Planet Rugby Forum

saffer13 wrote:So Donald seems to be taking the "coal-miners" vote away from Hillary that her husband was able to secure for the dems a few years back. Obama and now Hillary have managed to push them away again...

80,000 coal miners...
If 50% vote that is 40,000...
Most in red states already....
She lost the vote of 3 guys and their dog, and realistically.... the square root of 2/3 of 3/5 of zero delegates.

Before anyone on either side gets wound up... focus on the truly substantive issues.

I have never seen an election this polarized. This thread is a microcosm of that.
IF the vote were held today... Hillary would win in a landslide.
Donald's best hope is to find an issue and get serious momentum. If that happens then the GOP will rally around a perceived "winner" and go full bore. But he is pooched because his party and the apparatchiks don't want to tie their wagons to a lost cause. If he doesn't develop momentum by July, they will save their powder and start looking at 2020.

zippy wrote:

saffer13 wrote:So Donald seems to be taking the "coal-miners" vote away from Hillary that her husband was able to secure for the dems a few years back. Obama and now Hillary have managed to push them away again...

80,000 coal miners...
If 50% vote that is 40,000...
Most in red states already....
She lost the vote of 3 guys and their dog, and realistically.... the square root of 2/3 of 3/5 of zero delegates.

Before anyone on either side gets wound up... focus on the truly substantive issues.

I have never seen an election this polarized. This thread is a microcosm of that.
IF the vote were held today... Hillary would win in a landslide.
Donald's best hope is to find an issue and get serious momentum. If that happens then the GOP will rally around a perceived "winner" and go full bore. But he is pooched because his party and the apparatchiks don't want to tie their wagons to a lost cause. If he doesn't develop momentum by July, they will save their powder and start looking at 2020.

There is always the possibility of a dramatic event that could dramatically shift how people view the race. But short of Mexican troops crossing the border, I'm unsure what could actually swing sentiment in Trump's favour. Even a Paris type event might not help Trump, but actually benefit a more hawkishly perceived Hillary.

Brian9848 wrote:So, to be clear, you apparently you think Trump does not have serious challenges to overcome i.e. damaging polling, demographic and unfavourable data? I think I've fully supported the point I was trying to make, namely that Trump has such challenges, and that he is up against it. The attached Politico story with polling data suggests that he's struggle to even secure the GOP base.

I know what you want to believe. Rather than waste my time telling you the same thing again, just watch the Van Jones piece posted earlier. You evidently do not understand the effort that will be needed to get key demographics enthusiastic about actually showing up to the polls and casting a vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8 - millennials in particular. Each campaign will press their base(s) to turn out in force for "the most important election of your lifetime." You have no way of predicting who will be more successful.

Brian9848 wrote:

zippy wrote:

saffer13 wrote:So Donald seems to be taking the "coal-miners" vote away from Hillary that her husband was able to secure for the dems a few years back. Obama and now Hillary have managed to push them away again...

80,000 coal miners...
If 50% vote that is 40,000...
Most in red states already....
She lost the vote of 3 guys and their dog, and realistically.... the square root of 2/3 of 3/5 of zero delegates.

Before anyone on either side gets wound up... focus on the truly substantive issues.

I have never seen an election this polarized. This thread is a microcosm of that.
IF the vote were held today... Hillary would win in a landslide.
Donald's best hope is to find an issue and get serious momentum. If that happens then the GOP will rally around a perceived "winner" and go full bore. But he is pooched because his party and the apparatchiks don't want to tie their wagons to a lost cause. If he doesn't develop momentum by July, they will save their powder and start looking at 2020.

There is always the possibility of a dramatic event that could dramatically shift how people view the race. But short of Mexican troops crossing the border, I'm unsure what could actually swing sentiment in Trump's favour. Even a Paris type event might not help Trump, but actually benefit a more hawkishly perceived Hillary.

