2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
L.T. Fan said:
People get too worked over what Trump says. If he was President he couldn't do all these things he advocates. It's just hype to bring attention to himself. The office of the Presidency can only do what Congress and the Supreme court allows them to do.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying the lead Republican candidate is full of shit.
 
Maybe this will address everyone. Do you believe everything he says? Do you think most people believes everything he says? Do you believe he will be the Republican candidate? Do you think he will be elected President? If the answer is no to all these then why get worked up about what he says?
 
L.T. Fan said:
Maybe this will address everyone. Do you believe everything he says? Do you think most people believes everything he says? Do you believe he will be the Republican candidate? Do you think he will be elected President? If the answer is no to all these then why get worked up about what he says?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this doesn't address anything. If he wins the primary, in which he is currently one of the frontrunners, can we count on you to vote Hillary? You say he is not a serious candidate, after all.
 
Kbrown said:
Yeah, this doesn't address anything. If he wins the primary, in which he is currently one of the frontrunners, can we count on you to vote Hillary? You say he is not a serious candidate, after all.
Click to expand...

I think it remains to be seen whether he is a serious candidate. he has a long way to go for the Republican party to endorse him. In some of the primary polls he is losing ground.
 
L.T. Fan said:
I think it remains to be seen whether he is a serious candidate. he has a long way to go for the Republican party to endorse him. In some of the primary polls he is losing ground.
Click to expand...

But you will vote for him, kookbag ideas and all, should he win the nomination.
 
L.T. Fan said:
Why would you assume I will vote for him?
Click to expand...

I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse. I asked you if you would vote for him, and you answered with a question there, Socrates.

Anyway, the point is that his ultimately winning the nomination is not a barometer of a candidate's seriousness. He is currently around the top of every Republican poll, while people at Stormfront have taken to calling him their "leader." I literally just saw a CNN news ticker say that the latest poll has him separating himself from the pack in NH. To dismiss him and people's willingness to swallow his rhetoric is silly.
 
Kbrown said:
I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse. I asked you if you would vote for him, and you answered with a question there, Socrates.

Anyway, the point is that his ultimately winning the nomination is not a barometer of a candidate's seriousness. He is currently around the top of every Republican poll, while people at Stormfront have taken to calling him their "leader." I literally just saw a CNN news ticker say that the latest poll has him separating himself from the pack in NH. To dismiss him and people's willingness to swallow his rhetoric is silly.
Click to expand...

Why is it importantly to know whether I would vote for him. My point was that people over react to what he says when in truth he cannot do what he
advocates. I don't take him seriously. He is all bluster. Of course his supporters back him but that doesn't mean he can get the party to go along.
 
Admittedly the Republican party is still the crackpot olympics at this point(last time Herman Cain was leading at this stage.) The larger problem is what this represents for the republicans, who've clearly moved away from conservatism and are flirting with fascism.

The increasingly uncompromising rhetoric is the fault of moderates who should have stepped up to back less ridiculous candidates. This is poisonous for the republican brand, as they will be perceived (regardless of the final nominee) as having been anti Muslim and pro fascism during this election. Instead of the left having to trot out this war on Women narrative, they can have a much easier sale by having someone who's either consciously or unconsciously performing a pretty spot on Hitler impression become the face of the Republican party.
 
townsend said:
Admittedly the Republican party is still the crackpot olympics at this point(last time Herman Cain was leading at this stage.) The larger problem is what this represents for the republicans, who've clearly moved away from conservatism and are flirting with fascism.

The increasingly uncompromising rhetoric is the fault of moderates who should have stepped up to back less ridiculous candidates. This is poisonous for the republican brand, as they will be perceived (regardless of the final nominee) as having been anti Muslim and pro fascism during this election. Instead of the left having to trot out this war on Women narrative, they can have a much easier sale by having someone who's either consciously or unconsciously performing a pretty spot on Hitler impression become the face of the Republican party.
Click to expand...

If only I understood what you said.
 
Kbrown said:
I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse. I asked you if you would vote for him, and you answered with a question there, Socrates.

Anyway, the point is that his ultimately winning the nomination is not a barometer of a candidate's seriousness. He is currently around the top of every Republican poll, while people at Stormfront have taken to calling him their "leader." I literally just saw a CNN news ticker say that the latest poll has him separating himself from the pack in NH. To dismiss him and people's willingness to swallow his rhetoric is silly.
Click to expand...

Obtuse is one of my favorite words. Have you being watching Shawshank recently?
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
I can translate. Townsend hates the Republican Party and is a Bernie Sanders/Obama nut.
Click to expand...

I do hate the Republican Party. As it exists today. Anyone who doesn't probably needs their head examined.

I never voted for Obama. But I can guarantee 2 things.

1. He did a better job than McCain or Romney would have.

2. Whoever succeeds him will be a significant downgrade.

I'm not a Sanders nut, the man worries me at times. But the rest of the candidates worry me far more. At least with Sanders is a man who has principles, who was willing to fight for things he believed in, even when they were unpopular.

Please tell me the candidate you're "nuts" over.
 
townsend said:
I do hate the Republican Party. As it exists today. Anyone who doesn't probably needs their head examined.

I never voted for Obama. But I can guarantee 2 things.

1. He did a better job than McCain or Romney would have.

2. Whoever succeeds him will be a significant downgrade.

I'm not a Sanders nut, the man worries me at times. But the rest of the candidates worry me far more. At least with Sanders is a man who has principles, who was willing to fight for things he believed in, even when they were unpopular.

Please tell me the candidate you're "nuts" over.
Click to expand...

I don't care for Sanders principles of governmental economic philosophy.
 
townsend said:
Please tell me the candidate you're "nuts" over.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul is the best candidate by far in my opinion. Unfortunately I doubt he will be the Republican nominee. Hilary and Bernie are beyond scary options. A socialist and the least trustworthy politician imaginable.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
The guy is bordline crazy in his philosophy. He would destroy the economy if he could actually get anything passed.
Click to expand...

I think the economy is more durable than you give it credit for. At least he's the only guy up there who isn't bought and paid for. That's why I especially side with him over Hillary. She has a lot of Saudi backers (as did the Bushes) which should be considered a conflict of interest at this point.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Rand Paul is the best candidate by far in my opinion. Unfortunately I doubt he will be the Republican nominee. Hilary and Bernie are beyond scary options. A socialist and the least trustworthy politician imaginable.
Click to expand...
If the Republicans were willing to back Paul, I'd definitely consider voting for him. I've contributed a few hundred dollars to Rand (and Ron's) campaigns over the years.

Unfortunately Libertarians get far less respect in the Republican primary that whatever the hell Trump is.

I still have issues with Paul, mainly that his ideology sometimes takes a backseat when he needs to pander.but I respect a lot of his work in the senate.

But a guy like Ron or Rand Paul isn't ever going to make it in the Republican Party. They've made that abundantly clear.

I'd rather back an electable candidate that is at least pro civil liberties and against fiscal responsibility. Than the rest of the field which is anti civil liberties, and anti fiscal responsibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom