• Donald Trump overtakes Hillary Clinton for first time since May in ABC poll
    406 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Chaitin;51296334]I forgot about 270-to-win map. I guess that is the most plausible path for Hillary to win the election, if we remove Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina. I'm really pessimistic about North Carolina and Nevada though (Florida maybe less)[/QUOTE] Nevada has reportedly had excellent Latino turnout thus far, which says very good things about Clinton's ground game there. i'd worry much more about Florida and NC given the reduced black turnout, but the flipside is that Clinton's now in kicking distance in basically anywhere that has a significant Latino population, including Arizona.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51296147]literally nothing will change for lgbts with trump you act like he's going to round them up in concentration camps[/QUOTE] Typical Trump post: ignore the facts and attack a strawman [editline]2nd November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phaedon;51296315]Haven't the demographic groups voting early in Florida right now traditionally voted Republican? Plus, I recall reading that 28% of GOP voters voted for Clinton in Florida, but that sounds like a BS number. Out of interest, which states would Trump need to secure in a scenario where he loses Florida? Can he even get 270 electoral voters, or would he have to rely on a deadlock at the electoral college?[/QUOTE] I can't bring up a map now but if Clinton wins Florida then Trump will have to win almost every other swing state.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51296382]Typical Trump post: ignore the facts and attack a strawman [editline]2nd November 2016[/editline] I can't bring up a map now but if Clinton wins Florida then Trump will have to win almost every other swing state.[/QUOTE] Trump said he would leave the decision of gay marriage up to the individual states, even if he is against it.
[QUOTE=Smoot;51296394]Trump said he would leave the decision of gay marriage up to the individual states, even if he is against it.[/QUOTE] Not good.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;51296395]Not good.[/QUOTE] I'd rather that over someone who wants to take action against other countries that could lead to war.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;51296108]As much as I'd hate a trump presidency, the aftermath would be absolutely fucking hilarious [editline]2nd November 2016[/editline] Especially here [editline]2nd November 2016[/editline] On facepunch[/QUOTE] I feel like the aftermath is gonna be nutty no matter who wins this election
[QUOTE=Cructo;51296147]literally nothing will change for lgbts with trump you act like he's going to round them up in concentration camps[/QUOTE] trump himself has denied this. please educate yourself on your own candidate
[QUOTE=Smoot;51296418]I'd rather that over someone who wants to take action against other countries that could lead to war.[/QUOTE] legit holy shit
[QUOTE=Smoot;51296418]I'd rather that over someone who wants to take action against other countries that could lead to war.[/QUOTE] as we all know, donald trump "bomb them and take their oil" "our allies need to pay up or they're on their own" trump is a peace loving hero [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8[/media]
[QUOTE=Judas;51296574]as we all know, donald trump "bomb them and take their oil" "our allies need to pay up or they're on their own" trump is a peace loving hero [/QUOTE] I don't even know why you're trying, he only brought it up to deflect attention from the LGBT issue that he didn't (and probably won't) address.