He hasn't started his campaign against her yet, he's been focussed on getting the nomination.

Brian9848 wrote:Even a Paris type event might not help Trump, but actually benefit a more hawkishly perceived Hillary.

This guy knows his stuff.

Trump may be a loose cannon but he's not insane. No way that Gingrich is his VP pick.

It is funny that West Virginia is a red state. Used to be very Democrat. If you transplanted UK politics into the U.S., it'd be the most old school Labour of all 50 states.

There's two demographics I think Trump can make headway: organized labor and maybe blacks. Organized labor is easiest to see. His message is tailor-made for them and the Democratic Party in 2016 does not give a rat's ass about organized labor (the leaders will back Hillary, talking about the workers). What's key here though is that's biggest in the upper Midwest and northeast, which vote Democrat normally. So can he wins enough more votes there to actually change state winners? Blacks depends on how strong the Democrats get their "he's a racist" message across. He's never said anything bad about blacks, more immigrants, which is not the black vote and blacks in my experience don't like immigrants anyway because they undercut them on jobs. Here though it's all a question of degree. Romney and McCain got about nothing vs. Obama so it won't be difficult to improve on that. However, blacks heavily supported Hillary's candidacy vs. Bernie. So it may be something like Trump goes up from 8% to 14%, but it doesn't really change the math of the race. (If Sanders were the candidate, this would be a lot more words here.) But throw on top of that his share of women and Hispanics will go down. So his prospects in say New Jersey would improve but it's at the expense of say Florida and Arizona.

Bowens wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:So, to be clear, you apparently you think Trump does not have serious challenges to overcome i.e. damaging polling, demographic and unfavourable data? I think I've fully supported the point I was trying to make, namely that Trump has such challenges, and that he is up against it. The attached Politico story with polling data suggests that he's struggle to even secure the GOP base.

I know what you want to believe. Rather than waste my time telling you the same thing again, just watch the Van Jones piece posted earlier. You evidently do not understand the effort that will be needed to get key demographics enthusiastic about actually showing up to the polls and casting a vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8 - millennials in particular. Each campaign will press their base(s) to turn out in force for "the most important election of your lifetime." You have no way of predicting who will be more successful.

Yes, while I will make no puerile claims about your understanding, I will support my argument with some facts. Polls, flawed as they are, are the best available predictive tool we have and they are not that kind to Trump right now.

As to your point about millennials, please understand this.. Two recent polls show Trump getting crushed by this group. For example, a recent Harvard poll (margin of error of 2.4% http://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/harva ... -2016-poll) found that Hillary holds a 36pt advantage over Trump, 61% to 25%, with 14% undecided. More than 60% of millennials surveyed said they want a Democratic president in 2016, while just 33% want a Republican in the White House. The gap has nearly doubled from this point last year.

As for enthusiasm....well Hillary actually leads there too among millennials with 60% of Hillary supporters said they were enthusiastic, while only 51% of Trump supporters claimed that they were enthusiastic about their preferred candidate.

Similarly, a USA Today poll showed "Millenials would flock to Clinton against Trump" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /81612520/

Conclusive? Absolutely not, just some more data/'evidence" that supports my argument that Trump may have too much to overcome.

I think the irony here is that, in short, you've shown little more than your own wishful thinking. So, hold on to it, or step up.

zt1903 wrote:Trump may be a loose cannon but he's not insane. No way that Gingrich is his VP pick.

FWIW, according to some reports, he is being heavily considered and may even be favoured: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... nt-nominee

Bowens wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:Even a Paris type event might not help Trump, but actually benefit a more hawkishly perceived Hillary.

This guy knows his stuff.

Seriously, stop being a child. There are a broad range of political views that can be reasonably represented and supported on a thread like this.

As to my point above, Hillary might very well be viewed as more stable, more presidential and better positioned to guide the US through such a crisis/response vs Trump's rhetoric on Muslims.

