Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
AFM wrote:Would Rubio have defeated Clinton?
EDIT- Marco Rubio, not Ricky Rubio. Although that's a good question to. Would Ricky Rubio have defeated HRC?
AFM wrote:Would Rubio have defeated Clinton?
EDIT- Marco Rubio, not Ricky Rubio. Although that's a good question to. Would Ricky Rubio have defeated HRC?
Wizardspride wrote:AFM wrote:Would Rubio have defeated Clinton?
EDIT- Marco Rubio, not Ricky Rubio. Although that's a good question to. Would Ricky Rubio have defeated HRC?
Rubio? Nah.
He looks the part but when you delve deeper, there's not a lot of substance.
Now Kasich otoh, not saying he definitely would have defeated Clinton but it would have been competitive.
dckingsfan wrote:Wizardspride wrote:AFM wrote:Would Rubio have defeated Clinton?
EDIT- Marco Rubio, not Ricky Rubio. Although that's a good question to. Would Ricky Rubio have defeated HRC?
Rubio? Nah.
He looks the part but when you delve deeper, there's not a lot of substance.
Now Kasich otoh, not saying he definitely would have defeated Clinton but it would have been competitive.
IMO, Kasich we have one handily.
montestewart wrote:JWizmentality wrote:Man, I'm sure Kelly Ann Conway is the a smart gal, but damn does she play [really?] well defending Trump.
I'm guessing that most women repelled by Trump's characterization of women would likewise be repelled by your use of a gender specific ep*thet in characterizing Conway, who is merely doing what most Trump advocates, male and female, are doing. Hasn't the locker room talk excuse worn itself out?
DCZards wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Wizardspride wrote:Rubio? Nah.
He looks the part but when you delve deeper, there's not a lot of substance.
Now Kasich otoh, not saying he definitely would have defeated Clinton but it would have been competitive.
IMO, Kasich we have one handily.
Kasich was the Repub I thought had the best chance of beating Hillary. But I doubt that Kasich would have won handily. He would have had a hard time energizing the Repub conservative base. He's too moderate for many of them. I actually think Jeb Bush may have been the Repubs best chance to win on Nov. 8--but I (and probably many other Americans) would have hated a Bush-Clinton matchup given that both families have already held the presidency.
Trump's supporters are getting just what they deserve for nominating a man who doesn't have the temperament, intelligence or character to be President of the US. Trump and his supporters railed against the so-called Repub establishment. But there's a reason they're called the "establishment," and it's primarily because they know how to run and win elections. Trump doesn't have a clue as to how to do either of those things.
D. Trump is about to get an old-fashioned a**-whippin' on Nov. 8.
JWizmentality wrote:montestewart wrote:JWizmentality wrote:Man, I'm sure Kelly Ann Conway is the a smart gal, but damn does she play [really?] well defending Trump.
I'm guessing that most women repelled by Trump's characterization of women would likewise be repelled by your use of a gender specific ep*thet in characterizing Conway, who is merely doing what most Trump advocates, male and female, are doing. Hasn't the locker room talk excuse worn itself out?
No, I think most women repelled by trumps language look at Conway and agrees. They probably have harsher words for her. And no, she didn't just merely defend him. They are not victims, they are enablers and accomplices to the greatest display of outright stupidity in modern history.
Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk
dckingsfan wrote:AFM wrote:Would Rubio have defeated Clinton?
EDIT- Marco Rubio, not Ricky Rubio. Although that's a good question to. Would Ricky Rubio have defeated HRC?
No. Also a boy.
dckingsfan wrote:DCZards wrote:dckingsfan wrote:IMO, Kasich we have one handily.
Kasich was the Repub I thought had the best chance of beating Hillary. But I doubt that Kasich would have won handily. He would have had a hard time energizing the Repub conservative base. He's too moderate for many of them. I actually think Jeb Bush may have been the Repubs best chance to win on Nov. 8--but I (and probably many other Americans) would have hated a Bush-Clinton matchup given that both families have already held the presidency.
Trump's supporters are getting just what they deserve for nominating a man who doesn't have the temperament, intelligence or character to be President of the US. Trump and his supporters railed against the so-called Repub establishment. But there's a reason they're called the "establishment," and it's primarily because they know how to run and win elections. Trump doesn't have a clue as to how to do either of those things.
