08-05-2015 02:13 PM
#76
| |
| |
08-09-2015 07:21 PM
#77
| |
|
The country needs President Carson. |
08-14-2015 05:24 PM
#78
| |
|
Fiorina would crush any Democrat. |
08-14-2015 05:57 PM
#79
| |
I'm gonna ride both Sanders and Trump for the f of it til I have to actually choose. | |
| |
08-14-2015 06:06 PM
#80
| |
|
I think most people polling for Trump won't vote for him, but most polling for Bernie will. |
08-14-2015 08:02 PM
#81
| |
|
The establishment wisdom that Carson could never be the nominee is so so wrong. This could easily happen: many Trump supporters vote for Carson in Iowa and he gets a plurality of the social conservative and anti-establishment vote. The media is unable to talk negatively about a black person, so nobody attacks him except for reasons other than "unelectable", which just makes him more attractive to most voters. Then he crushes New Hampshire if he engages door-to-door, townhall personable tactics. Then he crushes South Carolina by way of an aura of revolution and getting the social conservative vote as well as a uniquely increased turnout of black vote. |
08-14-2015 08:16 PM
#82
| |
|
It can't be understated how hugely a Carson nomination would break the Democratic coalition. The key to Democrats isn't Mexicans, not labor, not social liberals, not even city-dwellers. It's blacks, all because of their near 1/1 turnout/vote for Democrats and their unique electoral regions. Republicans can cut into the Hispanic vote a bunch yet still lose presidential elections, but if they cut into the black vote just a little bit, the Democrats would lose some hard blue states in the Midwest and Northeast. |
08-18-2015 07:02 PM
#83
| |
|
Examining the primary schedule, Trump really could win this. There's a huge early bloc of southern and Appalachian states unlike normal. Most candidates will stay in up till then, and nobody plays particularly well there, except Trump. If Carson worked real hard, I think he could do well there. I have no clue what Walker's appeal, or Cruz's appeal will be. |
08-18-2015 10:44 PM
#84
| |
Wuf, who do you vote for if both wildcards get the nomination and we have a Trump vs Sanders general election? | |
08-18-2015 11:24 PM
#85
| |
|
Trump. I don't support any of Sanders' political philosophies. |
08-19-2015 12:08 AM
#86
| |
You're just assuming he's joking about or otherwise could be convinced of the absurdity of his foreign policy? | |
08-19-2015 12:14 AM
#87
| |
Inb4 trump calls Putin a loser | |
08-19-2015 12:26 AM
#88
| |
|
I don't think he's joking. Trade is probably the most solid mainstay between both parties. Even if Trump wholeheartedly believes in those 25% tariffs, I think he would get overruled. Nobody supports that from any aspect of either parties except a small fringe. |
08-19-2015 12:27 AM
#89
| |
| |
08-19-2015 12:37 AM
#90
| |
The Trump truth train just keeps on rolling. | |
08-19-2015 12:49 AM
#91
| |
|
What do you think the Trump Truth Train is? |
08-20-2015 02:20 PM
#92
| |
|
Trump could be a great president if for no reason other than his eschewing of political correctness. PC isn't the worst thing there ever was, but it's a giant spoke in the wheel of problem solving. Things need to be called what they are before they can be fixed. PC extremism creates perpetual victims that walk all over everybody else. |
08-21-2015 07:18 AM
#93
| |
I think Trump could be better than any of the rest. Sure, he's a batshit crazy selfish warmongering douchebag, but hey, who isn't? At least he'd get the least-likely-to-be-corrupt nomination since he's already loaded, which also means he has no need to suck Koch, unlike the rest of them. | |
| |
08-21-2015 04:57 PM
#94
| |
|
Trump probably can't win because of his seemingly already peaked low ceiling. He could win all the early contests, but unless perceptions about him change, as the field dwindles, his opponents will pick up most of the remaining votes. He could probably win the four early states and the SEC primary yet still lose the nomination. |
08-21-2015 05:05 PM
#95
| |
|