No matter your feelings about The Don, his supporters and especially limp-wrist lefties, this was a highlight so far.

Small leftie in front of queue, shooting at Trump supporters. Real heroic like....

https://youtu.be/BtZnkccBGIo

Brian9848 wrote:

Bowens wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:So, to be clear, you apparently you think Trump does not have serious challenges to overcome i.e. damaging polling, demographic and unfavourable data? I think I've fully supported the point I was trying to make, namely that Trump has such challenges, and that he is up against it. The attached Politico story with polling data suggests that he's struggle to even secure the GOP base.

I know what you want to believe. Rather than waste my time telling you the same thing again, just watch the Van Jones piece posted earlier. You evidently do not understand the effort that will be needed to get key demographics enthusiastic about actually showing up to the polls and casting a vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8 - millennials in particular. Each campaign will press their base(s) to turn out in force for "the most important election of your lifetime." You have no way of predicting who will be more successful.

Yes, while I will make no puerile claims about your understanding, I will support my argument with some facts. Polls, flawed as they are, are the best available predictive tool we have and they are not to kind to Trump right now.

As to your point about millennials, please try to understand this.. Two recent polls show Trump getting crushed by this group. For example, a recent Harvard poll (margin of error of 2.4% http://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/harva ... -2016-poll) found that Hillary holds a 36pt advantage over Trump, 61% to 25%, with 14% undecided. More than 60% of millennials surveyed said they want a Democratic president in 2016, while just 33% want a Republican in the White House. The gap has nearly doubled from this point last year.

As for enthusiasm....well Hillary actually leads there too among millennials with 60% of Hillary supporters said they were enthusiastic, while only 51% of Trump supporters claimed that they were enthusiastic about their preferred candidate.

Similarly, a USA Today poll showed "Millenials would flock to Clinton against Trump" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /81612520/

Conclusive? Absolutely not, just some more data/'evidence" that supports my argument that Trump may have too much to overcome.

I think the irony here is that, in short, you've shown little more than your own wishful thinking. So, hold on to it, or step up.

Brian, Hillary is getting no support from millennials in the primaries. Yes, they're primaries, but to say they're enthusiastic about supporting her is wrong person all exit polling and anecdotal evidence I've seen.

troglodiet wrote:No matter your feelings about The Don, his supporters and especially limp-wrist lefties, this was a highlight so far.

Small leftie in front of queue, shooting at Trump supporters. Real heroic like....

https://youtu.be/BtZnkccBGIo

So much for civil discourse. Moronic from all sides.

I have no problem with people demonstrating within reason, but some of the actions by those primarily on the left in attempting to prevent Trump from speaking at his rallies are disgraceful. It's become a real problem on college campuses over here with political correctness eg. safe spaces from views/language regarded as threatening or hostile and used to ban those who are invariably conservative/right leaning from speaking on campus..

Flyin Ryan wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:

Bowens wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:So, to be clear, you apparently you think Trump does not have serious challenges to overcome i.e. damaging polling, demographic and unfavourable data? I think I've fully supported the point I was trying to make, namely that Trump has such challenges, and that he is up against it. The attached Politico story with polling data suggests that he's struggle to even secure the GOP base.

I know what you want to believe. Rather than waste my time telling you the same thing again, just watch the Van Jones piece posted earlier. You evidently do not understand the effort that will be needed to get key demographics enthusiastic about actually showing up to the polls and casting a vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8 - millennials in particular. Each campaign will press their base(s) to turn out in force for "the most important election of your lifetime." You have no way of predicting who will be more successful.

Yes, while I will make no puerile claims about your understanding, I will support my argument with some facts. Polls, flawed as they are, are the best available predictive tool we have and they are not to kind to Trump right now.