[QUOTE=Judas;51296574]as we all know, donald trump "bomb them and take their oil" "our allies need to pay up or they're on their own" trump is a peace loving hero [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8[/media][/QUOTE] I don't understand this "he'll leave our allies out to dry!" rhetoric that's coming from the Clinton camp. I mean, yes I actually do understand what's going on: Clinton is the pro-war candidate who wants to continue our military expansion and engagement all over the world and a large chunk of her followers will simply agree with her on whatever she says, so the Democrats have become the big military party this cycle. But it's still completely unjustifyable outside of the "my candidate, right or wrong" mentality. Why do we need to have "allies" all over the globe. The go to answer is "to protect American interests." Why are our interests practically everywhere on earth? Is the earth an American "interest" that we have a right to meddle in everywhere? If that's the case then you're an imperialist, nothing more to say about it. A second reason cited for needing a military presence almost everywhere is that we need to defend ourselves from some sort of external threat. If that's the claim then the threat has to be proven and it has to be proven that planting men and materiel nearby/bombing people would actually diminish that threat. For example, if someone claims that Russia poses a threat to the safety of the US, 1. that claim has to be substantiated (is Russia going to attack the US? How, where, when, why?) and 2. what should the US do to defend itself against that threat (does planting more and more military installations around Russia help the situation? Does making a missile shield around Russia help or hurt us?). Unless someone can answer both of these questions then citing "defense" as part of our motives is a bunch of bullshit. The third reason usually brought up is some vague noise-making about how we have a duty to our allies or some sort of oppressed people somewhere and that a failure to act is "giving in" or "appeasement" or something like that. I can find no reason why it is the responsibility of the US to protect anyone other than ourselves on moral grounds. Besides that point, our government has repeatedly proven that it fails in this endeavor whenever it tries to "help" people around the world. This is the exact argument given for the Iraq War. Examine that situation and see why I don't buy the argument.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51296661]defeating isis is a bad thing[/QUOTE] yeah bombing/destroying a countries oil facilities to irrepairable states only harms isis and wont affect any recovery at all [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/donald-trump-fact-check-bomb-oil-fields-iraq/[/URL] [URL]https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-on-bombing-isis-oil-fields/[/URL] [URL]http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trumps-11-worst-foreign-policy-gaffes-us-election-syria-mexico-iraq/[/URL] [QUOTE=Retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona] “You’re destroying the infrastructure of Iraq, you’re not really doing much to hurt ISIS. At some future point those oil fields will have to help regenerate Iraq.”[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cructo;51296661]defeating isis is a bad thing[/QUOTE] come on you're not even trying anymore. how do you even get this from that post? i could say 'cructo has a deep longing for cake' and it'd hold as much relevance as this absurd rebuttal of yours
But what's wrong with having a deep longing for cake? Or is Cructo secretly Maria Antoinette? TO BE ON TOPIC: can people stop denying that Trump and Republicans are bad for LGBTQ+ people considering they have GAY CORRECTION THERAPY in their manifesto? A scam and something that has amounted to huge human rights abuses, and shows they hate LGBTQ+ people? Tell me, how do you defend that? How do you defend that policy?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51296709]come on you're not even trying anymore. how do you even get this from that post? i could say 'cructo has a deep longing for cake' and it'd hold as much relevance as this absurd rebuttal of yours[/QUOTE] Reminder that this (Cructo) is the same guy who said "If Trump wins it'll increase the chances of a right wing government elected in Brazil" Hoping for a rebuttal or point that makes actual sense from him is a hard ask at best and a hopeless one at worst.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51296726]But what's wrong with having a deep longing for cake? Or is Cructo secretly Maria Antoinette? TO BE ON TOPIC: can people stop denying that Trump and Republicans are bad for LGBTQ+ people considering they have GAY CORRECTION THERAPY in their manifesto? A scam and something that has amounted to huge human rights abuses, and shows they hate LGBTQ+ people? Tell me, how do you defend that? How do you defend that policy?[/QUOTE] someone replied to me once when i asked something like that that on twitter showing trump holding an LGBT flag saying hes the most LGBT friendly candidate you could ever vote for [URL="http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5818b1d9150000d80453109b.jpeg"]and then the flag was upside down[/URL]
[QUOTE=Cructo;51296780]that point goes deeper than that and holds no relevance in this particular topic but feel free to further twist my words to try to fit your narrative[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51296726]But what's wrong with having a deep longing for cake? Or is Cructo secretly Maria Antoinette? TO BE ON TOPIC: can people stop denying that Trump and Republicans are bad for LGBTQ+ people considering they have GAY CORRECTION THERAPY in their manifesto? A scam and something that has amounted to huge human rights abuses, and shows they hate LGBTQ+ people? Tell me, how do you defend that? How do you defend that policy?[/QUOTE] Cructo can you answer my question, please?