Cruz is the quintessential darkhorse IMO. He has a very clear and reasonable path to victory. It largely just depends on if things that have decent probability of happening, happen. Basically his plan has always been to be "the outsider" and christian conservative candidate, which he has done extremely well. The problem is that even bigger outsiders in Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are getting that vote for now. Cruz thinks that their novelty will wear off then those votes will gravitate towards him. This could certainly happen, and given how powerful of a debater and communicator (and fundraiser) he is, he's got everything it would take to have a Reaganesque win. His problem is the establishment hates him, but the establishment may not get their pick this cycle. |
08-21-2015 05:09 PM
#96
| |
|
I like Cruz if for no other reason than his intellect impresses me greatly. Harvard Law debate semi-finalist indeed. |
08-22-2015 01:11 AM
#97
| |
So much of elections are based on looks, that I'm surprised by alot of these picks wuf. Cruz and Walker are just plain too ugly/creepy looking to be president. Chrstie got no chance. Trump would be out too, but his face is an actual trademark. | |
08-22-2015 01:46 AM
#98
| |
|
There may or may not be something to height. Which would favor Jeb. |
08-22-2015 10:37 PM
#99
| |
All I know is Stephen Harper and his hairspray helmet have no chance. | |
08-25-2015 08:16 PM
#100
| |
|
I have decided that the most formidable GOP ticket would be Rubio/Fiorina. Policies don't win elections, presentation does. The media wouldn't admit it, but they decide elections because they mostly cover awkwardness or less-than-fully tact bites. These are the two most likely to not fumble when speaking and they have the optics. That said, I have no idea how well Carson would do. He could easily get 25% of the black vote and blow everybody out of the water, but maybe he's just way too non-traditional and maybe black voters are inelastic. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 08-25-2015 at 08:19 PM. | |
08-25-2015 08:28 PM
#101
| |
|
OTOH I think Cruz is the one likely to make the least amount of strategic mistakes. |
08-31-2015 01:10 PM
#102
| |
|
Calling it now, President Carson sits the Oval in 2017. |
09-03-2015 01:36 PM
#103
| |
|
carson tied with hilldawg nationally. with not so great name recognition too. dude would fucking maul her. |
09-03-2015 09:21 PM
#104
| |
The heads that will be exploding are certainly the people on the right with latent racist tendencies that they've never dealt with or owned up to. I mean, I agree with you, being a republican does not make you a racist, but a lot of republican positions are easily used to pursue racist agendas under a veil of legitimacy. | |
09-03-2015 10:16 PM
#105
| |
|
This is what I'm talking about. Just because a lot of people who are not Republicans think this is true doesn't make it true. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 09-03-2015 at 10:23 PM. | |
09-03-2015 10:36 PM
#106
| |
|
Oh what irony in that Obama won the nomination because he's black. Without that, he doesn't sweep the black vote in the south, where the majorities in the Democratic primaries are black, and Hillary wins easily. Contrasted to if Carson won in a party with very few black caucus goers and primary voters. Iowa's as white as it gets, and he's whooping every white man not named Trump, while the details of the polls suggest that Carson is winning the caucus battle. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 09-04-2015 at 12:17 AM. | |
09-05-2015 11:32 AM
#107
| |
| |
09-05-2015 02:31 PM
#108
| |
|
Nothing spectacular, just demographics and vote distribution. It's piecemeal. |
09-06-2015 12:35 AM
#109
| |
09-06-2015 01:18 AM
#110
| |
|
You said the right is more racist than the left, and I disagreed. I also said that my view that your view (a view held by most Democrats) is wrong is why the power of a Carson nomination would catch so much of the left by surprise. |
09-06-2015 03:28 AM
#111
| |
I never said there are more racists on the right. I could comment on that, but that's besides the point-- you know, since I never said as much. | |
09-06-2015 03:42 AM
#112
| |
|
So when you said this, you were talking about something unrelated to everything we had said up to this point? |
09-06-2015 11:23 PM
#113
| |
You are not reading it carefully. | |
Last edited by boost; 09-06-2015 at 11:33 PM. | |
09-07-2015 12:22 AM
#114
| |
|
I'll take your word that you didn't mean what I thought you did. |
09-07-2015 01:06 AM
#115
| |
How could I have changed gears? You started on the topic in #104 and my reply which lead to the misunderstanding is #105. What was it that we were talking about, and how was it that I was able to switch gears within the initial exchange? | |
