or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 191

post #2851 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Same can be very easily said for Hillary, like the new greek guy pointed out few pages ago. Voting Hillary is supporting status quo, Trump is pretty much an unknown, wouldn't you agree?

How do you spin being a unknown quantity as a good thing?

"Fuck it, let's see what's going to happen!" is truly awful reasoning for electing a President. It's a tiny bit better than the "Fuck it, burn this motherfucker down" from all the 4chan style Trump idiots, but not much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

it's not that he is the one, is that Hillary is 100% sure pick to not solve them. Her record on interventionism, trade deals, wall street is terrible. So small chance as it is that Trump will succeed at any of these areas, it is a better chance than Hillary, who is good pals with Henry Kissinger and sees ME as a 'global chessboard' in a game vs Russia and spoke for EVERY intervention once in office. So while I'm not sure Trump would do what he says, and even leaning to 'no' in most areas; I think it's still a chance he will do better than Hillary, chance worth taking given her record.

There's no evaluation of the downside of electing Trump in there.

Success as President doesn't come from a random number generation, and he hasn't given us any concrete demonstration of his upside. But the downside? We could invade Iraq and hand the oilfields to Exxon, we could torture people's families. It could all be a long con for personal enrichment and power, see:Berlusconi, Silvio.


We're not exactly on the precipice of imminent doom, so I don't know how taking a massive flyer on an erratic character with all Trump's demonstrated downsides is a reasonable risk to take.
post #2852 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post


Well there's certainly nothing wrong with being principled, and one can be consistently so even in the face of adversity. I won't comment on the Iraq war here, but there are certainly other factors at play aside from what you wrote, so I can't be sure it was a matter of GWB being principled or not. The point I was making is that if one is impervious to change then the potential to become a dogmatic increases dramatically, and that really is dangerous. I think there are plenty of examples of this throughout history.

 

If I wanted to be impervious to change I'd be supporting Hillary or The Donald.

post #2853 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


That is a truly ridiculous extrapolation. You have no reason to believe that his ratio of support among people who know about his would translate to general support.

It's just fantasy to think that 50% of the country is waiting in ignorance for a libertarian enlightenment, and only a media blackout is keeping from from pulling the lever for Gary Johnson or whoever else. You are rejecting reality if you believe that to be the case, and that's really just not that interesting. It's perfectly reasonable to not be happy about that reality. It's reasonable to push for libertarian ideals. But there's this population of Internet Libertarians who would rather shout about the fantasy of the Impending Revolution being held down by The Conspiracy rather than the down to earth business of how to actually push for plausible steps to change.

Shit is boring, yo.

 

And the predictable devolution to insults, stereotypes and profanity.  Sigh.  This year especially the point I'm making is not specific to the Libertarian candidate.  Both legacy frontrunners have unfavorable ratings above 50%.  Serious question (TM): What rationale can there possibly be for the media not doing their job of objectively reporting the election when it has been shown that the two legacy frontrunners poll so negatively? 

 

The extrapolation is not ridiculous.  In the Monmouth poll, Clinton's favorable/unfavorable/no opinion numbers are 40/51/9.  Trump's are 30/60/11.  Johnson's are 9/15/76.  In the three-way race question, it's Clinton 42, Trump 34, Johnson 11, other/nobody/undecided 13.  From this we can conclude that (a) Johnson's fav/unfav is already much better than Trump's; (b) Clinton and Trump are each at a ceiling of strong support because their poll numbers and favorable numbers are nearly identical and the number of voters with no opinion on them is nearly the same as the other/nobody/undecided column.

post #2854 of 8748
Nick bringing the numbas! Fuck yeah!!!
post #2855 of 8748
MRW Gibonius starts losing his cool a little bit

post #2856 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

The extrapolation is not ridiculous.  In the Monmouth poll, Clinton's favorable/unfavorable/no opinion numbers are 40/51/9.  Trump's are 30/60/11.  Johnson's are 9/15/76.  In the three-way race question, it's Clinton 42, Trump 34, Johnson 11, other/nobody/undecided 13.  From this we can conclude that (a) Johnson's fav/unfav is already much better than Trump's; (b) Clinton and Trump are each at a ceiling of strong support because their poll numbers and favorable numbers are nearly identical and the number of voters with no opinion on them is nearly the same as the other/nobody/undecided column.

Damn shame that Johnson didn't put his name in for the Republican nomination then, isn't it? Playing a role like Sanders and making an actual play for the major party nomination sounds more appealing than sniffing for high enough polling numbers to break onto the big boy debate stage.

And yes, it's still a ridiculous extrapolation. Favorability ratings for third party candidates don't translate to actual votes. For that matter, even polling results don't translate into actual votes. Being the third name on a list , against two much better known opponents, significantly inflates the results. Turns out people don't normally actually show up and vote for the third parties.

And you just can't ignore the power of the parties. Feel free to call people stupid because of it, feel free to complain about media bias, but it's real. 45% of people consistently vote Democrat, and 40% consistently vote Republican. There's only 12% that frequently flip, and few enough of them send those votes to third parties. People who don't like "their" candidate usually just don't show up.
post #2857 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Damn shame that Johnson didn't put his name in for the Republican nomination then, isn't it? Playing a role like Sanders and making an actual play for the major party nomination sounds more appealing than sniffing for high enough polling numbers to break onto the big boy debate stage.

