[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Aerion Brightflame]

This isn't shocking, similar stuff happened to Obama. 

 

The Super delegates will stay committed until Sander's is likely going to win everywhere. Currently he's only been winning in his strong areas. When that changes, when it becomes clear the public want Sanders, the super-delegates will change there commitments. It again, happened with Obama as far as I recall. 

 

Now it's possible that they would back Clinton if she had enough votes that they would swing it (Even if Sanders had more of the public vote), I doubt they would because it would arguably rip the party apart. 

 

Whilst it's bollocks, this was still the expected result for New Hampshire. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The moderates won't vote for Sander's over Trump, and while Trump is growing on me, most people are still not too fond of the guy

[Nathanael D. Striker]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hillary-earns-more-new-hampshire-delegates-than-sanders-after-loss/

 

Nope!

They don't realize that Superdelegates aren't set in stone until the DNC. Therefore. I care about the delegates given by primaries/caucuses as this point.

[Aerion Brightflame]

They don't realize that Superdelegates aren't set in stone until the DNC. Therefore. I care about the delegates given by primaries/caucuses as this point.

 

They know. They just don't care about lying per say for the sake of the headline or the story.

 

 Again, it's the sort of headline that should be expected to come about off of this. Just enough in Sander's favour to make things seem like a two horse race, but still favourable on Hilary because really that's who they want in. 

 

None of this stuff should be surprising. Depressing sure, because it's making it clear how awful American media coverage can be, but it shouldn't surprise. 

 

As for Winters point about Moderates; Unless pulls of the switch fantastically, I doubt he'll be more favourable to moderates than Sanders. Sanders is arguably more likeable as a person, has a significantly better record and he's nowhere near as left as people make him appear (By the standards of most of the world, he's really normal in terms of policy) 

[Tentacruel]

So basically, we don't vote for our politicians, our politicians do. 

 

edit: Also, as a moderate, Sanders > Trump > Hillary.

 

I like some of the Republicans as people, but I wouldn't want them as President.  

 

For example, there's really nothing wrong with the religious ad by Rubio, but it's pretty transparent pandering.  

[Simping For Hina]

So basically, we don't vote for our politicians, our politicians do. 

 

edit: Also, as a moderate, Sanders > Trump > Hillary.

 

I like some of the Republicans as people, but I wouldn't want them as President.  

 

For example, there's really nothing wrong with the religious ad by Rubio, but it's pretty transparent pandering.  

I would much rather have most people than Sanders as president, but your 3 is pretty standard in value of candidates.

[epicmemesbro]

I'm more inclined towards Cruz, although Rubio might be a little too moderate for my tastes. Even so, his performance in that last debate didn't really make me think less of him, he still shouldn't have done it because there are people who think he dun goofed because of his word for word repetition.

[The Amazing Avian]

I'm more inclined towards Cruz, although Rubio might be a little too moderate for my tastes. Even so, his performance in that last debate didn't really make me think less of him, he still shouldn't have done it because there are people who think he dun goofed because of his word for word repetition.

Why the funk would you want Cruz? Another shutdown?

[Dad]

I'd still like to know how Trump intends to build a wall.  That still boggles my mind.

[epicmemesbro]

WTF. Someone needs to slap pudding face. Good on the Donald

 

He f***ing Stole Iowa and deserves the asshammer he's gonna get in NH and SC

He won fair and square, the Carolinas will be in his favor.

 

Why the f*** would you want Cruz? Another shutdown?

The shutdown wasn't his fault. It was the ACA's. It wouldn't have happened if that nonsense of a law existed. He did us a favor as a last resort to stop it. It was risky but spunky.

[Blake]

I'd still like to know how Trump intends to build a wall.  That still boggles my mind.

iirc he backpedaled on that

 

A lot of what he said was done for publicity stunts... And, as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. As a businessman who has some experience in showbiz, it makes sense... and it's paid off for him, in spades.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

iirc he backpedaled on that

 

A lot of what he said was done for publicity stunts... And, as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. As a businessman who has some experience in showbiz, it makes sense... and it's paid off for him, in spades.

Didn't he give a price estimate

[Dad]

Didn't he give a price estimate

 

Did he really?  I may have missed it, but I'm honestly interested.  A lot of people won't watch the opposing party's debates but I find having a look at both sides really helps you make decisions better.  Even if you end up leaning towards your initial party anyway, it's good to be informed on as many topics as possible.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Did he really?  I may have missed it, but I'm honestly interested.  A lot of people won't watch the opposing party's debates but I find having a look at both sides really helps you make decisions better.  Even if you end up leaning towards your initial party anyway, it's good to be informed on as many topics as possible.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-cost-8-billion/

 

Take it with multiple grains of salt, but he and Bernie are really the same person now that I think of it. Neither of them can do what the promise, and they're just tapping into the anger of so many people who have been trampled

[Dad]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-cost-8-billion/

 

Take it with multiple grains of salt, but he and Bernie are really the same person now that I think of it. Neither of them can do what the promise, and they're just tapping into the anger of so many people who have been trampled

 

Thanks for the info.  I'll read up on it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

iirc he backpedaled on that

 

A lot of what he said was done for publicity stunts... And, as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. As a businessman who has some experience in showbiz, it makes sense... and it's paid off for him, in spades.

It's less that. O'Reilly nailed it.

 

Sanders is willing to claim he will do things that other Democrats wont, and not taking superPAC $ passes that illusion well

 

Trump is willing to claim he will do things that other Republicans (or Democrats) wont, and he has thrown off the chains of Political Correctness to prove his dedication to that cause, and thus we see the man who tells the people what he envisions for the country.

 

It's less backpedaling and more empty promises, but the fact that a politician is finally willing to put his name on the line to get issues out is god damn refreshing. I don't like many of Trump's proposed policies, but ATLEAST I know what he WANTS to do, there's more than I can say about anyone else.

 

For example, before people bastardized his words about Muslims, all he said was to stop immigration until we have a hold on the situation. Do you trust a man who says that openly knowing he will get backlash, or BOTH the Democrat and Republican dogs in congress who passed a bill to make each immigrant be personally vetted by the intelligence heads?

 

I see one man being honest and looking out for potential threats, and I see a bunch of cowards fearing potential threats and acting behind out backs.

 

"Any betrayal you can see is trivial, what is truly frightening and much more lethal, is the betrayal you cannot see"

 

No politician cares about us, but I would rather have the one who puts out his/her intentions and who's success in seeing said intentions through I can predict. 

 

That is why, Trump has mine and so many other American's vote so far in this race

[Dad]

My biggest issue with Trump is how little experience he has on the political front.  Not to mention the whole "blunt is beautiful" thing.  I think it's fantastic for a politician (ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS) to be open and clear cut about their views.  But "speaking your mind" doesn't qualify you to be President.  I'm just not sold.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My biggest issue with Trump is how little experience he has on the political front.  Not to mention the whole "blunt is beautiful" thing.  I think it's fantastic for a politician (ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS) to be open and clear cut about their views.  But "speaking your mind" doesn't qualify you to be President.  I'm just not sold.

Maybe not, but at-least he know problems when he see them. Obama hardly had any experience and he's turned out to be a fine president, as long as Trump has a good cabinet, something I think he will make happen, I don't see a Trump Presidency being bad for the US

[Aerion Brightflame]

Trump and Sanders aren't really the same. They might be doing similar things in the two parties, but they aren't equivalent as people or as candidates. 

 

You can't call a man that is 'saying what's on his mind' - I put that in brackets because frankly I think he doesn't believe any of it it's just pandering to the super far right that the Republicans are comprised of, the same as a lifelong independent who has consistently been standing for his constituents and show constituency in his stance on issues. 

