+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: POLITICS (https://mockforums.net/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: Trump for president (/thread-12458.html)
RE: Trump for president - OnBendedKnee - 06-05-2016
^
You present a convincing argument.
RE: Trump for president - Sacrifyx - 06-05-2016
Hey you fuckers,
Vote Trump, vote Clinton, either one is a GREAT choice. Now I know you're saying "Gee Sac, that's the most retarded thing I've heard in some time."
And you're right. I only advocate for these clowns because either one I think will wind up being a major catalyst for change. And it won't be change they want, or change they're promising, it'll be the change angry Americans have been bitching about for years now. The change won't be given, it will be taken. Hopefully non-violently, but...this is America, after all.
RE: Trump for president - Maggot - 06-07-2016
Trump is right on judges being bias based on their ethnicity. He might have said it a bit better so it could be understood outside of the soundbites though.
link
In a shameful haste to embrace identity politics, the latter the political descendant of slavery and segregation, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have stunningly given thumbs up to a judge who has made no bones about injecting his ethnic heritage into his role as a lawyer and judge.
In a broadside against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presiding over the case against Trump University (a case in itself riddled with bad judicial decision-making as the judge has assigned the case to a notoriously Clinton-supporting law firm — more of which later this week), Trump has assailed the Indiana-born judge as “of Mexican heritage” who has “an inherent conflict of interest.”
The response from the Speaker? “It’s reasoning I don’t relate to. I completely disagree with the thinking behind that.” Said McConnell: “I think it’s a big mistake for our party to write off Latino Americans.” Hello? Speaker Ryan can’t relate to standing up to fight racism? Who, Senator McConnell, is writing off Latino Americans? And isn’t it time to get right with Lincoln and write off racism — aka in the 21st century, “identity politics”? Appallingly in the case of Ryan, his latest comments embracing out and out race-driven lawyering and judging comes only weeks after he said he stood for the “Party of Lincoln, Reagan, and Kemp.” Well that didn’t last long. Somewhere Abe, Ronnie, and Jack are baffled as to why their defender has suddenly thrown them over the side to embrace the absolute worst of racial politics.
RE: Trump for president - Duchess - 06-07-2016
The damage is done. You, meaning Republicans, can kiss the House & Senate goodbye. I could be wrong and if I am I'll eat crow, but it's doubtful.
I have some pity for the Right. They spent months saying Trump will fall, they predicted failure every time that fat fuck opened his mouth and just the opposite happened and now they are wringing their hands in dismay at the position they find themselves in. Could just one person grow a set and stand up for themselves, just one? Surely their hate for Hillary doesn't override common sense for godssake.
RE: Trump for president - Maggot - 06-07-2016
Don't worry the election is 6 months away, plenty of time for anything to happen. Also plenty of time to decide who to vote for a crook or a crazy person.
RE: Trump for president - HairOfTheDog - 06-07-2016
That's such transparent spin and bullshit, Maggot. I saw Jeffrey Lord trying to turn Trump's idiocy into a virtue and project his bias onto those criticizing his bias yesterday. It was comical; amazing level of circular logic.
Trump using ethnicity to claim bias against a judge in a private civil suit, lying about the judge, whining like a little bitch because he can't intimidate the court, attempting to try the case in the press, using his candidacy to try to settle personal grudges...when there's no evidence of bias whatsover by the judge and Trump has never tried to make a legal case to get the judge removed... and then directing his surrogates to defend it in the media and try to turn it on everyone else. That's what's happening here.
Fortunately, I think most people are objective enough to smell the bullshit a mile away.
RE: Trump for president - Duchess - 06-07-2016
I watch Jeffrey many nights on Anderson's show and he knows he's spinning a line of shit while he's doing it. I'm pretty sure that's what his sheepish smile is all about when he's called out on it.
It's only a matter of time before even his most ardent supporters like Jeffrey and others begin to realize they are likely to be risking their own reputations if they continue on in this vein.
RE: Trump for president - HairOfTheDog - 06-07-2016
Some of Trump's surrogates are smart and I agree with them some of the time.
On this issue, they all look and sound like fools to me and, I agree, they seem to be aware of how silly they're coming across. They're doing what they've been directed to do by Trump and I too think that will bite them in the ass.
Trump has every right to challenge the judge for bias, like any other defendant. He and his attorneys can present evidence to the court and request the judge be removed. They haven't even attempted to do so, not once. And, they know how it's done; Trump's been involved in about 3,500 lawsuits. Seriously. http://fortune.com/2016/06/02/trump-organization-lawsuits/
Instead, it seems obvious to me, Trump is simply attempting to use his current political status to force the judge to recuse himself without Trump having any evidence to support his allegations that the judge is a "biased hater" who can't rule objectively because his parents were born in Mexico. The judge has, in fact, ruled many times in Trump's favor.
Trump's motto is never back off or apologize because it's a sign of 'weakness', so I expect he's gonna continue with the bullshit, deflection and projection but not all of his surrogates will continue. I haven't seen Kayleigh McEnany on the panels in the last couple of days. She acknowledged that Trump's comments were indefensible last week, which is quite something coming from her. But, as a Harvard Law student, I suspect she knows better than to go down with the ship on this issue.
RE: Trump for president - Duchess - 06-07-2016
(06-07-2016, 02:22 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Kayleigh McEnany
I like her, I'm used to seeing her on Anderson's show. At the end of one of his shows a couple weeks ago he congratulated her on her upcoming graduation from Harvard Law. She's a very bright woman.
As an aside...this has nothing to do with politics, she discovered she carried the breast cancer gene and like Angelina she had both her breasts removed.
