Jump to content

The official South Carolina/Nevada primary thread...


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Green Ranger said:

That's how the left wing liberals do it.

Green ranger, the left on this board shut down debate, discussion if it invades their safe space. They have colluded against me for that very reason. They simply cannot stand on their convictions without slinging personal insults and just shutting down debate all together. It's the most juvenile reaction I've ever come across. 

Edited by dirtyhairy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

28 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

What about Rubio?  Seems reasonable enough to me.  I wouldn't vote for him, but he seems like the best of the remaining ones on the stage (I'm assuming Kasich doesn't have a chance now).

I liked how Cruz accused Trump of supporting “socialized medicine” and when Trump said he doesn’t want anyone to die in the street, Rubio said he sounded like a Democrat. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

What about Rubio?  Seems reasonable enough to me.  I wouldn't vote for him, but he seems like the best of the remaining ones on the stage (I'm assuming Kasich doesn't have a chance now).

I'll probably vote for Rubio in the primary solely for that reason -- best chance to beat Trump for the nomination.

Not my favorite, and I'd prefer to vote for Kasich, but I'd rather go on practicality in the primary.  I can always vote principle in the general.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I thought it was an Onion Article.  Wow.

This is the first time in my life that I have felt like I am old fashioned in a totally disconnected, the World has moved on and does things completely differently than my reality  kind of way . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Considering how much the party demonized him for simply working with Obama after his state was hit by a hurricane I can't say I'm surprised that he went with Trump. He's also smart enough to realize Trump is going to get the nomination and endorsing him will put him on the path to on the ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Considering how much the party demonized him for simply working with Obama after his state was hit by a hurricane I can't say I'm surprised that he went with Trump. He's also smart enough to realize Trump is going to get the nomination and endorsing him will put him on the path to on the ticket.

There's no way Trump would pick Rubio or Cruz for VP, and their egos are too much to agree to be VP.  Christie on the other hand . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mdrake34 said:

It's a fallacy, but Trump is an ***  hole.  So there's that. 

I don't know if Gary Johnson has thrown his hat in the ring or not, and I don't know if the threat of Trump and/or Bloomberg going independent affects that or not.  I'm not voting for Hillary, Bernie, or Trump under any circumstances whatsoever.  I am at the point that I almost sort of wish Cruz wasn't such a grandstanding ***  hole.  He's incredibly intelligent, he's a strict constitutionalist, but his closing remarks were just too much for me. 

Gary Johnson announced he was running back in January.

Interesting facts to consider in light of Cruz, Rubio, and the Latino vote: Johnson was elected to his first term although party registration in the state of New Mexico at the time was 2-to-1 Democratic. Then he was elected to a second four-year term, winning the Latino vote against a Latino Democratic candidate in a heavily Democratic Latino state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Trump’s wrong? Fact checkers can tell you how often. (Hint: A lot.)


How are factcheckers dealing with Trump? Not well. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts) (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
By Paul Farhi February 26 at 7:00 AM

No, Donald Trump, the unemployment rate isn’t 42 percent. And, no, it’s not true that President Obama wants to take in 250,000 Syrian refugees. Or that “thousands and thousands” of American Muslims celebrated when the World Trade towers toppled on 9/11. Despite numerous accounts to the contrary, Trump has insisted on all these things.

Which makes someone like Angie Drobnic Holan shake her head ruefully.

Holan, the editor of PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning news site devoted to vetting political statements, has investigated plenty of dubious assertions in her time. But she’s never seen anyone quite like Trump.

“The difference with him is the degree to which he’s wrong,” she says. “All politicians like to stick to their talking points, and sometimes a few of those points are debunked. With Trump, it’s not one or two points. It’s lots and lots.”

Politicians of every kind, in every era, have bent and twisted facts to their liking. And, yes, (shocker!), they sometimes lie. But to Holan and the small community of professional fact checkers, Trump represents something new: a front-running candidate who isn’t just wrong at times, but wrong many, many times, and defiantly so when called on it.

He may indeed be America’s first post-factual candidate. Consider:

● PolitiFact found that 78 percent of the 96 Trump statements it reviewed were either “mostly false,” “false” or “pants-on-fire” false, the highest percentage by far in the current field of presidential candidates. (By comparison, 66 percent of Ted Cruz’s statements fell into those categories; 42 percent of Marco Rubio’s; 32 percent of Bernie Sanders’s; and 27 percent of Hillary Clinton’s. Trump’s is the highest they’ve ever recorded for a major candidate.) Among others, PolitiFact dinged Trump for claiming that blacks kill 81 percent of white homicide victims and for saying that Obama is pushing refugees to states with Republican governors.

● The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column has awarded Trump four Pinocchios — its lowest rating for honesty — 63 percent of the time it has looked at one of his statements, also by far the worst percentage (others: Cruz, 21 percent; Rubio, 18; Sanders and Clinton 14). A recent four-Pinoc: Trump’s claim that a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border would cost $8 billion.

● In naming Trump the “King of Whoppers” in its annual review last year, FactCheck.org, an organization at the University of Pennsylvania, observed: “In the 12 years of FactCheck.org’s existence, we’ve never seen his match. He stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong.”