 

Even in terms of movements, even if both are using the dissatisfaction of the people with politics to get one, only one of them is actually saying 'No, it's not enough to just elect me, you have to get involved in all stages of the politics'. At least as far as I'm aware, I've never seen Trump do this kind of thing. He says controversial sheet, skips over questions he doesn't have a solid answer for, and just plays the media well, but he doesn't try and call for any real political reform. 

 

Like hell, look at the movement just in terms of how they have grown; Trump has been a big part of the Republican race for ages, with a lot of media coverage, and a self financed campaign. Bernie Sanders has a grass-roots campaign, and somewhat minor press coverage until the past few weeks. He's gone from a nobody, to arguably a decent shot for the candidacy. Against Hilary Clinton of all people (I know she's easy to slander and point out fallacies for, but hell it's still impressive given the weight the name carries), whilst being a 74 year old Socialist. 

 

In essence, I think calling Trump and Sanders the same is simplifying why the candidates are important. Trump is showing how playing to the media and getting the maximum benefit from the coverage can be important, as would be expected for a former reality tv star.  Sanders is showing consistency, rational behaviour, good conduct and and emphasis on the power of the people. He is clear that he can not do it alone, that he needs people to get really involved and really engaged in politics to actually enact lasting change to make it better. It's basically tapping in on the wave of support that brought Obama in, except he's more clear about victory only being the beginning. 

 

I definitely think Sanders will have a longer lasting effect on the Political Process than Trump will no matter what happens. Be it positive or negative, I've no idea but he is the sort of character that will make change happen. 

 

Also I think the idea of 'Oh I don't know this candidates standpoints on a given issue' is a little outdated; We are in the age of the internet, there is a massive amount of information about. If you care and you want to know, look for it yourself. You don't need to hear it from the horses mouth. That's not to say that candidates can get away with saying nothing about what they stand for, but it makes the excuse much much weaker. 

[Dad]

 

Maybe not, but at-least he know problems when he see them. Obama hardly had any experience and he's turned out to be a fine president, as long as Trump has a good cabinet, something I think he will make happen, I don't see a Trump Presidency being bad for the US

 

Fair point.  But if you're honestly going to get Trump into office, it's going to take a great deal to separate the crazies from him.  People literally come out in droves being openly bigoted or hateful to anyone that isn't white (mind you not all of his supporters are like that but holy sheet there are a lot of them) and it's frankly sad.

 

And I have not seen any detailed laid out plans by Trump that make sense.

 

I'd also like to question the following:

 

He wants to deport 11 million people in two years.  That's a lot of manpower and a BIGGER budget.  That's a lot of lost work for the country.  He said something about getting people back through legal channels.  That could take up to ten years. Where is the plan for this?  I've found nothing yet.

 

He wants "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US".  I get that the scare of a Daesh threat is very real, but you're isolating a few billion people.  So much so to the point that Mosques are being attacked.  Not only is that problematic, but it seems flawed.  What about those already here?  Are we deporting them?

 

He wants a 45% tariff on Chinese trade.  At first glance it seems like a way to make China shut up.  But how long would it take to successfully move factories and workers back to the US and reduce imports from China?  Stuff that isn't made in the US that is used widely (cellphones mostly) is going to take a huge hit and take a lot of money out of the economy.  It could pan out over many, many years, but it's risky.

 

 

 

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

 

 

Fair point.  But if you're honestly going to get Trump into office, it's going to take a great deal to separate the crazies from him.  People literally come out in droves being openly bigoted or hateful to anyone that isn't white (mind you not all of his supporters are like that but holy sheet there are a lot of them) and it's frankly sad.

 

And I have not seen any detailed laid out plans by Trump that make sense.

 

I'd also like to question the following:

 

He wants to deport 11 million people in two years.  That's a lot of manpower and a BIGGER budget.  That's a lot of lost work for the country.  He said something about getting people back through legal channels.  That could take up to ten years. Where is the plan for this?  I've found nothing yet.

