[url]http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20160201-20160401/collapsed/false/spotlight/1[/url]
[QUOTE] The Republican results marked a nominal gain for Trump since his win in the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary, when he led Cruz by 18.4 points in the national rolling survey, although the increase remained within the poll’s credibility interval.
Since he announced his candidacy last summer, Trump has leveraged his celebrity and deep pockets to wage an unfiltered campaign that has upended the Republican primary. He has led the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll since nearly the start of his campaign, topping Bush in late July.
[/QUOTE]
I was never planning to step on the TrumpChumpTrain, but it looks like Bernie's chances are shrinking behind Hillary, and he's better than [B]her[/B]...
I will never understand the rationale of Trump being better than Hillary.
[QUOTE=Badballer;50056728]I will never understand the rationale of Trump being better than Hillary.[/QUOTE]
Trump says bad shit, Hillary actually voted for bad shit when it mattered. Whatever they both are saying now--and have said in the past--is kind of meaningless since they flip flop all over the place.
Which one of ya'lls ready for [B]TRUMP 2016[/B]
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50056791]Trump is pretty much the worst out of both parties and I have no idea how anyone could support him, let alone this many people.[/QUOTE]
Cruz is the worst. Trump is only very, very, very slightly better, though.
[QUOTE=buttsnake;50056719][url]http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20160201-20160401/collapsed/false/spotlight/1[/url]
I was never planning to step on the TrumpChumpTrain, but it looks like Bernie's chances are shrinking behind Hillary, and he's better than [B]her[/B]...[/QUOTE]
what? Bernie just won Nevada because Hillary's delegetes didn't show up.
Well I mean, I guess five delegates is five delegates..
[QUOTE=Badballer;50056728]I will never understand the rationale of Trump being better than Hillary.[/QUOTE]
two angles I've heard;
1) he's far more moderate, and on some issues progressive, than he leads on to be in the primary season to assure his nomination as the republican candidate, and will simmer down if he does get the nomination.
2) the ensuing apocalypse after his election will create a vacuum for progressive reform, and progressives will have a far better foothold come 2020.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;50056786]Trump says bad shit, Hillary actually voted for bad shit when it mattered. Whatever they both are saying now--and have said in the past--is kind of meaningless since they flip flop all over the place.[/QUOTE]
Um yeah but Clinton doesn't say she wants to ban Muslims and the Geneva Conventions are bad and women who have abortions should be punished and beating up protesters is cool
[QUOTE=DaMastez;50056786]Trump says bad shit, Hillary actually voted for bad shit when it mattered. Whatever they both are saying now--and have said in the past--is kind of meaningless since they flip flop all over the place.[/QUOTE]
Honestly most of the 'bad shit' trump said is actually reasonable shit he intentionally framed in a politically incorrect and inflammatory manner to both get free publicity and sell it to Republican voters.
Like the infamous wall; He already said he'll give amnesty and fast track legal status to Illegal Immigrants who are already in the U.S. which is literally the same deal the 1986 Anmesty which had the condition that we enforce border control.
Well '86 we got amnesty but border control never materialized.
Now Trump is simply doing Border Patrol first, Amnesty second, to stop this cycle we currently have of wanting to give amnesty to people who are here yet the front door is still wide open.
Honestly I think we should create some visa regime where Mexicans have the right to live and work in the territory ceeded by Mexico in 1848 on the condition of paying upfront like $1k which is what they already pay people smugglers anyway and a special tax of say 5% to cover the cost of lost tax revenue and welfare.
I'm sorry but none of what you guys are saying makes any sense
[QUOTE=smurfy;50057008]I'm sorry but none of what you guys are saying makes any sense[/QUOTE]
These guys are probably going to vote.
Are you ready to make America great again?
What the hell happened on the 28th for him to surge?
[editline]30[/editline]
hell it's the same thing for bernie vs hilary
[QUOTE=smurfy;50057001]Um yeah but Clinton doesn't say she wants to ban Muslims and the Geneva Conventions are bad and women who have abortions should be punished and beating up protesters is cool[/QUOTE]
Well if you remember he stated he only wanted a [i][u]temporary[/u][/i] ban on muslims following the San Bernardino terrorist attack in which one of the jihadists was approved for a greencard [i][u]only four months before the shooting[/i][/u], until an investigation is carried out figuring out why they passed 3 national security checks despite rumours they were openly advocating Jihadist terrorism on the internet.
Also the President already has the legal authority to ban whomever he wants from the country even whole classes of people.
He objected to the Geneva convention in the context of the War with ISIS pointing out his distaste in following it while fighting an enemy that drowns and burns people alive in 1080p and would, on video, behead and kill in every horrific manner they can think of, any American they'll capture.
[editline]2nd April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50057083]What the hell happened on the 28th for him to surge?
[editline]30[/editline]
hell it's the same thing for bernie vs hilary[/QUOTE]
Ted Cruz getting caught sticking his dick in things that isn't his wife or a rat, and Donald Trump threatening to sue the GOP for usurping democracy in the Louisiana primary by ignoring the votes and giving more delegates to Ted Cruz despite Donald trump winning by 5% of the popular vote.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50057148]Well if you remember he stated he only wanted a [i][u]temporary[/u][/i] ban on muslims following the San Bernardino terrorist attack in which one of the jihadists was approved for a greencard [i][u]only four months before the shooting[/i][/u], until an investigation is carried out figuring out why they passed 3 national security checks despite rumours they were openly advocating Jihadist terrorism on the internet.
