At 4/1/16 04:13 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 4/1/16 03:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But this is what I'm talking about in terms of it's a tale of two parties, I know some good, moderate "log cabin" type Republicans....

I'll call you out on this. Name them?

That not-Romney mormon. What was his name again?

At 4/1/16 05:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That not-Romney mormon. What was his name again?

Does this end in "Michael McDoesn'tExist"?

Also, I wasn't talking about candidates, but people I know who vote and identify Republican. Candidate wise you can't find it anymore because it's not allowed to happen.

We will build a wall and Kongregate will pay for it.

Also, can we make the trump emoticon permanent on this thread.

At 4/1/16 06:10 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/1/16 05:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That not-Romney mormon. What was his name again?

Does this end in "Michael McDoesn'tExist"?

Huntsman. That's the name.

At 4/1/16 11:25 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I don't think he'd get scared by the job, I think he'd be so blinded by power he wouldn't realize that his actions were causing the nation around him to crumble. Or, he'd be so successful at antagonizing people that he'd do seriously real damage with an army under his command.

Brushing him off as a non-threat because he's utterly ridiculous (but at the same time scary) is not a winning formula. When people like this get power, they abuse it. Which means, yeah, maybe he has to go out like Nixon; but, I doubt he'd have a gracious bone in his body. He'd fight whatever it was to the end. Or, he'd try to bully his way out of it.

Either way, he's bad for government and bad for our country.

Like arming rebels and going after Libya's Gaddafi and Syria's Bashar al-Assard hasn't already caused immense, world-historical damage to the Middle East and Europe.
Also, because of this, U.S./Russia relations are not looking too good.

Concerning domestic affairs, I fail to see how killing the republican party is good for America, because this is what the democrats have been trying to do since 2008 with plans for the amnesty of a few million illegals, among other things.

At 4/1/16 04:13 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 4/1/16 03:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But this is what I'm talking about in terms of it's a tale of two parties, I know some good, moderate "log cabin" type Republicans....

I'll call you out on this. Name them?

@The-Great-One comes to mind.

I am going to vote Donald Trump come November.
I would have preferred Rand Paul but as most will not support a Libertarian, and the Democrats look at the people like cattle, I think the best chance for America is Donald J Trump.

While it's older news, I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been mentioned in here yet. It's kind of relevant.

Mr. Trump proposes letting South Korea and Japan develop nuclear weapons, to relieve America's burden with nuclear deterence.

Please, someone explain to me why they think this is a good idea. I mean, he still has plenty of support, so proliferating nuclear weapons in countries other than our own must seem like a good idea to his supporters. If you really need to know at least one reason why this is a bad idea (there are a whole lot of reasons), ask what Japan and Germany's allegiance was with us seventy five years ago, and whether you think it's be a good idea for them to have nukes then. A country's allegiance can change over time, and if/when it does, you don't want them to hold nuclear weapons.

By the way, shit like this is precisely why I would be terrified of a Trump presidency. This is the kind of thing that could have a globally destructive, even world ending impact, if plans really went astray.

At 4/1/16 11:15 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: They walked it back by saying the doctor who performs the abortion should be penalized. I don't know exactly how, though.

Neither do they, that's the whole problem with "winging" it. He got caught in unfriendly territory (Chris Matthews all but works for Hillary Clinton at this point), and he said something he thought would be red meat for his base and didn't consider how it damages him with the general. Then immediately tried to walk that shit back....this is probably going to wind up as my go to example any time I need to point out what an extremely treacherous road Trump has chosen to walk with his candidacy.

At 4/5/16 10:34 AM, Gario wrote: Mr. Trump proposes letting South Korea and Japan develop nuclear weapons, to relieve America's burden with nuclear deterence.

Not entirely a fan of Trump, but yeah I would be okay with South Korea and Japan developing nuclear weapons.

Please, someone explain to me why they think this is a good idea. I mean, he still has plenty of support, so proliferating nuclear weapons in countries other than our own must seem like a good idea to his supporters. If you really need to know at least one reason why this is a bad idea (there are a whole lot of reasons), ask what Japan and Germany's allegiance was with us seventy five years ago, and whether you think it's be a good idea for them to have nukes then. A country's allegiance can change over time, and if/when it does, you don't want them to hold nuclear weapons.

Yeah seventy five years ago and we haven't had problems with them since. Germany wasn't even that big of a contender against us really, they were mostly harming our allies. As for Japan, we bombed them during World War II and then when they surrendered we made peace with them. We have peace with both Germany and Japan. Besides, Germany has nuclear weapons. Many countries from both allies, enemies, and neutral parties all have nuclear weapons. Different countries having nuclear weapons actually brings forth a form of peace.