As to your point about millennials, please try to understand this.. Two recent polls show Trump getting crushed by this group. For example, a recent Harvard poll (margin of error of 2.4% http://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/harva ... -2016-poll) found that Hillary holds a 36pt advantage over Trump, 61% to 25%, with 14% undecided. More than 60% of millennials surveyed said they want a Democratic president in 2016, while just 33% want a Republican in the White House. The gap has nearly doubled from this point last year.

As for enthusiasm....well Hillary actually leads there too among millennials with 60% of Hillary supporters said they were enthusiastic, while only 51% of Trump supporters claimed that they were enthusiastic about their preferred candidate.

Similarly, a USA Today poll showed "Millenials would flock to Clinton against Trump" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /81612520/

Conclusive? Absolutely not, just some more data/'evidence" that supports my argument that Trump may have too much to overcome.

I think the irony here is that, in short, you've shown little more than your own wishful thinking. So, hold on to it, or step up.

Brian, Hillary is getting no support from millennials in the primaries. Yes, they're primaries, but to say they're enthusiastic about supporting her is wrong person all exit polling and anecdotal evidence I've seen.

My personal experience probably bears out the same as yours. Sanders is crushing Hillary among millennials for sure.. 2-1. But, it's all relative. Throw Trump into the mix and the little polling data we have (eg. Harvard and USA) suggests that they will ultimately support and vote for Hillary.

A sample size of one is my daughter and her friends (say about 30). While none would admit to supporting Trump (admittedly peer pressure may depress Trump's support among this shower), most openly admitted to being enthusiastic about Sanders, with a genuine dislike for Hillary. Yet, throw Trump into the mix, and they claimed they'd vote for Hillary to deny Trump. Now, it's this groups first election and they all want to vote. Still, hardly either a random or meaningful sample but anecdotal.

Brian9848 wrote:

troglodiet wrote:No matter your feelings about The Don, his supporters and especially limp-wrist lefties, this was a highlight so far.

Small leftie in front of queue, shooting at Trump supporters. Real heroic like....

https://youtu.be/BtZnkccBGIo

So much for civil discourse. Moronic from all sides.

I have no problem with people demonstrating within reason, but some of the actions by those primarily on the left in attempting to prevent Trump from speaking at his rallies are disgraceful. It's become a real problem on college campuses over here with political correctness eg. safe spaces from views/language regarded as threatening or hostile and used to ban those who are invariably conservative/right leaning from speaking on campus..

They don't get that they are only feeding Trump and his followers by their actions. They are pushing normally reasonable people to select the Nuclear option as a massive fudge You to the regressive left who stifle any form of debate/dissent

DragonKhan wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:

troglodiet wrote:No matter your feelings about The Don, his supporters and especially limp-wrist lefties, this was a highlight so far.

Small leftie in front of queue, shooting at Trump supporters. Real heroic like....

https://youtu.be/BtZnkccBGIo

So much for civil discourse. Moronic from all sides.

I have no problem with people demonstrating within reason, but some of the actions by those primarily on the left in attempting to prevent Trump from speaking at his rallies are disgraceful. It's become a real problem on college campuses over here with political correctness eg. safe spaces from views/language regarded as threatening or hostile and used to ban those who are invariably conservative/right leaning from speaking on campus..

They don't get that they are only feeding Trump and his followers by their actions. They are pushing normally reasonable people to select the Nuclear option as a massive f**k You to the regressive left who stifle any form of debate/dissent

There is a much needed discussion to be had on the size and role of government in our lives, whether or how those who have been hurt by Trade agreements (or if they have been hurt) should be compensated or not (can't see the issue of transfer payments ever being discussed here though..), how healthcare should be provided and the role of govt, if any, in doing so, foreign policy, the tax structure, policies to encourage investment in infrastructure and jobs etc.

Any time those discussions are prevented from taking place, or any views are prevented from being being aired in sanitising sunlight irrespective of how ridiculous or dimwitted they appear to be, it's a problem. Freedom of speech is enshrined, protected and venerated in the US Constitution. It needs to be respected.

