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

[Dad]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/a-dialogue-with-a-22-year-old-donald-trump-supporter/484232/

 

Fascinating little read

 

It was until I got here:

 

"Because of this, no matter what Trump says or does, I will keep supporting him."

 

That's a stupid decision, no matter who you're voting for.  And if you jumped ship because of protests and anti-white rhetoric, I think you're missing a big picture.  But the rest of his points were fine.  Other than those two, it's a solid read for both sides of the isle.

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

 

 

Not only is it a stupid decision, it's a outright dangerous one, because it's how some of the worst atrocities in human history have been comitted, because of blind loyalty, or people unwilling to rock the boat. It's precisely why Trump even as a president candidate, and god forbid actuall president, seriously scares me even as a non-american. Way to many of his supporters have openly expressed there's absolutely nothing he can say or do which would make them stop supporting him.

 

As for PC Vs Non-PC. I seriously do not get what the deal is, and I question the reasoning of anyone who think Trump is favourable because of "rejecting PC culture"

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not only is it a stupid decision, it's a outright dangerous one, because it's how some of the worst atrocities in human history have been comitted, because of blind loyalty, or people unwilling to rock the boat. It's precisely why Trump even as a president candidate, and god forbid actuall president, seriously scares me even as a non-american. Way to many of his supporters have openly expressed there's absolutely nothing he can say or do which would make them stop supporting him.

 

As for PC Vs Non-PC. I seriously do not get what the deal is, and I question the reasoning of anyone who think Trump is favourable because of "rejecting PC culture"

"He allowed me to reproduce our conversation on the condition of anonymity, out of concern for how the views he expresseses might be used to deny him future opportunities"

 

^^

That Laz. PC oppresses people, it's really not hard to understand why people are voting based on it. You'd have to sheet on by it to understand

 

I doubt you even read the article cause it pretty clearly demonstrates why voting on the basis of PC is reasonable

It was until I got here:

 

"Because of this, no matter what Trump says or does, I will keep supporting him."

 

That's a stupid decision, no matter who you're voting for. And if you jumped ship because of protests and anti-white rhetoric, I think you're missing a big picture. But the rest of his points were fine. Other than those two, it's a solid read for both sides of the isle.

I don't know mate, PC is such a blight on our culture that something needs to be done. I'm not in the Trump or bust camp, but being hounded and shamed by PC might and reasonably should push somone over to that camp

[Aerion Brightflame]

"He allowed me to reproduce our conversation on the condition of anonymity, out of concern for how the views he expresseses might be used to deny him future opportunities"

 

^^

That Laz. PC oppresses people, it's really not hard to understand why people are voting based on it. You'd have to s*** on by it to understand

 

 

So does a complete lack of PC. 

 

There is nothing inherantly wrong with PC. Because you know it falls hand in hand with the idea of 'Don't be an Arsehole'. The issue is, as always, it being taken too far too one side or the other. 

 

It's the fault of a vocal minority taking it too far. Using the idea of freedom of expression to shut down free expression, essentially the Regressive Left as I have said before. 

 

It still makes voting for someone on the basis 'Oh this guy ain't PC' a little insane. Because there are a world of issues more important right now than PC to worry about. It's not going to make non PC viewpoints suddenly favourable, or make people expressing them get better reactions for there comments or make a racist arsehole suddenly not racist when he expresses his views. 

 

All is does is appeal to a minority who feel it's getting out of hand. Ironically just like PC fanatics. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump is doing awful things.

 

First New Mexico

Now this backing out on Sanders

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Trump is doing awful things.

First New Mexico

Now this backing out on Sanders

How am I not surprised? First Clinton backs out of a debate with Sanders, and now Trump backs out. *sigh* People are scared of debating it seems.

[Aerion Brightflame]

You mean Trump, the candidate who really doesn't hold much of a stance on many issues beyond sound-bites, realised getting into a televised event in which he will have to debate issues, with an issue orientated candidate might be a bad idea? 

 

No sheet.

 

Whilst he wants to cover ground with Bernie's fanbase, the last thing he can afford to do now is get into a serious debate about anything. He has to wait till he gets one against Hilary, because he doesn't have to argue issues with Hilary he can go on the offensive with 30 years of dirt. 