And yes, it's still a ridiculous extrapolation. Favorability ratings for third party candidates don't translate to actual votes. For that matter, even polling results don't translate into actual votes. Being the third name on a list , against two much better known opponents, significantly inflates the results. Turns out people don't normally actually show up and vote for the third parties.

And you just can't ignore the power of the parties. Feel free to call people stupid because of it, feel free to complain about media bias, but it's real. 45% of people consistently vote Democrat, and 40% consistently vote Republican. There's only 12% that frequently flip, and few enough of them send those votes to third parties. People who don't like "their" candidate usually just don't show up.

 

He did once.  Bad choice in a year with Ron Paul.

post #2858 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

It's those who would limit the number of choices who are "forcing" things, not I sir.

Do you doubt the metrics of the Monmouth Poll?  Here, read the whole thing:

https://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/7714a05b-515f-4ad3-bdaa-e72a6e5f8e61.pdf

Fantasy politics have the same relevance as fantasy football.
post #2859 of 8748
There should be a movie in regard to policis in america jim cramer should play the role of bernie, petter schiff in role of hillary, and Jim rogers as trump, and finally Obama as himself.
post #2860 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

If I wanted to be impervious to change I'd be supporting Hillary or The Donald.

Given that I didn't even make the original comment regarding your level of adherence to what you believe in, I guess I'll leave it to you to figure out why this response doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

The extrapolation is not ridiculous.  In the Monmouth poll, Clinton's favorable/unfavorable/no opinion numbers are 40/51/9.  Trump's are 30/60/11.  Johnson's are 9/15/76.  In the three-way race question, it's Clinton 42, Trump 34, Johnson 11, other/nobody/undecided 13.  From this we can conclude that (a) Johnson's fav/unfav is already much better than Trump's; (b) Clinton and Trump are each at a ceiling of strong support because their poll numbers and favorable numbers are nearly identical and the number of voters with no opinion on them is nearly the same as the other/nobody/undecided column.

Unfortunately, this doesn't make sense either. Your extrapolation assumes that the ratio of favorable to unfavorable would remain constant as Johnson becomes better known (starting at a whopping 76%). There just isn't a basis for such a premise (sure, it could remain constant, but it could also go up or down too, and how you predict one versus the others escapes me).
post #2861 of 8748
The quote that made me really surprised for a few seconds, especially the ending about FED and rates. If this is truly what is going to happen all I can say is: "What a free-market feudalism we ended up in."

"Of course a Trump presidency is not without concern, primarily because the street doesn't like uncertainty. It wants to know the variables.

"With Trump it's more of a shoot from the hip mentality," an analyst said. "And that's a risk."

And another growing concern is the Fed. Some believe they won't raise rates during an election year. But if Trump is elected that will change immediately.

"My guess is if Trump is elected," an economist said. "They'll raise rates any chance they get to ensure Trump is dealing with a recession in his first year in office."
post #2862 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

How do you spin being a unknown quantity as a good thing?

"Fuck it, let's see what's going to happen!" is truly awful reasoning for electing a President. It's a tiny bit better than the "Fuck it, burn this motherfucker down" from all the 4chan style Trump idiots, but not much.
There's no evaluation of the downside of electing Trump in there.

Success as President doesn't come from a random number generation, and he hasn't given us any concrete demonstration of his upside. But the downside? We could invade Iraq and hand the oilfields to Exxon, we could torture people's families. It could all be a long con for personal enrichment and power, see:Berlusconi, Silvio.


We're not exactly on the precipice of imminent doom, so I don't know how taking a massive flyer on an erratic character with all Trump's demonstrated downsides is a reasonable risk to take.

What you are saying is: Downside from Trump could be greater than the downside from Hillary.
Will trump destroy the world economy? Nope that has already been done by many presidents some of whom you have voted for. Will Trump destroy the ME causing it to collapse in lawlessness leading to refugee exodus on biblical scale? Nope that has been done too by US officials your vote had put in the WH. Is there reason to believe Trump will escalate confrontation with Russia or N. Korea? No not from his speeches and foreign policy pronouncements. Is there a reason to believe that Trump will bleed US working and middle classes further by striking more Globalist BS deals? May be , but all indications are that Hills would definitely be game for that while with Trump there is a tiny chance he would not. Will Trump shrink H1B quota or build a wall, remains to be seen. While Hills would not lift a finger to do either.
Under Trump we will torture families or detain without court order? We already torture people and kill US citizens without regard for international or even US law. We already kidnap foreign citizens around the world to pad some middle manager's resume at FBI. This fucking country is already psychotic imbecile/loose cannon with a big bat and it swinging it at every unfamiliar sound, eyes closed.
You are way too late to worry about any of the things you write about cause you already in the middle of that mess.
So stop worrying.
post #2863 of 8748

Apparently Trump is going to debate Sanders...

post #2864 of 8748
Trump has cinched the nomination.
post #2865 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post


Under Trump we will torture families or detain without court order? We already torture people and kill US citizens without regard for international or even US law. We already kidnap foreign citizens around the world to pad some middle manager's resume at FBI. This fucking country is already psychotic imbecile/loose cannon with a big bat and it swinging it at every unfamiliar sound, eyes closed.
You are way too late to worry about any of the things you write about cause you already in the middle of that mess.
So stop worrying.

We're already in bad shape, therefore it's okay? That's the logic?

 

Just stop worrying, its already too late? That's your reasoning?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field