Yes, it's only the left 'stifling discussion' only. Not the people discounting people of alternate viewpoints as "hand wringing ", "limp wristed ", or my favourite, the idiotic "regressive left".

House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

Washington Post op-ed on potential 3rd party runs:

-Former Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (he'd win that state)
-Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas (not keen on him, but the op-ed thinks he'd win Texas, which I'm more in doubt on, but would be huge in the Electoral College if he could)
-Retired Army Gen. Ray Odierno
-Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska (he's the current Republican lawmaker that has been the most outspoken publicly against Trump)
-and they also throw in Romney

Couple others from thehill.com:

-Former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who will be on the ballot in most states likely anyway as the Libertarian Party nominee
-Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly
-Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan
-Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina (popular up-and-coming star in Republican circles, I think she'd decline)
-Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (would not be keen on him either, he was ripped apart by Chris Christie in debates)

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

Nor will Romney, nor either Bush.

It'll make no difference. It'll simply to play to his core narrative.

henry wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

Nor will Romney, nor either Bush.

It'll make no difference. It'll simply to play to his core narrative.

Unlike those two, Ryan is the 2nd or 3rd-most powerful elected lawmaker in the land. Agree it plays to his core narrative though.

(I do wonder if he'll get a motion to vacate the Speaker come next session of Congress as retribution from some Reps.)

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

And then later on Fox, the RNC director of communications (I think that was his title) stated that he sees Ryan and Trump agreeing and finding common ground during their planned meeting next week.

btw FR - I know at one point you were considering voting for Kasich. Now that's it's Hillary vs. Trump...who's got your vote? Still repub?

saffer13 wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

And then later on Fox, the RNC director of communications (I think that was his title) stated that he sees Ryan and Trump agreeing and finding common ground during their planned meeting next week.

btw FR - I know at one point you were considering voting for Kasich. Now that's it's Hillary vs. Trump...who's got your vote? Still repub?

Actually voted for Dumbass Ted Cruz to try and aid him to defeating Trump. The pocket of Indiana I live and work in was 4 of the 5 counties that Cruz won statewide (out of 92).

If there's no conservative 3rd party run, I'll probably vote for the Libertarian nominee, likely to be Gary Johnson. They're already on the ballot in Indiana.

Brian9848 wrote:

troglodiet wrote:No matter your feelings about The Don, his supporters and especially limp-wrist lefties, this was a highlight so far.

Small leftie in front of queue, shooting at Trump supporters. Real heroic like....

https://youtu.be/BtZnkccBGIo

So much for civil discourse. Moronic from all sides.

I have no problem with people demonstrating within reason, but some of the actions by those primarily on the left in attempting to prevent Trump from speaking at his rallies are disgraceful. It's become a real problem on college campuses over here with political correctness eg. safe spaces from views/language regarded as threatening or hostile and used to ban those who are invariably conservative/right leaning from speaking on campus..

I share your concerns, but it is more accurate to say that they invariably label those who disagree with them as conservative/right-leaning. The intolerant Left wants to shut down debate before it happens and they resort to name-calling to do it. Their favorite ploy is to have us believe that anyone who disagrees with them is conservative and reactionary.

They use labels like a 17th-century witch-hunter would use a torch and faggots.

Flyin Ryan wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

And then later on Fox, the RNC director of communications (I think that was his title) stated that he sees Ryan and Trump agreeing and finding common ground during their planned meeting next week.

btw FR - I know at one point you were considering voting for Kasich. Now that's it's Hillary vs. Trump...who's got your vote? Still repub?

Actually voted for Dumbass Ted Cruz to try and aid him to defeating Trump. The pocket of Indiana I live and work in was 4 of the 5 counties that Cruz won statewide (out of 92).

If there's no conservative 3rd party run, I'll probably vote for the Libertarian nominee, likely to be Gary Johnson. They're already on the ballot in Indiana.