[QUOTE=Judas;51296574]as we all know, donald trump "bomb them and take their oil" "our allies need to pay up or they're on their own" trump is a peace loving hero [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8[/media][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cructo;51296661]defeating isis is a bad thing[/QUOTE] into [QUOTE=Cructo;51296780]that point goes deeper than that and holds no relevance in this particular topic but [B]feel free to further twist my words to try to fit your narrative[/B][/QUOTE] uhhhh [editline]2nd November 2016[/editline] are there two different people posting under your account or do you just have the memory of a two year old
Fuck this country and the people in it.
New wisconsin poll [media]https://twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/793866080833921024?lang=en[/media]
[QUOTE=Cructo;51296780]that point goes deeper than that and holds no relevance in this particular topic but feel free to further twist my words to try to fit your narrative[/QUOTE] your trolling is just getting boring at this point cructo you're too fucking transparent now we all know you're just having a laugh, basically trolling. You ignore every argument that comes up. You make false arguments based on false info all the time. You make statements that you don't back up. You ignore reality at every opportunity to peddle your own version of events. You can keep going, but it's just sad that you try this hard to waste our time. People are genuinely scared Pence will affect their lives as a member of the LGBT community and you're too fucking ignorant to know that the Trump campaign has made statements saying they'll repeal gay marriage so stop acting like you know fucking anything. All you do is bitch about people twisting your words, while you spend a great deal of time just twisting the words of those who argue with you so I often wonder, am I watching the mental break down of a person, or is this just some low quality trolling?
Im still looking for answers to my question above. I'd especially love for certain Trump supporters to defend the policy.
Narratives, narratives for everyone. I really hate this election cycle. [video=youtube;mzWOhzOyVFop]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzWOhzOyVFop[/video] The video really explains it. I really don't want Trump as President. But I really, really, don't want Hillary as President. Oh, and Citizens United is not well understood. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC[/url] You guys should really read into it. Its fascinating. And guess who the case involves? A certain lady running for president. :shh: Shh, don't tell anyone. But I think I know why that certain lady is against the Citizens United decision.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51297005]Im still looking for answers to my question above. I'd especially love for certain Trump supporters to defend the policy.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1539681&p=51291580&viewfull=1#post51291580"]Trumpets evaporate on contact with reality[/URL], I expect you won't get a response.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51295586]Also to be frank I find this a bit funny. The majority of people in the US may speak English, but the US doesn't have a national language. Your tongue is no more American than Spanish or even Vietnamese or Chinese. The US is built on immigrants, maybe you should learn to respect that instead of being culturally narrow-minded.[/QUOTE] The majority "may speak English". The use of "may" in that sentence is very strategic. Try "overwhelmingly speak English" ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States]80% of the country to be exact[/url]). Our laws are written in English, our Congressional (political affairs in general) are conducted in English, our founding documents were written in English... we were founded by and our original 13 colonies/states were overwhelmingly English. This is an English-speaking country. It always has been, and it's going to be for the foreseeable future. I find this mentality of "demanding/expecting assimilation is wrong" quite funny myself. My dad's side of the family immigrated here from Iran. We don't speak Farsi in public, nor do we speak it often when we're at home around each other (except when dealing with the older relatives, because they're too old to learn English fluently). We don't speak Farsi at work or in school, we don't expect other people to cater to us on the rare occasions when we do use it publicly. And I'm sorry, but the immigrant argument is bullshit. If you move to a country with the intention of living there, then you should be expected to assimilate both culturally and linguistically. Linguistically especially, because there's no way you're going to thrive if you can't even speak the dominant language which everybody else is using. I don't go to Germany and expect Germans to speak English to me, I don't go to France and expect Frenchmen to speak English to me; etc. This isn't a "narrow-minded mentality", it's a logical position to take. Know why my family has done as well as they have? It's because they've learned how to communicate and present themselves here in the United States appropriately. The fact we don't have a legally-established national language and so we're left to still have this debate 240 years after our founding is ridiculous. And the fact that there's still people arguing against it when it's a perfectly logical proposition