General US Politics

[Person123]

If you want to be closed minded about a possible Trump presidency because his talking points appeal to some people you don't agree with, that's your problem. Trump's viewpoints appeal to a great many people, although you can hide behind your strawman arguments about some of the people he appeals to if you like.

Just because you wrongly assume illegal immigration's a social issue doesn't mean that it is not a problem. There just are not enough jobs available for everyone. And I swear if anyone's going to accuse the United States Commission on Civil Rights to be racist I'm going to have a hernia.

please enlighten me with something other than one specific example.

Concerning Iraq back in August 2004, he had this to say.

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over"

He saw ISIS coming a mile away.

Here's another quote from Trump concerning North Korea back in September.

"and nobody ever mentions North Korea. Where you have this maniac, sitting there, and he actually has nuclear weapons. And somebody better start thinking about North Korea, and perhaps a couple of other places, but certainly North Korea."

Later proven to be correct.

I still don't know if he knows much about how to do anything as president which is why I ultimately think he'll spend his time farting around no matter what his viewpoint ends up being.

This is voting a complete wild card - who has shown no sense of actual policy making, possibly no knowledge of foreign policy, and basically nothing that shows me that he can do anything political ON TOP FO expressed beliefs that are extremely racist, and somehow appeals to a lot of really racist people - into office. Whether or not he is in actuality a racist? I can't say, I don't really know the guy, but all I can judge in terms of his presidency is the rhetoric that he places into his speeches that incites a sense of hatred towards others from the people around him. And if he were to somehow switch to a moderate after winning the nomination? That would be a surprise - but I still have a ton of gripes with his lack of experience and most importantly the path he took to get there.

I couldn't care less about rhetoric, but Trump's lack of political experience, especially with regards to specific policy details is definitely the number 1 issue with Trump. Unless he goes into more detail about the specifics during the general election; it could prove to be his undoing. Something tells me those are issues he'll work to rectify during the general election; however, that remains to be seen.

[Lord Raven]

If you want to be closed minded about a possible Trump presidency because his talking points appeal to some people you don't agree with, that's your problem. Trump's viewpoints appeal to a great many people, although you can hide behind your strawman arguments about some of the people he appeals to if you like.

Just because you wrongly assume illegal immigration's a social issue doesn't mean that it is not a problem. There just are not enough jobs available for everyone. And I swear if anyone's going to accuse the United States Commission on Civil Rights to be racist I'm going to have a hernia.

Except Trump isn't saying that illegal immigrants are an issue purely for that reason, espeically considering he himself is one of those people that has specifically taken advantage of illegal immigrants for his businesses. He's saying they're an issue due to domestic terrorism and because countries send the worst kind of people over, and he said the former after Cruz started shooting up in the polls, meaning he probably has a list of outlandish and ignorant statements that can get him outlandish amounts of support.

I'm not strawmanning his supporters because the majority of them vote for him because he's "keeping it real" even though his arguments are founded upon poor data and racism. The handling of illegal immigrants in this country is certainly an issue but not for the reasons that he's preaching and making others believe, and given his history of hiring immigrants over american citizens leads me to believe that his rhetoric is to appeal to the worst kind of person and not because he legitimately believes what he's saying.

I don't know why you're assuming I going to group the legitimate reasoning why our handling of illegal immigrants is a problem with racism because I'm calling Donald Trump a racist (and this is again aimed more at his rhetoric than the actual person because as it stands Trump in 2016 is not Trump in 1999 or 2004. That "era" of Trump is much, much different to 2016 Trump.

Concerning Iraq back in August 2004, he had this to say.

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over"

He saw ISIS coming a mile away.

Here's another quote from Trump concerning North Korea back in September.

"and nobody ever mentions North Korea. Where you have this maniac, sitting there, and he actually has nuclear weapons. And somebody better start thinking about North Korea, and perhaps a couple of other places, but certainly North Korea."

Later proven to be correct.

Yes, he said this in 2004. Trump in 2004 and Trump the Republican Presidential Nominee are night and day when it comes to this. I'm not questioning his knowledge of politics, which you seem to be accusing me of. I'm questioning his knowledge of how to execute things like this and how he builds his rhetoric with a very narrow minded view of these politics which he may or may not have, which is the thing that scares me about him - I don't know where he truly stands on anything.

I couldn't care less about rhetoric, but Trump's lack of political experience, especially with regards to specific policy details is definitely the number 1 issue with Trump. Unless he goes into more detail about the specifics during the general election; it could prove to be his undoing. Something tells me those are issues he'll work to rectify during the general election; however, that remains to be seen.

Well I don't know if you have any incentive to care about his rhetoric, either, because I have tons of incentive to care about the shit he actually says in public. But I'm not even sure how you can deny that his rhetoric isn't an issue in and of itself given it isolates people who it doesn't even apply to (which is the majority of the specific groups he's singled out) but it also leads to Trump supporters who also believe this.