So I'll ask the question that has been asked to most anti-trump, repub leaning people...what would he need to do to win your vote...if it's possible?

Bullettyme wrote:Yes, it's only the left 'stifling discussion' only. Not the people discounting people of alternate viewpoints as "hand wringing ", "limp wristed ", or my favourite, the idiotic "regressive left".

Maybe you should stop deflecting for once and take a long hard look at the unsavoury elements on the Left.

"Hand-wringing" and "limp-wristed" are merely descriptive terms, whereas "racist" or "bigoted" or "conservative" are final judgments which give no opportunity for recourse.

"Regressive Left" is a perfectly accurate term for current trends.

Deflecting from what? If you think I'm a lefty you're an even bigger fool than I thought. Oh and those terms are simply descriptors, much like what you ascribe to lefties.

Still, the term itself is used by you, and others, to invalidate vast swathes of opinions. Almost like you didn't care about free speech at all. Almost as if you were some sort of dishonest hypocrite. But that can't be true, can it?

Bullettyme wrote:Deflecting from what? If you think I'm a lefty you're an even bigger fool than I thought. Oh and those terms are simply descriptors, much like what you ascribe to lefties.

Still, the term itself is used by you, and others, to invalidate vast swathes of opinions. Almost like you didn't care about free speech at all. Almost as if you were some sort of dishonest hypocrite. But that can't be true, can it?

Come now, it is quite obvious I care very deeply about freedom of speech. I am not the one who calls for threads to be locked or for posters to be banned. Many people cannot cope with the truth - I am not one of those people.

The regime of political correctness emanates from the Left and represents a direct assault on freedom of speech. Once you subordinate this freedom to the feelings of others, the first casualty is invariably the truth. It's nothing less than a form of dictatorship disguising itself as respect for others.

saffer13 wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

And then later on Fox, the RNC director of communications (I think that was his title) stated that he sees Ryan and Trump agreeing and finding common ground during their planned meeting next week.

btw FR - I know at one point you were considering voting for Kasich. Now that's it's Hillary vs. Trump...who's got your vote? Still repub?

Actually voted for Dumbass Ted Cruz to try and aid him to defeating Trump. The pocket of Indiana I live and work in was 4 of the 5 counties that Cruz won statewide (out of 92).

If there's no conservative 3rd party run, I'll probably vote for the Libertarian nominee, likely to be Gary Johnson. They're already on the ballot in Indiana.

So I'll ask the question that has been asked to most anti-trump, repub leaning people...what would he need to do to win your vote...if it's possible?

Be more educated. He's stated too many things that are pure pipe dreams. Mexico pays for a wall-BULLSHIT! Admit he was lying all along here. Stuff on jobs. I work in manufacturing as an engineer. It's what I want to do. The anti-free trade message of him and Sanders can be tempting. I have a good living now, but I found out a month ago I'm going to be a dad in December. Am I going to have a good job in say 17 years when I'm 50 and my kid is going off into the world? All candidates of both parties are weak on this point. I don't know what the answer is, it's certainly not "free college for everyone" where so many people are overqualified for less and less jobs (see the law school grad debacle), but it's also not be a hard ass getting everyone else in the world pissed off at you and not have any concrete plans for what you're going to do. So many of his policies are so light on detail he may as well be saying they're based on hope and then finish it with "Yes We Can".

Above all else, the man is a professional troll that used Trotskyist-style entryism to take over the party's ballot access in November. (Ditto Sanders on the entryism.)

Eight_Eye wrote:

Brian9848 wrote:

troglodiet wrote:No matter your feelings about The Don, his supporters and especially limp-wrist lefties, this was a highlight so far.

Small leftie in front of queue, shooting at Trump supporters. Real heroic like....

https://youtu.be/BtZnkccBGIo

So much for civil discourse. Moronic from all sides.