is equally ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51296661]defeating isis is a bad thing[/QUOTE] he literally said he will bomb every single inch thousands of innocent people will die [editline]2nd November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;51297079]The majority "may speak English". The use of "may" in that sentence is very strategic. Try "overwhelmingly speak English" ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States]80% of the country to be exact[/url]). Our laws are written in English, our Congressional (political affairs in general) are conducted in English, our founding documents were written in English... we were founded by and our original 13 colonies/states were overwhelmingly English. This is an English-speaking country. It always has been, and it's going to be for the foreseeable future. I find this mentality of "demanding/expecting assimilation is wrong" quite funny myself. My dad's side of the family immigrated here from Iran. We don't speak Farsi in public, nor do we speak it often when we're at home around each other (except when dealing with the older relatives, because they're too old to learn English fluently). We don't speak Farsi at work or in school, we don't expect other people to cater to us on the rare occasions when we do use it publicly. And I'm sorry, but the immigrant argument is bullshit. If you move to a country with the intention of living there, then you should be expected to assimilate both culturally and linguistically. Linguistically especially, because there's no way you're going to thrive if you can't even speak the dominant language which everybody else is using. I don't go to Germany and expect Germans to speak English to me, I don't go to France and expect Frenchmen to speak English to me; etc. This isn't a "narrow-minded mentality", it's a logical position to take. Know why my family has done as well as they have? It's because they've learned how to communicate and present themselves here in the United States appropriately. The fact we don't have a legally-established national language and so we're left to still have this debate 240 years after our founding is ridiculous. And the fact that there's still people arguing against it when it's a perfectly logical proposition is equally ridiculous.[/QUOTE] spanish is the second largest language spoken in america, with over 45 million speakers and 6 million learners. the USA is the worlds third largest spanish-speaking country (after mexico and columbia) i don't see what the big deal is, because that is a lot of people that the government is obliged to provide translated documents and services to. the USA is no longer a monolithic english-speaking federation - it is full of numerous dialects and languages and to ignore that will become more embarrassing as time goes on. english in the USA is already slowly breaking up into increasingly divergent dialects spanish is the fastest growing language in america, there is a great deal of media and multilingual services which are growing constantly. like it or not, the future of the USA is going to have to include spanish
I am a trumpet still looking for my response to this. [t]https://s22.postimg.org/7ggpw74y7/fact.png[/t] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1540080&p=51293962&viewfull=1#post51293962[/url] I provide a source and reasonable explanation and people still say people like us don't try to argue.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51297157]I am a trumpet still looking for my response to this. [t]https://s22.postimg.org/7ggpw74y7/fact.png[/t] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1540080&p=51293962&viewfull=1#post51293962[/url] I provide a source and reasonable explanation and people still say people like us don't try to argue.[/QUOTE] Can you answer my question since I'll answer yours? You're correct in that GDP is not a comprehensive view at the economy. That's all I can really say; I'm not super knowledgable in economics, especially of the United States - though I'll point out that I believe Reagan's breaking of the unions in the 80s has contributed significantly to issues in many American towns.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51297157]I am a trumpet still looking for my response to this. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1540080&p=51293962&viewfull=1#post51293962[/url] I provide a source and reasonable explanation and people still say people like us don't try to argue.[/QUOTE] I can't make any remark on the specifics because I'm not an economist. And I have no idea where they derived this from: "[b]Both fiscal and monetary policy actions seem to be a bit more pro-growth when a Republican is president[/b] — even though GDP grows significantly faster under Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Democrats than by Republicans.” But the original stats always seemed unconvincing. You can't look at a metric like GDP growth over time and separate it from the historical circumstances. The Great Depression broke out during a Republican administration and was fixed under a Democrat. To me, that has less to do with a generalization about the fiscal capability of Republicans and Democrats and more with the fact that the New Deal was a great idea, and FDR was a great president.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51296783]Cructo can you answer my question, please?[/QUOTE] Nobody will
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.