? Maybe I missed it, could you show me where he said "I didn’t want to endorse Trump, but he promised me a position"? Because that's what the article says.
Why does something have to be verbatim for you to understand what is being said? lol...I don't think Carson was trying to get himself or Trump in trouble for such things.
Poor political decisions or not, I don't think that should devalue all the good things he did in his life as many people say. But people also shouldn't give more value to his political ideas just because of all he did, as those two are unrelated.
Well can you blame him? Instead of going down he's jumping ship, probably something most people would do.
I don't think what he's done in his surgeon career can ever be devalued, I wasn't suggesting that. Well of course they shouldn't give more value either, but they did. And that's why he went from being a guest speaker at a National Prayer Breakfast to getting a decent amount of support in the race. In debates it was obvious he didn't even have a decent grasp on the issues that were asked, and when he was complaining about not having any thing directed at him or the moderators themselves noticed his lack of participation and he was gifted time, he had nothing to say. It was only about "true conservatism" or a "flat tax" or "god". His views are archaic and ignorant. And in endorsing someone like Trump, it renders a lot of what he said about himself and his beliefs false. At least people like Jeb or Romney or potentially Rubio aren't going to be cucks for him just because he's leading. Trump a variety of personally insulting things about Ben Carson (true or not, isn't the point) and he still endorsed him and quite clearly expressed regret for the situation leading up to him doing that. That's not what a principled person does.
You are right in that I have not a clue of why anyone would like trump as president however I never said he would loose support from his current base. I said he would have to backtrack and basically change his rhetoric which would be a betrayal to his current base. But not that he would loose support from it. That said, it would be quite fun if trump rhetoric shies away from the racist, xenophobe and violent stuff which apparently made him popular and that costs him his base. It's unlikely but it would be funny....
Everyone becomes more centrist when the general election debates go on. Personally, as things are now, I think Clinton would destroy him in a debate. It's not so much about what he would say (who even knows what it could be...he could magically be a business-oriented Democrat again), it's his attitude. And honestly it bothers me quite a bit because I don't think she's ever outperformed Sanders or even O'Malley when he was still in the race.
Everyone becomes more centrist when the general election debates go on. Personally, as things are now, I think Clinton would destroy him in a debate. It's not so much about what he would say (who even knows what it could be...he could magically be a business-oriented Democrat again), it's his attitude. And honestly it bothers me quite a bit because I don't think she's ever outperformed Sanders or even O'Malley when he was still in the race.
True, there is that. I kinda have trouble imagining him toning down... The guy has been saying rather extreme things and the toning down in question would have to make him appealing to a rather larger number of people. How does he move towards the center enough to be appealing to a broad range of voters without simply denying what he has been saying so far. I guess in end it does not matter, the people who follow him will do so regardless.
It will depend on whether trump can get control over the debate as he did during in the earlier ones. Hillary might as well be out of her element here if it becomes a zinger battle. On the other hand if hillary manages to stay away from that she would likely "beat" him in a debate.
Stop putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that he didn't join Trump or wasn't offered anything. Maybe you should calmly reassess everything that was said?
not sure why people even trust Hillary when she's a slimy liar. At least Bernie is genuine and gives a shit about people. I'm sure Bernie would be doing far much better if Hillary didn't have the advantage of her last name and the media.
True, there is that. I kinda have trouble imagining him toning down... The guy has been saying rather extreme things and the toning down in question would have to make him appealing to a rather larger number of people. How does he move towards the center enough to be appealing to a broad range of voters without simply denying what he has been saying so far. I guess in end it does not matter, the people who follow him will do so regardless.
It will depend on whether trump can get control over the debate as he did during in the earlier ones. Hillary might as well be out of her element here if it becomes a zinger battle. On the other hand if hillary manages to stay away from that she would likely "beat" him in a debate.
He'll have to tone it down when he's with her or he'll have no real chance. All this leftist competition shit will evaporate when/if she gets to the general election. You'll have Trump head to head with her and she has infinitely more polish and will look sane compared to him. And as much as I'm not a fan of her, at least something substantive comes out of her mouth every once and while. Not sure whether the average person will be duped by the Trump shit when there's that stark of a contrast between who he's debating with. Trump benefited a lot from how much of an echo chamber this GOP primary has was at times and how scared everyone else was of him until it was too late.
Well, now that trump has bitch slapped the establishment this thoroughly the big big question for me is how exactly he will go about defeating Hillary. As popular as he is within the republican party to win the presidency I would think he needs to appeal to an even broader base of supporters. I would be quite surprised if the supporters he has now are enough to win him the presidency. Which means trump will likely have to backtrack a decent bit, lie his ass off, and say stuff which appeals to more people. Of course, such a change would by nature be a betrayal to his current supporters (as he would have to stop being an overtly racist and xenophobe caricature of a right wing nutjob who flaunts his wealth as if it gave him moral highground) but then again that might be preferable in his view to not having a chance.
