First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Donald Trump defends Bernie Sanders
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/13/16 , edited 4/13/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:
Why are you still using Drumpf? that was already debunked a while ago.


It was never debunked. The only thing unclear is when the name change occurred ( 1600s or 1800s ). But it was indeed originally Drumpf. Even Trump himself acknowledged it was Drumpf over a decade ago. Though I'm sure he'd like to forget having done so now.

10587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 4/13/16
I'm not a fan of Trump, but i see no reason why a possible name change should be of anyone's concern.
Unless someone can explain how a name change can affect his views on immigration, climate, etc, etc.
(hint: it does not)
14733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/13/16 , edited 4/13/16

namealreadytaken wrote:

I'm not a fan of Trump, but i see no reason why a possible name change should be of anyone's concern.
Unless someone can explain how a name change can affect his views on immigration, climate, etc, etc.
(hint: it does not)


Changing your name from Moe Shinkewicz to Brick Slaughter may inspire fear and respect if you're in the corporate world--where toupee's are acceptable and you're expected to be a plastic image of intimidation-fantasy--but if you're running for political office, it brings up questions about your earnestness, confident self-esteem, trustworthiness and honest interest in dealing with the voters on a personal level versus just selling them a packaged image.
10587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 4/13/16
if the major problem you have with a candidate is a name change, you're probably not old enough to consider voting.
it matters little what the name change may imply (or not), but rather what the candidate shows through words and actions.
you can't judge "trustworthiness" and "honesty" from a name alone. i mean, look at Hillary.
14733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/13/16 , edited 4/13/16

namealreadytaken wrote:

if the major problem you have with a candidate is a name change, you're probably not old enough to consider voting.
it matters little what the name change may imply (or not), but rather what the candidate shows through words and actions.
you can't judge "trustworthiness" and "honesty" from a name alone. i mean, look at Hillary.


That's just it--It's a MINOR problem, on a long, long list. (Look, I didn't even want to use the toupee' joke, that's cops-and-donut-shops by this point in the campaign.)
But when it's down near the bottom, it just makes a lot more sense in context of considering what's at the top.

When a candidate can't tell the difference between C-Span and Shark Tank, he may end up learning the hard way. Which says a lot about the world he comes from, and the world that people who vote come from.
16735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/13/16 , edited 4/13/16

runec wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:
Why are you still using Drumpf? that was already debunked a while ago.


It was never debunked. The only thing unclear is when the name change occurred ( 1600s or 1800s ). But it was indeed originally Drumpf. Even Trump himself acknowledged it was Drumpf over a decade ago. Though I'm sure he'd like to forget having done so now.



So my family name changed too over time because they had to translate from their native language into English then changed some letters to make it sound better in English. I don't see how this is even a thing you damn neo-birthers.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/13/16
You know, I keep hearing that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Bernie Sanders, but I just can't bring myself to believe it. Here's why.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-voters-split-between-clinton-trump-hypothetical-november-matchup-n554306


Hillary Clinton still leads the Democratic field nationally with 49 percent support among Democrats and Democratic-leaners, but her margin narrows slightly to six points from nine points last week, while Bernie Sanders has support from 43 percent of the Democratic electorate, according to the latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll.


That's a 6 point difference in national support among Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. Then there's these general electoral results from the same source to consider:



Those are not blowout victories even if they are victories. In fact, the spread of Clinton's victory over Trump in that poll is flirting with the margin of error. But let's be fair: that's just one poll through an online platform. Hardly enough to say anything for sure, right? So here are more covering a perfectly reasonable amount of time and representing a fairly wide range of polling institutions using telephone and online polling:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

The broader picture is indeed a bit better for Clinton. But here's the main question: how does that polling stack up against Sanders? We're not asking if Clinton wins, we're asking if she wins better than Sanders can. That's what it means to be more electable. Here are Sanders' results:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

Sanders is getting the bigger spreads, and he's been getting those huge spreads consistently for a very long time now. Sanders more consistently wins by double digits, and he wins by larger double digit figures than Clinton. Sanders has hit +20 multiple times.