 

And Hilary won't debate Sanders probably because of the email scandal. It's far far too big an issue to wash away now, and when she's already losing ground nationally, letting an issue based candidate get a personal attack about how unfit she is is the last thing she can afford to do. 

[ihop]

You mean Trump, the candidate who really doesn't hold much of a stance on many issues beyond sound-bites, realised getting into a televised event in which he will have to debate issues, with an issue orientated candidate might be a bad idea? 

 

This is an incredibly important point for anything that concerns Trump - so far he's never been in a proper debate where real questions have been asked of him, and whenever he actually gets in one, or several, as he will have to when running for President, he'll be smashed by either Clinton or Sanders who are both real politicians who not only know how to deal with such scenarios but will also have a more meticulous plan when it comes to the really important questions.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

*shrugs*

 

And oddly liberal, bias much?

 

Trump did away with much better politicians than either Sanders or Hillary

 

That being said, he funked up for a couple reasons

 

He shouldn't have accepted to it in the first place. Trump's policies are pretty much the gold mine, he just needs to cohesively tie them togesther. But backing out after making demands makes him look like a coward. His hardline supporters won't care, but on the fence people like me will and have noticed

 

He need practice for 1v1, unless the libertarian gets 15, that's exactly what he'll have vs Hillary. Maybe he'll be able to weasel out of it, but it's still not smart to not go prepared. He has enough overlap with Sanders that he wouldn't have to talk too much policy. He could have cornered Sanders on issues they agree on

 

Good oppertinity to rip Hillary and free press. If he was willing to leak a unflattering tape of himself, this wouldn't be that bad. He has 20% of Sanders folk, he needs to maintain that or ideally grow it.

 

Trump, like him or not, is a brilliant tactician, and he misplayed here

How am I not surprised? First Clinton backs out of a debate with Sanders, and now Trump backs out. *sigh* People are scared of debating it seems.

Clinton had a good reason

 

Trump was just being a dumbass (no, I'm not against giving credit where it's due)

You mean Trump, the candidate who really doesn't hold much of a stance on many issues beyond sound-bites, realised getting into a televised event in which he will have to debate issues, with an issue orientated candidate might be a bad idea? 

 

No sheet.

 

Whilst he wants to cover ground with Bernie's fanbase, the last thing he can afford to do now is get into a serious debate about anything. He has to wait till he gets one against Hilary, because he doesn't have to argue issues with Hilary he can go on the offensive with 30 years of dirt. 

 

And Hilary won't debate Sanders probably because of the email scandal. It's far far too big an issue to wash away now, and when she's already losing ground nationally, letting an issue based candidate get a personal attack about how unfit she is is the last thing she can afford to do.

 

Sanders promised not to talk about the emails, he won't go back on that now.

 

Trump has the sweet spot of basically every policy, he just needs to codify it and drive home instead of ripping other republicans (i.e. New Mexico)

 

Y'all muddling all you want, but atleast do it where it's merited lol

This is an incredibly important point for anything that concerns Trump - so far he's never been in a proper debate where real questions have been asked of him, and whenever he actually gets in one, or several, as he will have to when running for President, he'll be smashed by either Clinton or Sanders who are both real politicians who not only know how to deal with such scenarios but will also have a more meticulous plan when it comes to the really important questions.

Nitpick, he's never been on a 1v1 against another candidate

[Wizarus]

Hillary won't debate Sanders because there's no point. She will most likely win the nomination with California, and she leads him overwhelmingly in delegates and the popular vote.

 

And frankly the Sanders campaign has not been looking too hot lately either. They're getting into petty stuff now.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Hillary won't debate Sanders because there's no point. She will most likely win the nomination with California, and she leads him overwhelmingly in delegates and the popular vote.

 

And frankly the Sanders campaign has not been looking too hot lately either. They're getting into petty stuff now.

There is a point. It is called keeping her word with the agreement she and Sanders made about having four additional debates. They have only had three from that agreement. Also, stop counting the Superdelegates before the convention. They are unbounded, so nobody officially has any of them yet.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

There is a point. It is called keeping her word with the agreement she and Sanders made about having four additional debates. They have only had three from that agreement. Also, stop counting the Superdelegates before the convention. They are unbounded, so nobody officially has any of them yet.