You're going to say there's a legitimate reason to vote for Trump, but his a) lack of experience, b) lack of rhetoric in his campaign, and c) lack of consistency are all very good reasons why he's a toxic candidate. Please don't pretend like the person himself isn't an issue; every politician brings up good points in certain places, and it's easy to cherry pick them to see that hey this person isn't literally satan but there is very little about his campaign that shows that he'll be in any way effective.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

if we're talking about things people saw a mile away, sanders saw isis coming in '02, the panama papers in '11 (which i am fucking in awe of that every time i bring them up it's ignored like it's not a big deal), in some ways predicted the housing bubble in '98, and probably a host of other things throughout his political career.

if we're talking about a candidate with political foresight, if we're talking about a candidate with consistency, if we're talking about a candidate that urges for the union of people, we're talking about bernie sanders.

trump has the same overall message: the system is fucked. but he is divisive, he is deceptive, and he is childish. that's no leader for even a high school group project, let alone the united states.

i'm willing to accept, perhaps, that immigration affects us in a non-negligible way (as of yet i'm not convinced). i'm willing to accept a host of things the right champions, given sufficient evidence (that i have not yet seen). one thing i can't accept are arguments that posit trump as being a leader, or someone worthy of being followed, or someone to look up to at all.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Person123]

I supported Sanders on the democrat side, I really wanted him to get the nomination over Clinton. At this point I just don't think he has a chance. Once he claimed he was "tired" of Hillary's emails is the exact moment I knew he would be unable to stop her. I imagine he doesn't want to risk possibly fracturing the Democrat party.

At this point, I think the only way he can secure the nomination is if Hillary gets indicted; and you can imagine why that most likely won't happen.

[dondon151]

Quoted for irony

being critical isn't congruent with being close-minded lmao

[Person123]

He literally said he was surprised Trump would have any supporters here and then claimed he thought users on Serenes were all more open minded than to support him.

Not even considering why anyone on Serenes would support Trump and then going on to say he thought everyone here was more open minded not to do so is blatantly ironic.

Don't be dense.

Edited April 16, 2016 by General Ciraxis

[Moblin Major General]

He literally said he was surprised Trump would have any supporters here and then claimed he thought users on Serenes were all more open minded than to support him.

Not even considering why anyone on Serenes would support Trump and then going on to say he thought everyone here was more open minded not to do so is blatantly ironic.

Don't be dense.

The only user who does is Tuvarkz, and he's European, so he doesn't count. None of the American users (to my knowledge) are even voting Republican. And generally, we are open-minded. There might be some who are close-minded, but their opinion won't matter come November. It's not ironic if it excludes the people it doesn't directly and immediately affect. He doesn't consider why purely because no one can justify supporting him without more mental gymnastics than it takes to justify the plot of Conquest.

I dare you,swing your hammer.

[Person123]

You're saying he "doesn't count?" Jeez.

I thought this was a subforum where people have an open discussion on serious issues and not just another internet hugbox where people denigrate others for having opposing viewpoints.

If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know.

[Moblin Major General]

His opinions have no bearing on the American political system, where as mine do as a voting American. In actuality, few of us are in full agreement, and we often end up tearing each other a new one. It seems you are the one being torn right now, but I fully expect to be next, as this is a late night post in which a demon in armor is in contention with Beast Ganon.

[Ansem]

for those of you still in introductory journalism that cry "media bias!" when trump receives negative coverage

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders

[Person123]

My favorite examples:

[Ansem]

you gave me two examples, you can probably find more, but i gave you a peer reviewed study. you think the study i linked contains liberal bias?

also anderson cooper is an asshole to all presidential candidates, not just trump.

because again media is a business model that seeks profits and anderson attacking candidates give a higher viewership than him playing sycophant

EDIT: study took into account 170,000 articles. if you're going for quantity, link me 170,000 instances of trump receiving negative coverage. but that still wouldnt matter

Edited April 16, 2016 by Sparks

[Person123]

It's not explicitly "Liberal bias," the bias comes from all over. Anyways, the study you linked was only concerning published articles. Media as a whole is a lot bigger than that.

Do you even know how many Anti-Trump PACs there are and how much money they spend? It's remarkably impressive how far these people are willing to go in order to prevent Trump from winning.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/15/super_pac_spending_against_donald_trump_in_one_chart.html

Mind you, this is back in March. I can't even imagine how much more money they've burned away since then.

Edited April 16, 2016 by General Ciraxis

[Phoenix Wright]

The only user who does is Tuvarkz, and he's European, so he doesn't count. None of the American users (to my knowledge) are even voting Republican. And generally, we are open-minded. There might be some who are close-minded, but their opinion won't matter come November. It's not ironic if it excludes the people it doesn't directly and immediately affect. He doesn't consider why purely because no one can justify supporting him without more mental gymnastics than it takes to justify the plot of Conquest.