 

He wants "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US".  I get that the scare of a Daesh threat is very real, but you're isolating a few billion people.  So much so to the point that Mosques are being attacked.  Not only is that problematic, but it seems flawed.  What about those already here?  Are we deporting them?

 

He wants a 45% tariff on Chinese trade.  At first glance it seems like a way to make China shut up.  But how long would it take to successfully move factories and workers back to the US and reduce imports from China?  Stuff that isn't made in the US that is used widely (cellphones mostly) is going to take a huge hit and take a lot of money out of the economy.  It could pan out over many, many years, but it's risky.

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't mind, I would like the address each of those points separately. 

 

Firstly, Extraditing the Latinos is no simple or realistic task. Be they legal or illegal, they have a due process rights as long as they are on American soil. Trump does not have nearly the support in Congress to pass an analogous form of 9066 to bypass this restriction. In effect he won't be able to easily extradite them if at all. However in the same token, giving universal citizenship to all those illegal aliens is also unrealistic for the same time constraint. What needs to be done, is rather to secure our borders and prevent the problem from expanding (there an argument can be made that net influx or aliens from Mexico is relatively static at the moment), but this is also where I feel the media has unfairly criticized Trump

 

The point of a "wall" so to speak should not be to stop all inflow, it should be to bottleneck the inflow, restrict areas to where the immigrants can enter. And CONTROL that area. In addition the price of a control rather than a barrier wall would be far less damaging to our economy. Furthermore, our borders are quite weakened by the underground tunnel system, people vanish in Mexico and end up coming out of a warehouse in Texas. What needs to be done is to flood the tunnels and/or cave them in. 

 

I don't think Trump is right in his "scapegoat" of Mexican stealing American jobs, but there ARE rapist, there are drug lords, and MOST are good people. I feel he HAS to be a little bit more aggressive in his pitches because of how much the Media and Establishment seeks to ridicule him. Lets face it, this man was a huge Clinton supporter until recently, he has his hands tied and has to play the extreme to have a chance. I think we'll find he will fine tune his rhetoric eventually. But there is a problem with our permeable borders, and at last a political candidate has noted and recognized the problem 

 

As for Daesh, the first problem that should be noted is that Trump cannot easily move any Muslims OUT of the US. He would stand for impeachment unless congress had strong backing for him. The only way this could happen is another 9/11 scale event on American soil. 

 

You forgot a second addition to Trumps claim 

 

"Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."

 

There is literally nothing wrong with this suggestion. As Americans, our lives are put first, and they should be put first before strangers. As cold as that may seem. When seeing the allure of Jihadist Islam, and it's clear examples (such as the Paris Attacker's Cousin going from an Extroverted Partygirl to a unflinching suicide bomber in the span of a year), we need to analyze the allure of the situation before blindly welcoming in more potential threats. Again, congress has already done this effectively by slowing down the rate of immigration to near zero, they just aren't being as blunt about it as Trump, which I feel relates back to this uphill battle he's been tasked with

 

As for China, the idea is brilliant and Economically based. Ill get to that sometime tomorrow  

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump and Sanders aren't really the same. They might be doing similar things in the two parties, but they aren't equivalent as people or as candidates. 

 

You can't call a man that is 'saying what's on his mind' - I put that in brackets because frankly I think he doesn't believe any of it it's just pandering to the super far right that the Republicans are comprised of, the same as a lifelong independent who has consistently been standing for his constituents and show constituency in his stance on issues. 

 

Even in terms of movements, even if both are using the dissatisfaction of the people with politics to get one, only one of them is actually saying 'No, it's not enough to just elect me, you have to get involved in all stages of the politics'. At least as far as I'm aware, I've never seen Trump do this kind of thing. He says controversial sheet, skips over questions he doesn't have a solid answer for, and just plays the media well, but he doesn't try and call for any real political reform. 