09-07-2015 04:29 PM
#116
| |
|
I don't even know what you're saying you're actually saying. Both of your different statements suggest that you're saying that there is more racism on the right than the left. |
09-07-2015 08:25 PM
#117
| |
An empty threat is still a threat. But, I mean, whatever-- it's a silly thing to toss in there that can't serve but to heighten hostilities. Further, it's just, like, why-- why not accuse you of things? | |
09-07-2015 10:00 PM
#118
| |
|
I don't think there is more racism on the left. Racism is pretty evenly dispersed among most walks of life. Many people think there is more racism on the right and that the left is particularly anti-racist. I think that's hogwash. |
09-08-2015 12:32 AM
#119
| |
I still think this is silly. I accused you of either willfully misrepresenting my views or doing so unintentionally due to your bias. Maybe you didn't like the way I did it, and I'm all ears for criticisms on tone (I know this is a department I could stand to grow in), but suggesting accusations (as I feel the term has been broadly defined by you to include what I said) should be off the table completely is nonsensical. | |
09-08-2015 12:43 AM
#120
| |
Yeah, I mean maybe the racism on the left tends to manifest itself in more veiled ways and the left's policies, irregardless of actuality, are ostensibly anti-racist, where as the rights at times appear to be the opposite. | |
09-08-2015 01:21 AM
#121
| |
|
Saying "you're being biased and that's why you are wrong about this" is unproductive. It cuts off communication because it gives the accuser his own unshakable bias to maintain his position from. Of course I have some level of bias, as does everybody. I believed you were being biased yourself, but it hardly helps to wade into those weeds, and asking you to not accuse me of things was the best way I could find to put my point across without wading into those weeds. |
09-08-2015 01:35 AM
#122
| |
|
I think you're very smart and a talented debater. Sometimes you come in guns blazing, shooting first before taking names (I do it too). My "don't accuse me of things" is in part a reaction to that. |
09-08-2015 01:19 PM
#123
| |
I feel like the racism coming from conservatives is more of the flavor of xenophobic "hate the other" type stuff. Most rural whites (who tend to vote conservative) interact with few if any black people in their day to day lives, but then spout off a bunch of racist shit when a black guy is on their TV screen. The same people tend to be totally cordial toward the few blacks that they know personally or professionally (he's one of the good ones, etc). | |
Last edited by Renton; 09-08-2015 at 01:30 PM. | |
09-08-2015 06:56 PM
#124
| |
|
Good post. |
09-09-2015 01:33 PM
#125
| |
I'm not sure how to articulate this well-- but I think what you're talking about are all symptoms of our society coming online, if you will. I guess I mean that both literally and figuratively in that the internet is the mechanism behind this cultural awakening. Overall and in the long term this sudden and rather jarring cultural shift will be a good thing, but right now, in the midst of it all, it seems like utter chaos. The reason I think things are different from previous cultural shifts is the speed at which ideas can be disseminated, discussed, critiqued and refined. Further there isn't a singular concise message conveniently packaged for our consumption. The old media was great at selectively informing, which made everything appear much more black and white, but now, with infinite sources of information, all the nuance is thrown at us. I would guess that this is the major source of the social growing pains that I feel like you're describing: people are still reacting as if they had the clear singular message, but the messages they're getting are fractured, nuanced, and not so easily actionable. For example, I think "microaggression" is describing a real thing which really does impact people's lives, and I think it's interesting to read about, but they also almost certainly aren't something that can be policed by social justice warriors. | |
09-11-2015 06:24 PM
#126
| |
|
Carson beating Biden by 3 nationally while Bush and Trump lose by 8 and 10. |
09-11-2015 06:38 PM
#127
| |
| |
09-12-2015 02:18 AM
#128
| |
| |
09-12-2015 10:56 AM
#129
| |
|
I can get behind your explanation here. |
09-12-2015 02:46 PM
#130
| |
|
strong article on teh subject |