Hillary is still ahead in both popular and pledge delegate count.

 

The people have spoken, why can't you accept it?

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Hillary is still ahead in both popular and pledge delegate count.

 

The people have spoken, why can't you accept it?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-fox-debate-california/

"Clinton and Sanders, however, agreed in February to add four more debates to the calendar, including a debate in May. So far, the two candidates have had three of the four debates the agreed to, the last being in New York on CNN."

 

You see, this is not what you are getting. Seems you are trying to change the topic from the one I brought up.

[Aerion Brightflame]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-fox-debate-california/

"Clinton and Sanders, however, agreed in February to add four more debates to the calendar, including a debate in May. So far, the two candidates have had three of the four debates the agreed to, the last being in New York on CNN."

 

You see, this is not what you are getting. Seems you are trying to change the topic from the one I brought up.

 

. Also, stop counting the Superdelegates before the convention. They are unbounded, so nobody officially has any of them yet.

 

He was referring to that, not to the remark about promised debates.

 

Because you commented that in response to 

 

Hillary won't debate Sanders because there's no point. She will most likely win the nomination with California, and she leads him overwhelmingly in delegates and the popular vote.

 

For once, Winter wasn't changing the subject, he was focusing on a specific section of your post. Quite rightfully too, Hilary is ahead in pledged delegates to the extent of it being almost overwhelming (Like come-on, he has to win the entirety of California at the rate he is going), and by what metrics we have to go by, she leads in the popular vote as well. Which made making a refuting statement on that basis bizarre. 

 

As ever, I'm not saying to stop supporting the man because he's extremely unlikely to win, just that denying how sheet of a situation he's in is more than a little insane. Superdelegates or no, Sanders is nowhere close to being in a good position. 

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Well, Winter didn't bother to quote what portion he was talking about as he quoted the entire post. I use the Superdelegates to talk about how it is not as over as people claim it to be. When people typically talk about the delegate count, they include the Superdelegates. That is ultimately unfair as it spits in the face off the very nature of Superdelegates: the fact that they are unbounded until the convention. I know Sanders is behind in the pledged delegate count; however, that is not the thing being contended here. What is being contended here is the addition of the Superdelegates in the total.

[Phantom Roxas]

I live in California, and I'm very confident that my state will be a massive benefit to Bernie. I'm of the expectation that if Bernie surpasses Hillary in pledged delegate count, that might get the superdelegates to reconsider. I'm not sure about other states, particularly New Jersey, which is the second biggest state on June 7th, but it's still entirely possible for this to go in Bernie's favor. I won't accept Hillary because not all of the people have spoken yet, and it's still possible for Bernie to get ahead of her in pledged delegates. The difference between Hillary and Bernie is 270 pledged delegates. He needs half of California and New Jersey combined, but honestly, I think California alone will net him that much. He just needs to stay ahead of Hillary for the remainder. As close as Hillary is to clinching the nomination, people must be aware that it's a popular sentiment that she's not strong enough to defeat Trump, so that would get the superdelegates to move if they see that Bernie get a decent enough lead against her.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Your math is wrong, and is far too generous to Sanders as a result.

 

New Jersey and California combined is 690 delegates right, and Hilary in the absence of superdelegates has a 270 delegate lead. If Sanders wins exactly half of the delegates available in these two states, the gap isn't closed at all, because Hilary would receive the other half. Sanders has to effectively win 2/3 over two thirds of the delegate count to close the gap. That's next to impossible. 

 

To highlight how big a gap he has to close - California has 548 delegates, the largest remaining state by far. If Sanders won literally every delegate in California, he is still only ahead by 8 delegates. The rest of the states remaining add up to 382 delegates I think? Meaning anything less than an absolute landslide doesn't cut it. Like a landslide beyond all prior proportions in order to win this now. 

 

It's great to be hopeful, but his actual chance of winning is really small because he has to win a huge amount of delegates over clinton, not win them in general. 