 

Like hell, look at the movement just in terms of how they have grown; Trump has been a big part of the Republican race for ages, with a lot of media coverage, and a self financed campaign. Bernie Sanders has a grass-roots campaign, and somewhat minor press coverage until the past few weeks. He's gone from a nobody, to arguably a decent shot for the candidacy. Against Hilary Clinton of all people (I know she's easy to slander and point out fallacies for, but hell it's still impressive given the weight the name carries), whilst being a 74 year old Socialist. 

 

In essence, I think calling Trump and Sanders the same is simplifying why the candidates are important. Trump is showing how playing to the media and getting the maximum benefit from the coverage can be important, as would be expected for a former reality tv star.  Sanders is showing consistency, rational behaviour, good conduct and and emphasis on the power of the people. He is clear that he can not do it alone, that he needs people to get really involved and really engaged in politics to actually enact lasting change to make it better. It's basically tapping in on the wave of support that brought Obama in, except he's more clear about victory only being the beginning. 

 

I definitely think Sanders will have a longer lasting effect on the Political Process than Trump will no matter what happens. Be it positive or negative, I've no idea but he is the sort of character that will make change happen. 

 

Also I think the idea of 'Oh I don't know this candidates standpoints on a given issue' is a little outdated; We are in the age of the internet, there is a massive amount of information about. If you care and you want to know, look for it yourself. You don't need to hear it from the horses mouth. That's not to say that candidates can get away with saying nothing about what they stand for, but it makes the excuse much much weaker. 

It's less that they don't give a clear standpoint at all, sure you can dig and find out things like their voting records (for someone like Hillary) and piece together a viewpoint, but by and large, they're quite guarded these days due to PC. Like I 100% agree with you. Digging into Trump for example would show that like I mentioned above a lot of his "bigotism" is simply a way for him to put his foot in the door, and that his true believes are actually quite centered

 

As for Sanders, as an avowed communist, you may think it's surprising I'm not falling head over heels for him. The fact remains, that much like Trump with his Mexican deportation, you really can't go about changing Healthcare and College education from the White House. Hell Obamacare isn't even socialist, let alone communist, if anything the insurance companies won out that battle, and we've seen how hard even THAT was to pass?

 

Socialism needs a spine to work, and that kind of brutal muscle will never fly in a place like the US where rights are so ingrained. I don't see the point in voting for a man who promises as close to my dream reality as this country can get, when I 100% know it won't happen. I might as well play to my more government control aspect with the rightwing, because thanks to Daesh and such, that aspect CAN happen where my economic dream cannot

[The Amazing Avian]

The shutdown wasn't his fault. It was the ACA's. It wouldn't have happened if that nonsense of a law existed. He did us a favor as a last resort to stop it. It was risky but spunky.

The ACA isn't inherently bad, what's bad is that you're penalized for not having coverage. It helps people who otherwise can't afford coverage to get something. It was not a favor to anyone. It made the US government look like a bunch of spoiled kids who can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to attempt a compromise.

[epicmemesbro]

If Trump could support the constitution he would get more support, but it is simply not the case. From his stances on socialized healthcare and tariffs, he has already shown he has no respect for the constitution or free markets. Furthermore, he always talks about all the things he will do as president to pro actively change and make laws, but the constitution clearly states that the president should enforce the laws, not write them, like our current president does so often. If you want another Obama, Trump is your guy.

[Speedy the First]

If Trump could support the constitution he would get more support, but it is simply not the case. From his stances on socialized healthcare and tariffs, he has already shown he has no respect for the constitution or free markets. Furthermore, he always talks about all the things he will do as president to pro actively change and make laws, but the constitution clearly states that the president should enforce the laws, not write them, like our current president does so often. If you want another Obama, Trump is your guy.

I'm not in support of socialized healthcare by any means, but what you just said is false. The Constitution says nothing about healthcare.

 

Tariffs were also the reason why America started to have a strong economy in the first place. Without them, we would've lost to Britain's already strong economy and established factories during the guilded age. 

 

Tariffs are also constitutional because of aricle 1, section 8 (The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;) .