I dare you,swing your hammer.

ana, snowy, among others

[tuvarkz]

The only user who does is Tuvarkz, and he's European, so he doesn't count. None of the American users (to my knowledge) are even voting Republican. And generally, we are open-minded. There might be some who are close-minded, but their opinion won't matter come November. It's not ironic if it excludes the people it doesn't directly and immediately affect. He doesn't consider why purely because no one can justify supporting him without more mental gymnastics than it takes to justify the plot of Conquest.

I dare you,swing your hammer.

I've already stated I'm peruvian, not european. I live in Europe because I'm studying at college here.

[blah the Prussian]

Duff Ostrich is probably American and is definitely a Republican, although he also probably isn't going for Trump; he's far too smart for,that.

[Yojinbo]

Actually, who is somebody who's fundamentally against the Democrat's principles going for if not Trump? Let's not among all the hysteria around Trump forget that Ted Cruz is still far worse a candidate than Trump is and outside of some US-specific shenanigans Kasich has no chance to actually make it. I also maintain that Trump isn't actually worse than Hillary for that matter either so while I despise Trump I wouldn't know where else somebody who just doesn't agree with / understands Sanders' ideas should go.

But I agree with Phoenix that Sanders is the only candidate who's been consistently on the "right" side of things with his stances. He's also the only candidate left I'd consider a person that has some sort of integrity left in him [though I admit that I don't know Kasich well enough to actually make such a claim] and I honestly think that's more important to the USA than ever. Hillary, Trump and Cruz all basically have sub-Putin levels of credibility and that could be pretty disastrous.

[Person123]

Ted Cruz is the distillation of everything that's wrong with the GOP: a lying, obstructionist, religious zealot. If you actually look into the guy he's a nightmare of a person.

I like the stuff his old roommate says about him, lol.

Edited April 16, 2016 by General Ciraxis

[Crysta]

It's not explicitly "Liberal bias," the bias comes from all over. Anyways, the study you linked was only concerning published articles. Media as a whole is a lot bigger than that.

Do you even know how many Anti-Trump PACs there are and how much money they spend? It's remarkably impressive how far these people are willing to go in order to prevent Trump from winning.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/15/super_pac_spending_against_donald_trump_in_one_chart.html

Mind you, this is back in March. I can't even imagine how much more money they've burned away since then.

Welcome to American politics, wherein you spend millions upon millions of dollars for a job that doesn't pay even half that. There will be Anti-Whoever PACs for years to come - I guess that is 'bias' but it's sort of written on the tin in that case, isn't it?

I can see why the Republican establishment doesn't mind Cruz: the problems we have with him are fundamentally due to him being a legitimate Tea Party conservative, which is predictably less odious to the Republican party itself than Trump who has ... iffy "conservative" credentials. tl;dr version is they don't mind him as much because he's at least a conservative.

I mean... even they don't even like him THAT much (re: graham, dole, bush, some others). It really just comes down to that.

[Person123]

About Kasich, the only path to presidency for him is to "win" it in a contested convention, in other words, if peoples votes were completely subverted.

The fact that he hasn't dropped out yet is practically a kick in the nuts to Democracy itself: Kasich doesn't even deserve to be the President.

And even if that happened, it would destroy the GOP; so he has no chance at actually winning in the general election.

[eclipse]

The fact that he hasn't dropped out yet is practically a kick in the nuts to Democracy itself: Kasich doesn't even deserve to be the President.

Once again, the ages-old question. . .why?

[Yojinbo]

Though it's true that Kasich doesn't deserve it I'm surprised there's such a big gap between him and Cruz. I would've expected there to be a lot more moderate republicans who'd vote neither Trump [because he tends to stray from classic 'conservative' stances] nor Ted Cruz [because he's Ted Cruz].

[Person123]

Kasich has been mathematically eliminated from reaching the 1237 delegates required to secure the nomination. He's been mathematically eliminated a long time ago.

America itself and the principle of Democracy practically go hand in hand. Kasich winning in a contested convention (aka being propped up by party insiders) despite the fact that most people haven't even voted for him in the primaries is an affront to Democracy. Robbing the American people of their vote is unjustifiable.

[Crysta]

Apparently dark horses have been chosen before, so his strategy isn't entirely unsound even if it's ethically dubious.

[blah the Prussian]

Kasich has been mathematically eliminated from reaching the 1237 delegates required to secure the nomination. He's been mathematically eliminated a long time ago.

America itself and the principle of Democracy practically go hand in hand. Kasich winning in a contested convention (aka being propped up by party insiders) despite the fact that most people haven't even voted for him in the primaries is an affront to Democracy. Robbing the American people of their vote is unjustifiable.

Well, what if the American people were to vote in someone like Hitler? I don't think that Trump or even Cruz would justify overwriting the will of the people, but I do think there needs to be some form of check to the power of the people in place. Seriously, what would you want the National Convention to do if someone like David Duke got the popular vote?