I have no problem with people demonstrating within reason, but some of the actions by those primarily on the left in attempting to prevent Trump from speaking at his rallies are disgraceful. It's become a real problem on college campuses over here with political correctness eg. safe spaces from views/language regarded as threatening or hostile and used to ban those who are invariably conservative/right leaning from speaking on campus..

I share your concerns, but it is more accurate to say that they invariably label those who disagree with them as conservative/right-leaning. The intolerant Left wants to shut down debate before it happens and they resort to name-calling to do it. Their favorite ploy is to have us believe that anyone who disagrees with them is conservative and reactionary.

They use labels like a 17th-century witch-hunter would use a torch and faggots.

I'm not sure you do share my concerns. Just to be clear..I want no part of Trump’s dog whistle political correctness where sometimes the resentment is fuelled by no longer being able to call a spade a spade, namely a gay man a faggot, or a black man a ni**er.

As for name calling. It's absurd to label this as exclusively the domain of the left. The continuously deranged, unhinged, racially tinged Obama hatred made any accusation against him worthy of discussion on Fox news. How many times have I heard that Obama being called anti-American, un-American or intent on destroying the United States by sitting Congressmen? An Islamist loving socialist intent on the US's destruction. Now, the GOP Presidential nominee is a man who began his recent political career by questioning Obama’s eligibility for office and championed the absurd and ridiculous birther movement. That shit is also compete anathema to me. There are enough grounds to question Obama’s policies without resorting to this rubbish.

I have a good living now, but I found out a month ago I'm going to be a dad in December. Am I going to have a good job in say 17 years when I'm 50 and my kid is going off into the world?

To pay $50k a year in tuition, the way things are headed. Congrats on the news btw.

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

Washington Post op-ed on potential 3rd party runs:

-Former Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (he'd win that state)
-Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas (not keen on him, but the op-ed thinks he'd win Texas, which I'm more in doubt on, but would be huge in the Electoral College if he could)
-Retired Army Gen. Ray Odierno
-Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska (he's the current Republican lawmaker that has been the most outspoken publicly against Trump)
-and they also throw in Romney

Couple others from thehill.com:

-Former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who will be on the ballot in most states likely anyway as the Libertarian Party nominee
-Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly
-Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan
-Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina (popular up-and-coming star in Republican circles, I think she'd decline)
-Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (would not be keen on him either, he was ripped apart by Chris Christie in debates)

Gen James Matta would've been a candidate with a lot of potential.

Turbogoat wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

Washington Post op-ed on potential 3rd party runs:

-Former Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (he'd win that state)
-Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas (not keen on him, but the op-ed thinks he'd win Texas, which I'm more in doubt on, but would be huge in the Electoral College if he could)
-Retired Army Gen. Ray Odierno
-Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska (he's the current Republican lawmaker that has been the most outspoken publicly against Trump)
-and they also throw in Romney

Couple others from thehill.com:

-Former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who will be on the ballot in most states likely anyway as the Libertarian Party nominee
-Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly
-Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan
-Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina (popular up-and-coming star in Republican circles, I think she'd decline)
-Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (would not be keen on him either, he was ripped apart by Chris Christie in debates)

Gen James Matta would've been a candidate with a lot of potential.

At the end of the day, though...

Flyin Ryan wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:House Speaker Paul Ryan had an interview on CNN yesterday breaking ranks from Trump, saying he could not support him for now.

And then later on Fox, the RNC director of communications (I think that was his title) stated that he sees Ryan and Trump agreeing and finding common ground during their planned meeting next week.

btw FR - I know at one point you were considering voting for Kasich. Now that's it's Hillary vs. Trump...who's got your vote? Still repub?

Actually voted for Dumbass Ted Cruz to try and aid him to defeating Trump. The pocket of Indiana I live and work in was 4 of the 5 counties that Cruz won statewide (out of 92).

If there's no conservative 3rd party run, I'll probably vote for the Libertarian nominee, likely to be Gary Johnson. They're already on the ballot in Indiana.