Also the President already has the legal authority to ban whomever he wants from the country even whole classes of people.
He objected to the Geneva convention in the context of the War with ISIS pointing out his distaste in following it while fighting an enemy that drowns and burns people alive in 1080p and would, on video, behead and kill in every horrific manner they can think of, any American they'll capture.[/QUOTE]
So we should discriminate groups of people because it's ok to generalize after an attack? This "until we figure things out" mentality makes no sense, in what way does it justify a ban an entire group of people? Doesn't matter if discrimination is "temporary" it's still discrimination, we put the Japanese in internment camps temporarily and it wasn't right then. Just because he has the authority doesn't make it right either.
And even then this ban could literally just be circumvented through lying so it would be pointless.
And it doesn't matter if ISIS doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, we still should because we're not them and not following them provides no benefits. These humanitarian standards are not something you just decide to be exempt from on special occasions. This actually reminds me of that childish mentality of "He started it!" which he has.
All this tells me is Trump is someone who does things based on emotion and not logic, you don't ban an entire group out of fear and you don't break humanitarian standards because you're angry someone else did it first.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50057001]Um yeah but Clinton doesn't say she wants to ban Muslims and the Geneva Conventions are bad and women who have abortions should be punished and beating up protesters is cool[/QUOTE]
What's your point. As I said, whatever either of them are saying right now is meaningless because they change their views quite often. Trump sort of at random from what I've seen, Clinton based around whatever will get more votes for the present moment.
Clinton has a history of, when it actually mattered, casting votes for things I disagree with. Trump has no political history. I'd take random who may just be playing the GOP voter base for fools over consistently shit. Though I'd much rather have consistently sensible, which hopefully will be an option in the general election.
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;50057245]So we should discriminate groups of people because it's ok to generalize after an attack? This "until we figure things out" mentality makes no sense, in what way does it justify a ban an entire group of people? Doesn't matter if discrimination is "temporary" it's still discrimination, we put the Japanese in internment camps temporarily and it wasn't right then. Just because he has the authority doesn't make it right either.
And even then this ban could literally just be circumvented through lying so it would be pointless.
And it doesn't matter if ISIS doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, we still should because we're not them and not following them provides no benefits. These humanitarian standards are not something you just decide to be exempt from on special occasions. This actually reminds me of that childish mentality of "He started it!" which he has.
All this tells me is Trump is someone who does things based on emotion and not logic, you don't ban an entire group out of fear and you don't break humanitarian standards because you're angry someone else did it first.[/QUOTE]
There's a massive difference between Trump putting a temporary hold on issuing Visas and FDR stripping US Citizens of their constitutional rights and depriving them of their freedom by putting them in camps.
Like how can you compare being denied entry to the Country to putting people in Camps?
Also it's hard to lie about that because in Arabic countries non-muslims have different names due to the fact a majority muslims take their names from Muslim prophets, and islamic titles and concepts; just look at the heard of the Paris attack, his name is
Abdelhamid, which literally translstes to Servant of Allah in arabic.
Non-muslims retain native arabic names, or specifically Christian names like Al-Khouri, or sometimes even names tracing back to Assyrian, Aramaic, and Coptic languages.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50056791]Trump is pretty much the worst out of both parties and I have no idea how anyone could support him, let alone this many people.[/QUOTE]
I've been reading Hunter S. Thompson's [I]Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72[/I] recently, and all the talking points he prints from George Wallace supporters back then could have been said by Trump supporters today. A demagogue of the worst type.
His descriptions of Wallace campaign style are also very applicable to Trump, this whole rockstar persona he emits when he's out holding these grandiose rallies.
Didn't we just have a thread that said Trumps' nomination chances are shrinking :v:
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;50056791]Trump is pretty much the worst out of both parties and I have no idea how anyone could support him, let alone this many people.[/QUOTE]
According to NPR on the radio (I have no non-radio sources to confirm this unfortunately), Trump supporter demographics are white, male, uneducated, and lower class to impoverished.
[sp]In my area, we call those type of people "trailer trash"[/sp] soooo
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50057751]According to NPR on the radio (I have no non-radio sources to confirm this unfortunately), Trump supporter demographics are white, male, uneducated, and lower class to impoverished.
[sp]In my area, we call those type of people "trailer trash"[/sp] soooo[/QUOTE]
Even as someone who couldn't imagine supporting a candidate as gross as Trump, calling people trailer trash is really shitty ad hominem. It's poor/uninformed people that don't trust the government and are easily won over by what Trump's populist attitude and 'history' as a successful businessman that has been proven multiple times to be completely false, and also seem to be able to ignore how he constantly flip-flops on every argument, his stance on most topics completely unclear due greatly in part to him relying heavily on ad hominem instead of actual debate when faced against his opponents. That and racism/xenophobia is likely a major driving factor. The thing is that, when it comes down to it, even if you think you agree with what he says (which, I have no idea how seeing as the man has contradicted himself more than the goddamn bible) he's not in this for you and he won't be doing what you want him to, I'm sure he's going into this race with corporate interests at the forefront of is mind and couldn't give a damn about anything else.
Also of note is the really deplorable argument I've also heard from people, which can be summed up as "He'll make life hell for minorities and the poor, and they'll rise up and revolt [I]for me[/I] so I don't have to get up off of my own lazy ass and fight for change." Seriously? Holy shit, if you're so lazy you'd willingly hurt others to get what you want for you instead of asking what you can do to make a difference [I]you don't deserve change.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