Can easily win since people dont go to the polls with strategic polling in mind (that is people who are republican wont go to the polls to vote for Clinton, and vice versa). I imagine election turn out in November is going to be lower than other elections if Hillary Rodham Obama and Donald Trump are our candidates of choice.
It is very amusing when people question Obama improving the country's image. most people I've come across who aren't Americans usually say how he was good for the country or how violent he was. I'm willing to bet Hillary or Trump/Cruz will destroy the image again, just as Bush did.
I think it is too early to tell. Even if Hillary is not the candidate democrats want (I think deep down they want bernie but are settling for hillary) it is entirely possible they take enough issue with the possibility of trump being president. Voting against someone can be a pretty powerful thing. It is anyone's guess right now but trump's rhetoric which has gotten him support from certain areas could easily backfire in that regard. Of course, at this point it is anyone's guess.
It's not about having sympathy for them. I don't necessarily have any sympathy for anyone who is loud and obnoxious, but the law is the law.
Why are there any victims of violence at all? I'm not debating numbers or implying they would all beat the shit out of someone for protesting. But Trump has literally encouraged such things, so implying that all of this is in fact coincidental is just bullshit dude lol.
The law goes both ways here and both sides are breaking it, and people on both sides are getting charged/arrested. Interestingly enough however in most cases the protesters are the first ones to use violence.
Maybe I'm just guessing since you didn't address it in your PM, but it seems that you dislike Merkel a lot, especially with how she's handled the immigration crisis over there. Not sure I can really blame you for that. You're probably drawn to Trump because he seems to view things in the complete opposite way, but these situations are NOT the same. Trying to suggest the same policies and attitude towards it is a big mistake.
You may be on to something here with your assessment. I know both situations aren't the same, and he may be overestimating the immigrant problem in America. There's countless things to consider in his wall with Mexico so arguing over it's usefulness/uselessness doesn't come to a definite conclusion. But for me personally his wall is very symbolic of him and his policies, and I see it as a good thing compared to the...nothing of the others.
But a lot of the people who go into the booth don't need many reasons to vote for someone. They're either the cynic who is voting against someone more than they are endorsing the person they vote for. Some only vote for the party they belong to, irrespective of who the person is or what they've done. Some vote for the person who mentions God the most. And yes, many vote for the person with the shittiest rhetoric, a la Trump.
Indeed. Generally there's more people who don't put much thought into the voting than there's people who do. But with the everyday problems people normally have it's understandable why they wouldn't care. Presidents aren't total rulers so ultimately whoever gets elected won't be able to monumentally change the everyday life, especially not fast enough for people to notice which is probably why so many don't care. And that's not America exclusive, I've seen enough elections in Europe to say it's the same thing here.
Why does something have to be verbatim for you to understand what is being said? lol...I don't think Carson was trying to get himself or Trump in trouble for such things.
I wonder, maybe because the title is "Ben Carson: I didn’t want to endorse Trump, but he promised me a position"??? It's total clickbait bullshit. I go there expecting to see Carson actually admit that, but in the end it's just people's assumtions. While there's nothing wrong with assuming it's far from the guy admitting it himself.
I don't think what he's done in his surgeon career can ever be devalued, I wasn't suggesting that. Well of course they shouldn't give more value either, but they did. And that's why he went from being a guest speaker at a National Prayer Breakfast to getting a decent amount of support in the race. In debates it was obvious he didn't even have a decent grasp on the issues that were asked, and when he was complaining about not having any thing directed at him or the moderators themselves noticed his lack of participation and he was gifted time, he had nothing to say. It was only about "true conservatism" or a "flat tax" or "god". His views are archaic and ignorant. And in endorsing someone like Trump, it renders a lot of what he said about himself and his beliefs false. At least people like Jeb or Romney or potentially Rubio aren't going to be cucks for him just because he's leading. Trump a variety of personally insulting things about Ben Carson (true or not, isn't the point) and he still endorsed him and quite clearly expressed regret for the situation leading up to him doing that. That's not what a principled person does.
You'd be surprised how many people instantly call him a terrible human being since his endorsement lmao. I was actually looking forward to a lot from him since he said he was running but he was rather disappointing there, I knew he'd drop out eventually after the first few debates. And while Trump does go against several things Carson said, I guess he just wants a republican win? And some personal gain as well if Trump wins, although he said they didn't come to full terms of the specifics.
I swear Donald is just memeing at this point. And this was even running on live TV as an ad several times from what I've heard. Priceless. I didn't follow the democrat side too much, but was Clinton seriously barking in one of her rallies?
Everyone becomes more centrist when the general election debates go on. Personally, as things are now, I think Clinton would destroy him in a debate. It's not so much about what he would say (who even knows what it could be...he could magically be a business-oriented Democrat again), it's his attitude. And honestly it bothers me quite a bit because I don't think she's ever outperformed Sanders or even O'Malley when he was still in the race.