 

If you included Superdelegates, Hilary is less than one-hundred delegates away from winning it. Essentially 10% of the remaining count, whereas Sanders would need 90% of the remaining count. So it's not the case where it's just the Superdelegate counts making Sander's prospect bad, the Superdelegates makes this look over, the regular delegate count makes this seem awful. 

 

People who are capable of supporting him should really be looking to how best they can support his message and ideas outside of the campaign now. 

[cr47t]

Early bump with something for you guys to break the mainstream of this election/conversation besides Sanders.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/politics/libertarian-party-nominee-vote/

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It'll be nice if he can hit the 15 mark to participate in the debates

 

Didn't the lastest poll show that 44% of Americans wanted a 3rd party run? This might be it.

 

Last I checked he was pulling pretty evenly from both the Hillary and Trump camps.

 

That being said, Libertarian is, IMO, a worse philosophy than either Either progressive or conservative so w/3

[Phantom Roxas]

Your math is wrong, and is far too generous to Sanders as a result.

 

New Jersey and California combined is 690 delegates right, and Hilary in the absence of superdelegates has a 270 delegate lead. If Sanders wins exactly half of the delegates available in these two states, the gap isn't closed at all, because Hilary would receive the other half. Sanders has to effectively win 2/3 over two thirds of the delegate count to close the gap. That's next to impossible. 

 

To highlight how big a gap he has to close - California has 548 delegates, the largest remaining state by far. If Sanders won literally every delegate in California, he is still only ahead by 8 delegates. The rest of the states remaining add up to 382 delegates I think? Meaning anything less than an absolute landslide doesn't cut it. Like a landslide beyond all prior proportions in order to win this now. 

 

It's great to be hopeful, but his actual chance of winning is really small because he has to win a huge amount of delegates over clinton, not win them in general. 

 

If you included Superdelegates, Hilary is less than one-hundred delegates away from winning it. Essentially 10% of the remaining count, whereas Sanders would need 90% of the remaining count. So it's not the case where it's just the Superdelegate counts making Sander's prospect bad, the Superdelegates makes this look over, the regular delegate count makes this seem awful. 

 

People who are capable of supporting him should really be looking to how best they can support his message and ideas outside of the campaign now.

 

This is why I said he needs to get stay ahead of Hillary for the remainder. I'm not saying that Hillary would get the other half, I mean that he needs that first half as a minimum, and then also get the rest, but… yeah, you're right, the chances of a landslide victory are awful. Best case scenario would probably be something like if Bernie was the one with the 270 pledged delegates lead, but the chances of that are… slim at best. Guess we'll see a week from tomorrow.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

http://www.inquisitr.com/3146704/hillary-clinton-to-face-racketeering-charges/

 

Been trying to find more sources to back this up (the first one I saw had doubts, and this mentions another one that was deleted). Still, things are getting interesting fast here.

[cr47t]

http://www.inquisitr.com/3146704/hillary-clinton-to-face-racketeering-charges/

 

Been trying to find more sources to back this up (the first one I saw had doubts, and this mentions another one that was deleted). Still, things are getting interesting fast here.

Yup. A lot of flak and charges being thrown at Clinton here.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Lol did Trump "leak" that article to the Huffington Post like he leaked the tape to the Washington Post? Outside of Trump, there's no bloody way tabloid stuff like this makes it against the Clinton machine.

 

But hey, Democrats infighting is good for me

 

Hillary has realistically won, I don't get why people are so eager to destroy their candidate

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

But hey, Democrats infighting is good for me

 

Hillary has realistically won, I don't get why people are so eager to destroy their candidate

Because they aren't their candidate.

She sure as hell is not mine, even if I consider myself more Democrat.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Because they aren't their candidate.

She sure as hell is not mine, even if I consider myself more Democrat.

I'm really confused by this. Would I have preferred Paul Ryan over Trump? Yeah. Would I have preferred Putin over Trump. Yup. But those things can't or wont happen, so I might as well support the candidate that lines up with me 70% instead of being angry the person who agrees with me 80% didn't make it.

 

I'm not complaining that the other side is divided, but it still confuses me why you are resisting the person with a 95% chance of getting the nomination.

 

Well keep fighting I guess, I win at the end of the day