Trump is not alone in this idea. With North Korea's testings becoming stronger it might not be a bad idea to have Japan and South Korea, two countries who we are on friendly terms with and don't like North Korea, have access to nuclear weaponry.

Now if you're afraid that this might generate an arms race then I could see that as a worrying, but not a lot. Proper planning and negotiations could prove beneficial.

By the way, shit like this is precisely why I would be terrified of a Trump presidency. This is the kind of thing that could have a globally destructive, even world ending impact, if plans really went astray.

If he's the one doing the negotiating then yeah that could be scary, but it is not a bad idea.

Look like the Trump train is coming to an end soon...he's starting to lose a string of states.

At 4/6/16 11:42 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: So, you can vote however you want without jeopardizing your career.

While technically correct, it won't help him any. Pretexts are a dime a dozen. Furthermore if he really wants to run for office, there's no law against using his voting record against him. So, in a perfect world, he'd be safe. In the real world he wouldn't be.

At 4/6/16 03:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: While technically correct, it won't help him any. Pretexts are a dime a dozen. Furthermore if he really wants to run for office, there's no law against using his voting record against him. So, in a perfect world, he'd be safe. In the real world he wouldn't be.

Don't know how you guys handle it over there, but normally he shouldn't be obligated to tell anyone who he voted for. So why would anyone even be able to use his voting record against him?

At 4/7/16 06:30 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 4/7/16 04:31 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

Which has 0 to do with Trump....

In that it might make Trump/Cruz president, I think it does. Hillary will need Bernie's supporters in the general election.

At 4/6/16 04:30 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: He's welcome to say he voted for an R and just do otherwise. Honest? No, but whatever.

He's far more likely to get caught and get in trouble for this than anyone else is for faulting him for whom he votes.

At 4/8/16 11:34 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: It's kind of funny, Hillary and Bernie say each are unqualified to be president, and it's like a Kardashian twitter slap fight, and covered wall-to-wall by the AP. But somebody insults somebody's wife or penis size on the other side and it's ho-hum, par for the course xD

Yeah because the Republican party is known for saying silly childish things! Like how a woman can lock down the baby making part of her body during a rape. So when we hear the Republican party arguing about dick size it is no big deal, it is par for the damn course at this point.

With Hillary and Bernie, they are talking about each other being unqualified. I will agree that it is equally childish, but it is not what we expected to hear from the Democratic party candidates at this point in time.

Although I would have loved to hear Hillary say she has a bigger dick than Bernie... that would be hilarious!

At 4/8/16 11:34 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: It's kind of funny, Hillary and Bernie say each are unqualified to be president, and it's like a Kardashian twitter slap fight, and covered wall-to-wall by the AP. But somebody insults somebody's wife or penis size on the other side and it's ho-hum, par for the course xD

I think that's less to do with "liberal media bias" as you're alleging, and more to do with "what sells and gets eyeballs on the networks and reports". The Kardashians are an apt example, trash TV like that routinely and easily outdraws election coverage historically....but with these primaries having had a trash TV bent for a long while thanks to Trump and the response to him, ratings have gone up. Up until now you haven't had that same situation for the Dems, and really you still don't because calling each other "unqualified" is still based on actual issues and political stuff, which again....doesn't sell like the wife insults and the dick size competitions. The better look out for leftward bias is all the organizations that still don't give Bernie Sanders much of a chance even with all the gains he's been making, and how many reporters receive some tangible benefits from a Hillary Clinton win, yet are still allowed to cover this cycle.

Anyone else noticing that as Trump has lost momentum and primaries of late and a contested convention looks more and more realistic.....that the Trump supporters who used to sit in here and tell all of us how "Trump is the best!" have gone oddly quiet and found different sandboxes to play in? I wonder if that's a phenomenon confined to just this thread, or will we begin to see it elsewhere? How much of his support was simply because he was the front runner and perceived as the winner and now that this looks less likely will supporters start to back away from him to either go to another candidate, or simply lose interest in the process?

Looks like Trump will win all the delegates for New York, as will Clinton.

At 4/19/16 10:50 PM, EcG-TracyJackson wrote: Looks like Trump will win all the delegates for New York, as will Clinton.

Not all delegates. NY has some funky rules where only some of the delegates are committed based on statewide vote. The others are based on district and he would need to win at least 50% of any district to get the delegates for that one. He's not over 50% in a lot of rural areas like the north country, capital region, southern tier and western NY, and even Kasich is winning Manhattan. There are about 12 or 13 counties where he hasn't reached 50% yet and that hurts his chances of avoiding a contested convention.