What makes you so confident of Clinton? From what I know she hasn't been under any fire during the democrat debates with any highly spicy questions, and there's a lot to be asked which Trump most definitely will. So I'm unsure if she's good at answering tough personal questions that may touch a nerve.
According to research, there are some states making it harder for people to vote as apparently, the lower the turnout the higher the chances for republican winning. Probably one reason why Bernie is having a hard time. And according to his supporters, the media chose to ignore his speech from losing a state or two because they wanted to cover Trump's speech. Even more proof Bernie has all the odds against him, if this is true, and why it's amazing he was able to get the momentum he got.
I don't get calling Hillary, Hillary Rodham Obama. I"m sure Obama is a better person and president than Hillary will ever be. I wonder if the same people who bitched about Obama hurting the country's image will do the same when Trump or Hillary actually hurts the country's image.
According to research, there are some states making it harder for people to vote as apparently, the lower the turnout the higher the chances for republican winning. Probably one reason why Bernie is having a hard time. And according to his supporters, the media chose to ignore his speech from losing a state or two because they wanted to cover Trump's speech. Even more proof Bernie has all the odds against him, if this is true, and why it's amazing he was able to get the momentum he got.
I don't get calling Hillary, Hillary Rodham Obama. I"m sure Obama is a better person and president than Hillary will ever be. I wonder if the same people who bitched about Obama hurting the country's image will do the same when Trump or Hillary actually hurts the country's image.
How are states making it harder? People knew fully well in advance that one may need to register to even vote in their primary and it isnt even hidden if people need to bring an ID to a polling place or not. Even then, Sanders loses by a landslide in many states so its highly unlikely that "poor turnout" is the reason he's being demolished by Hillary Rodham Obama.
Its also his fault if he scheduled his speech at the same time Trump was already speaking, Clinton did the same in one of the saturday primarys which was a baffling choice to do as every network was focused on Trump who had started before her. If he really wanted to be focused on he should have spoke at a time when others didnt.
Lastly why would you air a speech of a loser who isn't really conceding when other more vital people are speaking?
And Hillary Rodham Obama makes sense when democratic voters continue to vote for her and for a candidate who will *continue Obama's policies*
There's also much more viewers whenever something Trump related is going on, so the media uses it for profit as well. There's some interesting statistics in that matter, it's really not surprising that they'd focus on Trump's speeches over the others.
According to research, there are some states making it harder for people to vote as apparently, the lower the turnout the higher the chances for republican winning. Probably one reason why Bernie is having a hard time. And according to his supporters, the media chose to ignore his speech from losing a state or two because they wanted to cover Trump's speech. Even more proof Bernie has all the odds against him, if this is true, and why it's amazing he was able to get the momentum he got.
I don't get calling Hillary, Hillary Rodham Obama. I"m sure Obama is a better person and president than Hillary will ever be. I wonder if the same people who bitched about Obama hurting the country's image will do the same when Trump or Hillary actually hurts the country's image.
Is that about states requiring IDs for people to vote?
What about hillary are you worried about regarding how she will affect US image? In the end her image will depend on what her policies are like however at least right now it does not seem like she hurts anything. Although being fair she does not necessary aid anything either, she seems sort of neutral. Going online a bit suggests some US allies see her as too right wing. As far as I can tell any of the republican candidates would hurt the country's image merely by being there. I mean, they are already disliked as it is (I could be wrong about that but that is the impression I get).
As far as I can tell any of the republican candidates would hurt the country's image merely by being there. I mean, they are already disliked as it is (I could be wrong about that but that is the impression I get).
The law goes both ways here and both sides are breaking it, and people on both sides are getting charged/arrested. Interestingly enough however in most cases the protesters are the first ones to use violence.
You're generalizing both sides here. But the fact remains that one side is spurned on by a demagogue who says things in direct defiance of the law. That's not "telling things like it is" that's telling things that the racist and ignorant want to hear. Just look at his comments about there being riots if he isn't given the nomination. No responsible leader would even utter that word. You can't have it both ways. You're either against violence and civil unrest or you aren't. Trump is only against it when it runs in direct conflict with his aims.
You may be on to something here with your assessment. I know both situations aren't the same, and he may be overestimating the immigrant problem in America. There's countless things to consider in his wall with Mexico so arguing over it's usefulness/uselessness doesn't come to a definite conclusion. But for me personally his wall is very symbolic of him and his policies, and I see it as a good thing compared to the...nothing of the others.
It's not an overestimation of the problem, it's that what he's proposing isn't a solution. Like it or not, illegals are a vital part of our workforce. They're the ones breaking the law, but it's also businesses fault for paying people under the table with no consequences. Trump himself has been someone who has done this despite his position. I don't see how breaking up families and then spending billions to build a wall is a solution. You can say you like his approach to it more than what his "solution" is but the practicality of what someone wants to do still matters. Policy matters.