So I'll ask the question that has been asked to most anti-trump, repub leaning people...what would he need to do to win your vote...if it's possible?

Be more educated. He's stated too many things that are pure pipe dreams. Mexico pays for a wall-BULLSHIT! Admit he was lying all along here. Stuff on jobs. I work in manufacturing as an engineer. It's what I want to do. The anti-free trade message of him and Sanders can be tempting. I have a good living now, but I found out a month ago I'm going to be a dad in December. Am I going to have a good job in say 17 years when I'm 50 and my kid is going off into the world? All candidates of both parties are weak on this point. I don't know what the answer is, it's certainly not "free college for everyone" where so many people are overqualified for less and less jobs (see the law school grad debacle), but it's also not be a hard ass getting everyone else in the world pissed off at you and not have any concrete plans for what you're going to do. So many of his policies are so light on detail he may as well be saying they're based on hope and then finish it with "Yes We Can".

Above all else, the man is a professional troll that used Trotskyist-style entryism to take over the party's ballot access in November. (Ditto Sanders on the entryism.)

Thanks for the reply

Bullettyme wrote:Yes, it's only the left 'stifling discussion' only. Not the people discounting people of alternate viewpoints as "hand wringing ", "limp wristed ", or my favourite, the idiotic "regressive left".

Careful now, this sort of speech is worthy of rape and death threats from the angry young nerds of the "progressive right".

I think there's definitely room for intellectual discussion on the negatives of PC culture (strangely South Park of all things is doing a relatively good job of it at the moment, even if I don't agree with them entirely and of course they have their own agenda as peddlars of Un PC humour) but fudge discussing it with those thickies who are clearly just angry that people call them out on being hateful dick heads.

fudge the internet for giving morons across the spectrum (yeah, I realise there are many who would categorise me as such) a unifying voice really.

FBI agents and federal prosecutors tasked with looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state have yet to find evidence that Clinton intentionally broke classification rules, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/f ... ton-emails

Congrats on the Kid, Ry. I see someone made use of that Honeymoon. I do agree with you regarding both Trump and Sanders. The thing for me that I hope comes out of this is we get at least 1 new party so people have better options though I doubt it. I also hope the parties pay attention to the wave of nationalism sweeping the nation, on both sides. There is a clear concern by the left and the right as the state of country and what will be the future going forward. I don't think we can reverse some of the trade agreements but plans need to be made for jobs and if we are not going to be a manufacturing economy and are a service economy then we have to adjust the way we do things. One thing that seems simple but in my mind should work in a new new deal.

As Chris Mathews quoted the saying "we live by the warmth created created by fires lit before us." The country is in need of massive infrastructure rebuilds, upgrades and new builds. This extends from NYC's train tunnels, to dams all over the country as well as bridges. If we raise taxes enough we can subsidize these projects and then provide a level of work and certification for people. Problem would be most of these college grades want sit down jobs and have turned their back on construction. I played with Irish guys fresh off the boat and they always found jobs as carpenters, welders and etc because even in NYC, there are not enough experienced guys. The problem we have is that no one and I mean no one trusts the government to over see and accomplish such a project, which makes no sense to me but whatever.

Also there should be free education if you major in an industry that the nation needs like Nurses or Teachers and work wherever you are sent for the 5 years or so.

She's poison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

The Bosnia sniper fire stuff is f**king hilarious - around 9 mins.

Bullettyme wrote:Deflecting from what? If you think I'm a lefty you're an even bigger fool than I thought. Oh and those terms are simply descriptors, much like what you ascribe to lefties.

Still, the term itself is used by you, and others, to invalidate vast swathes of opinions. Almost like you didn't care about free speech at all. Almost as if you were some sort of dishonest hypocrite. But that can't be true, can it?

That description implies a greater amount of awareness than I've seen 8i demonstrate, ever. He's just a lunatic

Is there anyone on this bored that is a genuine bone fide Republican?