RE: Trump for president - Maggot - 06-07-2016
That's fine, I'm interested in how this all plays out anyways. The reactions Trump is bringing to the surface are unprecedented. People are really excited about this race and its educational watching heads explode. I can only expect more fun in the future. Keep your chin up.
RE: Trump for president - HairOfTheDog - 06-07-2016
I'm not a huge fan of whiny drama and bullshit meant to be taken seriously, from anyone, which is no secret.
But, it doesn't cause my chin to drop coming from Trump or anyone else.
The ones suffering most from Trump's reality show antics as a POTUS candidate are those in the GOP. There are some in the GOP that I think are committed public servants who care about the future of the party and the country. I can understand why they're having trouble keeping their chins up.
RE: Trump for president - Maggot - 06-07-2016
I think they're more afraid of losing their gravy train along with plenty of Democrats that are not thrilled with Hillary.
RE: Trump for president - HairOfTheDog - 06-08-2016
(06-07-2016, 04:03 PM)Maggot Wrote: I think they're more afraid of losing their gravy train along with plenty of Democrats that are not thrilled with Hillary.
Off the top of my head, I can think of 13 Republican politicians whose chins are clearly down when it comes to their presumptive nominee and how that impacts the future of the party (whether gravy train factors into their angst or not).
I can't think of a single Democratic politician off the top of my head who clearly feels that way about their presumptive nominee. Who are they, Mags?
RE: Trump for president - Maggot - 06-08-2016
(06-08-2016, 02:23 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I can't think of a single Democratic politician off the top of my head who clearly feels that way about their presumptive nominee. Who are they, Mags?
More than a few sided with Obama, many back her now only because she's all they have.
RE: Trump for president - HairOfTheDog - 06-08-2016
(06-08-2016, 05:58 AM)Maggot Wrote:(06-08-2016, 02:23 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I can't think of a single Democratic politician off the top of my head who clearly feels that way about their presumptive nominee. Who are they, Mags?
More than a few sided with Obama, many back her now only because she's all they have.
What you're contending doesn't match reality at all, based on what's played out before our eyes.
The DNC really wanted Hillary in 2008 and she came very close to winning the nomination. But, the popular primary votes pushed Barack Obama ahead (something Bernie wasn't able to accomplish this cycle). Clinton's hundreds of Super Delegates refused to defy the will of the people in 2008 and thus voted for Obama instead of their top choice.
For the 8 years since, Clinton has been building her resume (and a great deal of wealth in the private sector). The DNC, based on everything I've seen and heard for over a year, has never been so united behind a non-incumbent candidate as they are Hillary Clinton. And, there are plenty of other Democratic politicians who could have run, in addition to the four who did in fact toss their hats in the ring (and Joe Biden).
The only real challenge to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party has been Bernie Sanders, and he's an Independent who's successfully given her a run for her money, in part, by publicly challenging the politicians and the system which unofficially pegged her as the presumptive nominee well over a year ago.
Bernie, by way of popular support for his message and platform, has been effective in pushing Clinton and the Democratic party to the left. I believe Bernie will get all the way behind Clinton shortly, and he'll help pull the majority of his base her way. That's very good for the Democratic party's growth and future -- people who write off young voters and Independents as naive or "only wanting free stuff" are very short-sighted, in my opinion.
The Republican party is losing ground with every demographic except disgruntled white people (which happens to be the shrinking demographic). The Democratic party, on the other hand, is growing its base. I think Donald Trump is helping on that front, driving the majority of people who don't fall into the GOP's shrinking base further away from the party.
RE: Trump for president - OnBendedKnee - 06-08-2016
^
You completely had me on every single point you make other than, "...except for disgruntled white people (which happens to be a shrinking demographic)."
Sadly, I see this as a growing demographic.
I also see a dusting of other demographics that are disenchanted with the democratic party- and Hillary in particular- looking for an alternative.
RE: Trump for president - HairOfTheDog - 06-08-2016
In my opinion, the number of disgruntled Americans is growing, for many reasons. And, Caucasian as a percentage of the American population is, in fact, shrinking.
I disagree that Donald Trump will be a magnet for Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and young people from all demographics. I think he's driving those looking for change away from considering the Republican Party.
We'll see.
RE: Trump for president - Maggot - 06-08-2016
White population is around 72% Black population is around 14% for the 3rd most populated country on earth with the rest all kinds of colors.
RE: Trump for president - HairOfTheDog - 06-08-2016
I'm not contending that the white population isn't the largest demographic in this country, Maggot. That's a fact.
What I'm saying is that the white population is shrinking as a percentage of the full population. That's an indisputable fact, not an opinion.
According to Brookings Institution demographer William Frey, whites are on track to lose their majority status by 2042 or thereabouts.
Birth rates, immigration, and intermarriage will lead to the white share of the population shrinking by a projected 6 percent between 2010 and 2050. The Hispanic population will grow by 102 percent, and the share of people identifying as two or more races will see a nearly 200 percent increase.
That's disturbing to some Americans, especially older white Americans. Those such older white Americans are, in my opinion, Donald Trump's primary target market. In order to keep and grow that base for the Republican party, Trump is alienating growing demographics. It's a losing proposition for the future of the party.
Mitt Romney managed to secure 59% of the white vote in 2012. And still, Barack Obama knocked his dick in the dirt.
And, I think Mitt got more of the female vote than will Trump.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/23/watch-the-rapid-decline-of-white-america-over-three-decades/
RE: Trump for president - Maggot - 06-08-2016
I understand what you wrote and was just tossing out the current numbers.
Rather than call out people by their race I prefer to separate people using a different rule of thumb.............................. the lazy pricks and the working slobs. no matter the color.