I wonder, maybe because the title is "Ben Carson: I didn’t want to endorse Trump, but he promised me a position"??? It's total clickbait bullshit. I go there expecting to see Carson actually admit that, but in the end it's just people's assumtions. While there's nothing wrong with assuming it's far from the guy admitting it himself.
This title wasn't a quote. I mean, we can debate the journalistic integrity of such things all day. It happens everywhere by both sides...but that is essentially what he said. And all he's done since then is try to backtrack on it because of how shitty it looks.
You'd be surprised how many people instantly call him a terrible human being since his endorsement lmao. I was actually looking forward to a lot from him since he said he was running but he was rather disappointing there, I knew he'd drop out eventually after the first few debates. And while Trump does go against several things Carson said, I guess he just wants a republican win? And some personal gain as well if Trump wins, although he said they didn't come to full terms of the specifics.
I swear Donald is just memeing at this point. And this was even running on live TV as an ad several times from what I've heard. Priceless. I didn't follow the democrat side too much, but was Clinton seriously barking in one of her rallies?
Priceless as a meme, sure. But all that is doing it rallying his "troops". No one on the fence is going to look at that ad and take anything out of it except Trump's pettiness.
What makes you so confident of Clinton? From what I know she hasn't been under any fire during the democrat debates with any highly spicy questions, and there's a lot to be asked which Trump most definitely will. So I'm unsure if she's good at answering tough personal questions that may touch a nerve.
Because the primaries are a different race from a general election. In the general you have to actually propose common sense things and bring people to your cause. In case you haven't noticed, Trump has a giant problem with likability among all voters. Clinton isn't necessarily stellar among certain demographics either, but all Trump has to do is talk about her in the wrong way and any headway he thinks he's made with independents will be erased. He's definitely entertaining I guess, but it's not in his nature to say ridiculous things and then have to backtrack. He might appear teflon among conservative voters, but the majority of voters tend to be liberals.
How are states making it harder? People knew fully well in advance that one may need to register to even vote in their primary and it isnt even hidden if people need to bring an ID to a polling place or not. Even then, Sanders loses by a landslide in many states so its highly unlikely that "poor turnout" is the reason he's being demolished by Hillary Rodham Obama.
Its also his fault if he scheduled his speech at the same time Trump was already speaking, Clinton did the same in one of the saturday primarys which was a baffling choice to do as every network was focused on Trump who had started before her. If he really wanted to be focused on he should have spoke at a time when others didnt.
Lastly why would you air a speech of a loser who isn't really conceding when other more vital people are speaking?
And Hillary Rodham Obama makes sense when democratic voters continue to vote for her and for a candidate who will *continue Obama's policies*
Requiring specific kinds of IDs, saying this or that ID doesn't work, etc etc. You can always Google "how states are making it harder for people to vote."
Trump wasn't already speaking, but it's clear that the media is one of the main reasons why Bernie has difficulty, and why he's not doing as well as he could have been. I'm willin to bet if the media wasn't sucking Hillary and Trump's dicks from the beginning, Bernie would likely be beating Hillary as more people would know of him and realize he's a great choice. I'm pretty sure regardless of what, Bernie would be ignored just because he's not a dumbass like a republican candidate or has the media in his pockets like Hillary and Trump.
I see nothing wrong with continuing some of Obama's policies.
Is that about states requiring IDs for people to vote?
What about hillary are you worried about regarding how she will affect US image? In the end her image will depend on what her policies are like however at least right now it does not seem like she hurts anything. Although being fair she does not necessary aid anything either, she seems sort of neutral. Going online a bit suggests some US allies see her as too right wing. As far as I can tell any of the republican candidates would hurt the country's image merely by being there. I mean, they are already disliked as it is (I could be wrong about that but that is the impression I get).
I'm not worried about how others see the US, I'm just more annoyed at people crying about Obama hurting the image (although he's done the opposite) but they want to vote for someone who actually will hurt the image. I don't think Hillary is too popular out of US, especially in countries affected by her/Bill.
I think it's Cruz and Trump who are intensely disliked. Rubio was considered the best choice while people see Bernie as a good choice. They also think Obama did a good job for the most part.
Milly is right here though. It's an objective truth that the higher the voter turnout is, the more Democrats win. States introducing stupid and obstructionist laws regarding voting has been an issue since the civil right's movement...well before that even in one fashion or another. The fact is, Democrats aren't going into majority white districts and doing such things to them. Granted, that would probably be a waste of time given the numbers, but do know what happens in the other case historically.
I'm just saying that you're not the perfect role model of civil discussion either, but whatever. I'll try to tone it down with any ad hominems on my part.