DONALD TRUMP MIXES UP 9/11 WITH 7-11

He starts at the beginning that he wrote it out. Whether or not he's telling the truth this is an embarrassing slip-up. Not one that you can make while on the campaign trail.

At 4/20/16 05:10 AM, The-Great-One wrote: DONALD TRUMP MIXES UP 9/11 WITH 7-11

He starts at the beginning that he wrote it out. Whether or not he's telling the truth this is an embarrassing slip-up. Not one that you can make while on the campaign trail.

But his supporters will counter that it shows that he will speak what comes to his mind. Somehow showing this proves he "won't lie to you" since he saying things on the fly.

At 4/20/16 06:57 PM, Obama2016 wrote: Are you faulting Trump supporters for spending time elsewhere, in what you call "sandboxes", than the political rings? Or are you trying to insinuate Trump supporters are either children or mentally disabled? I don't get it. This is the attitude of racists, bigots, homophobes and just plain assholes.

No, I'm saying that with the string of negative that's sprung up around him (including stories that even if he wins Pennsylvania the loophole primary nature of their situation will still cost him delegates who won't be bound to him), the people who were in here daily telling us how inevitable Trump was, and we would all see, have completely abandoned this thread and we don't hear anything from them now. That's it. I thought that was pretty clear.

I think the process has failed for too many years for Trump to fade away so quietly. IF he goes, it'll be like the light of a thousand suns.

He won pretty big last night, but he's still got a lot of hurdles ahead and most models say he won't clinch before the Convention, and frankly, I think they'd just ignore the counts at that point and punt the election with someone like Cruz rather then punt the election with Trump.

At 4/19/16 10:50 PM, EcG-TracyJackson wrote: Looks like Trump will win all the delegates for New York, as will Clinton.

Glad to see that Trump won big in New York. It is too bad that there will be a Republican convention to pick the candidate, instead of giving it to the leader, Trump. The GOP better not pull any crap, but you know they will.

At 4/21/16 11:01 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Glad to see that Trump won big in New York. It is too bad that there will be a Republican convention to pick the candidate, instead of giving it to the leader, Trump. The GOP better not pull any crap, but you know they will.

Either way, the chances of the GOP making it to the general election without severe fractures in the party is very low.

At 4/21/16 12:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Either way, the chances of the GOP making it to the general election without severe fractures in the party is very low.

Too late now...the party is already quite fractured into different factions already. This will not help party unity for the Republicans, and unless they can pull themselves together...the Democrats is guaranteed a victory imo.

At 4/21/16 12:22 PM, EcG-TracyJackson wrote: Too late now...the party is already quite fractured into different factions already. This will not help party unity for the Republicans, and unless they can pull themselves together...the Democrats is guaranteed a victory imo.

I don't think they can without the whole Conservative movement in this country looking itself in the mirror and deciding what it is in 2016 and what battles it can win. Because to me it seems like their outflanked just about everywhere but maybe the fiscal part (and even that, they fight the wrong battles on). I think they need to punt this election and then really sit down and decide how to have a better battle plan next time out. Hard right is a loser.

At 4/21/16 12:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Either way, the chances of the GOP making it to the general election without severe fractures in the party is very low.

The GOP will either have to embrace Trump, finally, or continue to waste time and energy fighting against him.

At 4/21/16 11:07 PM, WhaleofaTale wrote: The GOP can't stand the idea of Trump becoming their nominee since they know they can't control him.

The party has complete control over the nomination process. The Rules Committee gets to dictate whether it's even possible for him to get the nomination. That's only assuming he can get to 1,237 in the first place, in which case the point is moot anyway. He's not getting nominated on the second ballot.

At 4/21/16 10:48 PM, WhaleofaTale wrote: For some of us this is a busy time of year and we don't have a plumb union job that gives us plenty of time to slog through the BBS 24/7.

Fair enough, I don't have one of those union jobs either though. Just a good amount of free time which I like to spend some of here with all of you :)

I never said Trump was the best, he's just better than the other shitty options.

I wholeheartedly disagree, but I think we established that lol.

As for the election, let's wait to call winners and losers until after the election. A lot can happen between then and now and the primary map, percentage-wise is not a lot different then it was months ago. But hey, if transparently partisan attacks as what gives you a hardon on ahead and enjoy.

That's true, but the WAY in which the map has broke so far, the rules that each state has....we ARE able to make some educated guesses as to how things might play so far, and we can certainly make some educated guesses based on polling that suggests how November will go. I'm getting more then a little tired of some people acting like there isn't a way to tell these things and that those of us who are speculating, theorizing, etc. are just building sandcastles.