Let's go back to the Clinton list for a minute. Let's look at a specific poll that was conducted by live telephone (landlines and cellular phones) in late March (3/16-3/21) by Quinnipiac since we were worried about potential exclusion of older voters by online polling. More particularly, let's have a look at the spread for matchups between Clinton v. Trump and Sanders v. Trump:



Sanders lapped Clinton's spread and started working his way toward double lapping her in that poll. What's more, their respective spreads in that poll aren't unusual compared to more current results. It's just a fact: Sanders polls better against the GOP's candidates than Clinton.

But it's still pretty far out from November, and anything could happen to those general polling results between now and then. That means we also need to pay attention to how effectively Clinton's doing in the places she has won and keep a reading on her favourability. Maybe when it's said that Clinton is more electable that's what people are paying attention to. Zooming in on a state that went to Clinton in a 50.1%-48.7% matchup, Massachusetts, we can get a reading of how far out of range Sanders is from competing with Clinton there now:

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/poll_massachusetts_voters_favo.html



Alright, so people in Massachusetts like Sanders more and he wins their votes more strongly against Trump. But what about broader trends in favourability? Maybe that's where Clinton shines?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Sanders polls fairly consistently on the favourable side, and often in double digits. Clinton is the exact opposite, virtually never polling favourably and even then only doing so in the single digits.

Worried that the poll tracker I'm using is Huffington Post? Well, it's not Huffington Post doing the polling, and what's more major polling institutions like Monmouth, Quinnipiac, and PPP are included, but fine. Here's the favourability data collected on Hillary Clinton by Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/favorability-people-news.aspx

She's still down double digits. It's not HuffPo distortion. Clinton really isn't particularly well-liked. Of course, she's not as strongly disliked as Donald Trump is outside his party (and quite a bit even within it), but that doesn't make her more electable than Sanders. If anything that provides further context for Sanders' blowout general electoral polling compared to Clinton: the person who is viewed favourably wins more strongly than the person who is viewed unfavourably when put up against the guy almost everyone hates.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating

Is it the demographic divides between Sanders and Clinton? Are we to believe that, when faced with someone with the sort of disapproval Donald Trump has, the demographics supporting Clinton would simply stay home if Sanders were the nominee? Because that's not what the national polling above indicated. It showed blowout victories for Sanders.

Is it stronger support for Clinton among independent voters? Part of the conventional wisdom predicting that Sanders will be at a disadvantage in the New York primary is that independents won't be allowed to vote. Independents have been part of what has made Sanders' candidacy possible. This fact has been used as a line of attack against Sanders by the Clinton campaign, which started questioning Sanders' party loyalty and crying that he wouldn't raise any money for legislative and state-level Democratic candidates. The Clinton line of attack is that Sanders is, in fact, an independent candidate wearing a "D" for convenience.

It's not party support (provided you're talking about the national field and not the party brass), it's not national favourability, it's not national general polling, it's not state general polling, it's not state favourability, it's not independent voters, and it's not demographics. On what grounds is Hillary Clinton more electable? She's electable, sure. But more electable than Sanders? The data I just went over say no.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/14/16

Rujikin wrote:
So my family name changed too over time because they had to translate from their native language into English then changed some letters to make it sound better in English. I don't see how this is even a thing you damn neo-birthers.


A) The fuck is a neo-birther?

B) Its a thing because the guy self values his own name at billions of dollars and wanks himself to sleep at night fantasizing about things he can plaster it on.



BlueOni wrote:
You know, I keep hearing that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Bernie Sanders, but I just can't bring myself to believe it. Here's why.


Hillary has spent literally years weathering every last piece of mud and bullshit the GOP could think off.

Conversely, the Eye of Mordor has not even turned on Sanders yet. The GOP would have a field day with the word "socialist". His poll numbers are not going to hold once the attack machine starts to spin up. Whereas Hillary's numbers are tempered by years of shit and mudslinging already. Not much is going to move them now.