D. Trump is about to get an old-fashioned a**-whippin' on Nov. 8.
Three reasons why:
1) Hillary has a high disapproval rating.
2) Their would be no equivalent of Wikileaks/Trump tapes
3) He has successfully run a state - with limited baggage - he would have taken the middle
4) He would be able to be an equal on wonkiness
5) He would have a much easier time going back to the middle - Hillary is having to go hard left to get millennials
It would have been a beat down. Just like the one Hillary is about to give Trump.
montestewart wrote:dckingsfan wrote:DCZards wrote:
Kasich was the Repub I thought had the best chance of beating Hillary. But I doubt that Kasich would have won handily. He would have had a hard time energizing the Repub conservative base. He's too moderate for many of them. I actually think Jeb Bush may have been the Repubs best chance to win on Nov. 8--but I (and probably many other Americans) would have hated a Bush-Clinton matchup given that both families have already held the presidency.
Trump's supporters are getting just what they deserve for nominating a man who doesn't have the temperament, intelligence or character to be President of the US. Trump and his supporters railed against the so-called Repub establishment. But there's a reason they're called the "establishment," and it's primarily because they know how to run and win elections. Trump doesn't have a clue as to how to do either of those things.
D. Trump is about to get an old-fashioned a**-whippin' on Nov. 8.
Three reasons why:
1) Hillary has a high disapproval rating.
2) Their would be no equivalent of Wikileaks/Trump tapes
3) He has successfully run a state - with limited baggage - he would have taken the middle
4) He would be able to be an equal on wonkiness
5) He would have a much easier time going back to the middle - Hillary is having to go hard left to get millennials
It would have been a beat down. Just like the one Hillary is about to give Trump.
I don't know about a beat down (granted, I'm not that good at predicting such outcomes) but I could surely see a victory, unless Trump entered as a 3rd party candidate.
dckingsfan wrote:montestewart wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Three reasons why:
1) Hillary has a high disapproval rating.
2) Their would be no equivalent of Wikileaks/Trump tapes
3) He has successfully run a state - with limited baggage - he would have taken the middle
4) He would be able to be an equal on wonkiness
5) He would have a much easier time going back to the middle - Hillary is having to go hard left to get millennials
It would have been a beat down. Just like the one Hillary is about to give Trump.
I don't know about a beat down (granted, I'm not that good at predicting such outcomes) but I could surely see a victory, unless Trump entered as a 3rd party candidate.
If Trump entered - I think it would have taken away more from Hillary's base.
montestewart wrote:JWizmentality wrote:montestewart wrote:I'm guessing that most women repelled by Trump's characterization of women would likewise be repelled by your use of a gender specific ep*thet in characterizing Conway, who is merely doing what most Trump advocates, male and female, are doing. Hasn't the locker room talk excuse worn itself out?
No, I think most women repelled by trumps language look at Conway and agrees. They probably have harsher words for her. And no, she didn't just merely defend him. They are not victims, they are enablers and accomplices to the greatest display of outright stupidity in modern history.
Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk
Give yourself a chance JWiz, maybe you don't actually know what women think. I could take an informal poll here at work among the women, representing a variety of races, nationalities, and backgrounds, and nearly universally anti-Trump, but I don't have to. I've heard enough opinions expressed by women, whether they identify as feminists or not, regarding the use of that term by any man to describe any woman. It's a grossly sexist term in the way you use it, quite comparable to the things Trump has said about women.
PS: Just to be certain I wasn't blowing smoke, I asked three female colleagues I was meeting with, all Democrats, all virulently anti-Trump. They all greatly objected to such a usage to describe Trump's female campaign manager. Consider the possibility that maybe most women are highly offended by that word, in any usage, especially by a man
JWizmentality wrote:montestewart wrote:JWizmentality wrote:No, I think most women repelled by trumps language look at Conway and agrees. They probably have harsher words for her. And no, she didn't just merely defend him. They are not victims, they are enablers and accomplices to the greatest display of outright stupidity in modern history.
Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk
Give yourself a chance JWiz, maybe you don't actually know what women think. I could take an informal poll here at work among the women, representing a variety of races, nationalities, and backgrounds, and nearly universally anti-Trump, but I don't have to. I've heard enough opinions expressed by women, whether they identify as feminists or not, regarding the use of that term by any man to describe any woman. It's a grossly sexist term in the way you use it, quite comparable to the things Trump has said about women.