09-12-2015 04:27 PM
#131
| |
|
All i can say is go trump, atleast the man wont lie to people, from what i know of him. |
09-12-2015 10:54 PM
#132
| |
1: This is certainly less true of people who live in S.E. Asia and don't plan to return to the west. Even those people have a home to return to in which they wouldn't have to deal with this. | |
09-12-2015 11:15 PM
#133
| |
|
I'm not trying to say that. I think the cult of victimhood is a projection of the white savior onto others. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 09-12-2015 at 11:18 PM. | |
09-14-2015 12:05 AM
#134
| |
Again, the flaws of the white savior do not negate the issues they chose to focus on. Your insistence that any potential gripes minorities may have are born of the instigating of white saviors is suspiciously convenient to your world view. | |
09-14-2015 12:31 AM
#135
| |
|
theyre real in the most banal, technical sense. like the article points out, what we now call microaggression we once called tactlessness. what i think divides the two is the emphasis. the cult of microaggression seems to be about just declaring that distinctions are the problem. |
09-14-2015 12:45 AM
#136
| |
Haha.. | |
09-14-2015 12:48 AM
#137
| |
|
im triggered by all your boostsplaining. |
09-14-2015 11:21 PM
#138
| |
Battle of the Dark Horses 2016 | |
09-15-2015 06:33 AM
#139
| |
Trump would landslide. America will not elect a self-described socialist in 2016. | |
09-15-2015 03:33 PM
#140
| |
|
Sanders doesn't have ethnic minority appeal. Trump has *some*. It's a terrible situation for any Democrat to be in. Trump might lose the Hispanic and Asian vote more than Romney, but he would do better among blacks. He might do worse among white women, but would do a bit better among white men probably. |
09-15-2015 03:49 PM
#141
| |
|
Sanders would fail econ 101 and 102. Trump and Clinton could eek by with some cramming. But Sanders, he has such formidable ignorance that having to learn intro economics would put him into rebellious fits. |
09-15-2015 06:15 PM
#142
| |
|
Reading this article, came across a pretty great explanation for why Trump is popular. |
09-16-2015 08:47 PM
#143
| |
Watchin the debate, | |
09-17-2015 12:10 AM
#144
| |
09-17-2015 01:12 AM
#145
| |
|
Gilmore loses to the field. I could see Pataki and Graham not doing so hot. Huckabee and Santorum would surprise some, but maybe not be a favorite to win. The toughest contenders that I think would be a tossup are Christie vs Clinton. They both suck. There would be some weird side switching and staying home going on in that election. I have a hard time assessing how Trump or Paul would do against Biden or Clinton, but at worst they're 50%. Every other Republican I think is a sizable favorite against Clinton, who I think is probably a better candidate than Biden even though she's a shitty candidate. Maybe Biden would be better by now, but he's never instilled much fervor. |
09-17-2015 02:15 AM
#146
| |
|
got home in time to watch first half of debate but have to bed now. |
09-17-2015 02:44 PM
#147
| |
We must been watching different debates. She was nervous, non committal, and her plan for Russia is to restart the cold war | |
09-17-2015 02:46 PM
#148
| |
Like, is trump fit to be president.... "that's for the voters to decide"...wow. man up and answer the question. The only reason you arnt is because you don't want to take on trump...you're scared of him | |
09-17-2015 07:06 PM
#149
| |
|
fiorina's performance will likely get her to at least third in the polls. i wouldnt be surprised to see a second or first showing. the iran comment was strong, response to trump about her face much stronger, and planned parenthood a bombshell |
09-17-2015 07:19 PM
#150
| |
|
i dont think the problem of the bush administration on foreign policy was philosophical, but incompetence. they had an agenda and wanted to push it through despite the facts, even though that agenda may have been "right". contrasted to the obama administration, i think it's incredibly competent. these guys are brilliant and fantastic at getting things done. but what they're bad at is having an agenda that's actually positive for the world and its people. obama's foreign policy disaster has nothing to do with competence, while bush's had everything to do with competence. reagan and h.w. bush were both very gop-agenda and very competent on foreign policy, and the results were fantastic. |