It’s not clear that Trump has ever backed down from any of his unsubstantiated claims since announcing his candidacy in June — a hallmark of his pugnacious style. When journalists failed to find TV footage or published accounts to back up Trump’s assertion of widespread celebrations in New Jersey cheered on 9/11, for example, Trump cited “hundreds” of calls and tweets from people claiming they’d seen the same thing. He demanded an apology from those who’d written otherwise.

He has also questioned the fact checkers. After PolitiFact awarded Trump its “Lie of the Year” for his run of campaign misstatements, he responded by telling ABC News, “They are leaning in a certain direction, and no matter what you do with them — I mean they are a very dishonest group, in my opinion.”

Trump’s refusal to acknowledge error, or to simply adjust his rhetoric, sets him apart from his fellow office-seekers, too: Contrary to the general cynicism about political truthiness, many leading politicians do change their tune when called out on untrue statements, fact checkers say. Sanders, for one, changed a talking point about the chances of a black male being sent to prison after The Post’s Fact Checker questioned his data.

“Professional politicians mostly want to get it right,” said Glenn Kessler, the Fact Checker columnist. “What’s unusual about Trump is he’s a leading candidate and he seems to have no interest in getting important things factually correct.”

And that fact isn’t especially frustrating to the fact checkers. Their goal, they say, is to point out what’s wrong, not necessarily to change a politician’s ways.

“The mission of the fact checker is to inform democracy, first and foremost,” said Bill Adair, PolitiFact’s creator and now a journalism professor at Duke University. “So it doesn’t bother me to say that a statement is false and a candidate continues to make that statement. The most important thing is that we’re telling voters what’s true and what’s not.”

Fact checkers haven’t failed if politicians continue to twist the facts, Adair said, any more than investigative reporters have failed when politicians continue to be corrupt.

In fact, an academic study of political fact checking operations this year found that the public generally views political fact checking favorably, and that more exposure to it helps people become better informed. However, the study also found that the format tends to reach already well-informed and educated people and that those who are less informed have less favorable views. What’s more, the study found a partisan divide: Republicans find less to like in fact checking than Democrats, an echo of conservative complaints that fact checkers are slanted against Republicans.

As for Trump, it’s possible that his supporters are less interested in mere facts than in other qualities, such as his determination, passion and strength, said Carol Pogash, the author of “Quotations from Chairman Trump,” a recently published collection of his statements through the years. “His fans . . . are voting for the Disrupter-in-Chief,” said Pogash. “He’s the billionaire who promises to blow up the status quo. His supporters love that Trump is the bully in the china shop.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-existential-crisis-of-professional-factcheckers-in-the-year-of-trump/2016/02/25/e994f210-db3e-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting very interesting, VERY fast.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859

Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential bid
A group of Republicans is moving quickly to research ballot-access requirements for independent candidates in case Trump wraps up the GOP nomination next month

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

This is getting very interesting, VERY fast.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859

Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential bid
A group of Republicans is moving quickly to research ballot-access requirements for independent candidates in case Trump wraps up the GOP nomination next month

I love this election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

OK . . . Let me get this straight.  Evangelicals are always clamoring to put up the Ten Commandments everywhere they possibly can, right?

And these same Evangelicals are now FLOCKING to Trump . . .

I can only assume that there must be some religious movement trying to change it to the "NINE Commandments"??

Or will "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor" be replaced with "Thou shall hate Mooslims"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

This is getting very interesting, VERY fast.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859

Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential bid
A group of Republicans is moving quickly to research ballot-access requirements for independent candidates in case Trump wraps up the GOP nomination next month

I DON'T like politics at all, but what's going on here is incredible! Run a 3rd party independent "Republican"? WOW!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gritzblitz said it the best the other day, something to the effect of: if you invite a monkey into your house, don't be surprised when it starts slinging its **** everywhere. The GOP let the crazies actually take hold of the wheel (instead of just pandering to them), and now seems shocked those loons are steering the boat straight into the icebergs.

On the flip side, I hope Bernie also serves as something of a transitional figure in U.S. politics.  It certainly won't be to the same degree as the Trump Shaker, but it'd be great if the Dems actually appreciate what his run has meant and that if they hope to keep control of the party long term, they'll have to quit pandering to the same interests as the GOP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

Gritzblitz said it the best the other day, something to the effect of: if you invite a monkey into your house, don't be surprised when it starts slinging its **** everywhere. The GOP let the crazies actually take hold of the wheel (instead of just pandering to them), and now seems shocked those loons are steering the boat straight into the icebergs.

On the flip side, I hope Bernie also serves as something of a transitional figure in U.S. politics.  It certainly won't be to the same degree as the Trump Shaker, but it'd be great if the Dems actually appreciate what his run has meant and that if they hope to keep control of the party long term, they'll have to quit pandering to the same interests as the GOP. 

I don't like Sanders since he'd be a horrible president, but he has gained much more support than most other flash in the pan candidates (eg. Ron Paul) have before so his movement probably isn't slated to the same fate. His run comes off as a foot in the door type of moment for a later politician who is more suited for the office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...