5276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 4/14/16
Really there just needs to be less metagaming in the election. People need to just vote for whoever they think will do the best job. All of these tricks: Insisting someone can't win so people don't bother and make the assertion true, super delegates, super pacs, and trash talking.

Limit the amount of money campaigns can spend, Limit how long this can take, so that presidents don't spend half of their first term campaigning for the next one, have a time slot for this stuff, tell the media to keep their opinions to themselves, and tell them not to mention "requirements" for electability aside from the actual legal ones.

Someone can have views that are unpopular in their state, but that the country wants. They've been saying Sanders can't win since the beginning.
1125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/14/16

Jean104 wrote:

Really there just needs to be less metagaming in the election. People need to just vote for whoever they think will do the best job. All of these tricks: Insisting someone can't win so people don't bother and make the assertion true, super delegates, super pacs, and trash talking.

Limit the amount of money campaigns can spend, Limit how long this can take, so that presidents don't spend half of their first term campaigning for the next one, have a time slot for this stuff, tell the media to keep their opinions to themselves, and tell them not to mention "requirements" for electability aside from the actual legal ones.

Someone can have views that are unpopular in their state, but that the country wants. They've been saying Sanders can't win since the beginning.


Erm...I'm not from the US but doesn't your 1st Amendment cover freedom of speech and freedom of the press? How are you gonna make that last part stick?
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 4/14/16
So long trump gets over hillary I would be fine and then watch the firework happend.
16735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/14/16 , edited 4/14/16

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
So my family name changed too over time because they had to translate from their native language into English then changed some letters to make it sound better in English. I don't see how this is even a thing you damn neo-birthers.


A) The fuck is a neo-birther?

B) Its a thing because the guy self values his own name at billions of dollars and wanks himself to sleep at night fantasizing about things he can plaster it on.



BlueOni wrote:
You know, I keep hearing that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Bernie Sanders, but I just can't bring myself to believe it. Here's why.


Hillary has spent literally years weathering every last piece of mud and bullshit the GOP could think off.

Conversely, the Eye of Mordor has not even turned on Sanders yet. The GOP would have a field day with the word "socialist". His poll numbers are not going to hold once the attack machine starts to spin up. Whereas Hillary's numbers are tempered by years of shit and mudslinging already. Not much is going to move them now.




A) People that use an argument as stupid and pathetic as the birther argument.

B) Donald trump net worth: 4 Billion dollars, even google values him at billions of dollars. It's still better than these guys who value themselves based on how many different woman they can fuck.
19118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/14/16
Meanwhile Trump supporters are being shit on by Swedes.
5276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 4/14/16

RebRebel wrote:


Jean104 wrote:

Really there just needs to be less metagaming in the election. People need to just vote for whoever they think will do the best job. All of these tricks: Insisting someone can't win so people don't bother and make the assertion true, super delegates, super pacs, and trash talking.

Limit the amount of money campaigns can spend, Limit how long this can take, so that presidents don't spend half of their first term campaigning for the next one, have a time slot for this stuff, tell the media to keep their opinions to themselves, and tell them not to mention "requirements" for electability aside from the actual legal ones.

Someone can have views that are unpopular in their state, but that the country wants. They've been saying Sanders can't win since the beginning.


Erm...I'm not from the US but doesn't your 1st Amendment cover freedom of speech and freedom of the press? How are you gonna make that last part stick?


Might have to rely on public pressure and ratings for that. But I pretty sure there are rules about them saying knowing falsehoods.
14733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/14/16 , edited 4/14/16

The GOP would have a field day with the word "socialist".


They already do, but it's too farther down their Fear-Crisis list than depicting "Bill Clinton 2.0" as the unstoppable Democratic Antichrist.

It's the reason they keep shouting "It's Trump, Cruz or Hillary!" when, in fact, if they stopped to think, it's actually four choices.
When reminded, they quickly respond "Huh?...Oh yeah, but that's guy's just a Socialist, and he's probably not going to win anyway--ANYONE BUT HILLARY!!!!"
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.