PS: Just to be certain I wasn't blowing smoke, I asked three female colleagues I was meeting with, all Democrats, all virulently anti-Trump. They all greatly objected to such a usage to describe Trump's female campaign manager. Consider the possibility that maybe most women are highly offended by that word, in any usage, especially by a man
Oh I'm fully aware I have no business using it. But my poll of about 6 women last night in my watch party yielded different results
Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk
DCZards wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Wizardspride wrote:Rubio? Nah.
He looks the part but when you delve deeper, there's not a lot of substance.
Now Kasich otoh, not saying he definitely would have defeated Clinton but it would have been competitive.
IMO, Kasich we have one handily.
Kasich was the Repub I thought had the best chance of beating Hillary. But I doubt that Kasich would have won handily. He would have had a hard time energizing the Repub conservative base. He's too moderate for many of them. I actually think Jeb Bush may have been the Repubs best chance to win on Nov. 8--but I (and probably many other Americans) would have hated a Bush-Clinton matchup given that both families have already held the presidency.
Trump's supporters are getting just what they deserve for nominating a man who doesn't have the temperament, intelligence or character to be President of the US. Trump and his supporters railed against the so-called Repub establishment. But there's a reason they're called the "establishment," and it's primarily because they know how to run and win elections. Trump doesn't have a clue as to how to do either of those things.
D. Trump is about to get an old-fashioned a**-whippin' on Nov. 8.
dckingsfan wrote:Three reasons why:
1) Hillary has a high disapproval rating.
2) Their would be no equivalent of Wikileaks/Trump tapes
3) He has successfully run a state - with limited baggage - he would have taken the middle
4) He would be able to be an equal on wonkiness
5) He would have a much easier time going back to the middle - Hillary is having to go hard left to get millennials
It would have been a beat down. Just like the one Hillary is about to give Trump.
montestewart wrote:I'm open to analysis arguing otherwise, but if Trump ran the same kind of campaign as a 3rd party candidate, I just don't see his comments about blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, women, etc. helping him make much of a dent in Clinton's base. I feel like he would be a lot more effective at stealing voters from the GOP among the disaffected, non-college educated conservative white voters.
AFM wrote:JWiz, that word is offensive. Just reading it, brought back terrible memories, of getting stomped on by the local bullies at recess. You have triggered me. I ask that you change your signature to "I'm a very bad boy, who says very bad things." for the rest of 2016.
tontoz wrote:payitforward wrote:Am I to believe that some number of you actually believe that US Presidential elections -- any of them -- have been "rigged"? If so, congratulations: you're completely nuts. Off your rocker. And I do understand that it's not easy to get into that state; it takes work!
Or am I to believe that some number of you believe that this election is, will be, or could be "rigged"? Is that what you think? If so, again, you are mad as a hatter.
Probably the saddest part of a misconception of this kind is thinking that power and control in this country depends in a major way or is exercised in a decisive way based on Presidential elections. If anything, rigging elections would sabotage the people's belief that (at least to some degree) sovereign power is connected to at least some kind of expression of sovereignty by the people. No one who exercises power and control in this country wants that to happen, as it undermines the possibility of any kind of civil government.
A famous marketing story poses this scenario: someone has an ice cream stand on a long stretch of beach - lets say a 2-mile stretch of beach. Guy's doing a heck of a lot of business, and the lines are long, so you think -- "hey there's room in this market (i.e. on this beach) for a second ice cream stand; I'm going to start it."
The question is: where do you put your ice cream stand on that 2-mile beach? Where's the best place to locate it? I assume everyone knows the answer, but I'll put it behind a spoiler anyway:Spoiler:
If you have any quotes where someone claimed an election was "rigged" feel free to share. I won't hold my breath.
What has been stated is that voter fraud is common. People are (and have in the past) tried to used illegal means to influence elections. Their success, or lack thereof, is debatable.
In an Aug. 16, 2014, article for the Washington Post, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, currently on leave to work with the Department of Justice overseeing voting, wrote that he has been tracking allegations of voter fraud for years, including any “credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.”
“So far,” he wrote, “I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. … To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.”