462 replies to this topic

[Icewolf]

 

Trump is getting a plurality of votes not a majority. If he ran against Clinton tomorrow he would lose in a crushing landslide and probably also hand congress to the Democrats as well. He is massively unpopular with the wider American people.

Cruz is not quite that bad. He is not an utterly toxic potential nominee like Trump but he is hardly a good candidate. He would also lose to Clinton if the election was tomorrow, but not by such a large margin. His ability to be elected however depends on an increasingly liberal (meaning pro individual liberty on matters such as marriage abortion and srugs) country wanting a hardline Christian as president.

He doesn't need a majority, the election is not tomorrow, Congress will be fine, and this is the first I have ever heard of Trump being massively unpopular with wide people... How does he do with skinny people?

 

This is what I mean about you being a little pretentious... I should say a lot pretentious. According to you, we are all just wasting our time over here... the Republican won't win in November, because nobody likes them. I live in the USA, and I don't know what will happen. What I do know is we will take care of it ourselves.

 

We really need an election that is all about what is important, and not about sex, God, and drugs. In a liberals perfect world, we would be bankrupt, a country on welfare, and the entire world on fire... but that's okay because everyone can marry everyone, the Catholics are paying for their abortions, and they can spark up a doob anytime they want. Wow... where do I sign up?

 

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

There is not a single poll since mid March that calls it any closer than a 6% Clinton lead. The average is 10.5%. Trump has not been close since 1st January and has nosedived since 1st March. 

 

For a comparison, 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

There is not a single poll that shows Kasich would lose to Clinton. The average is a 6.6% lead, almost the mirror image of a Trump matchup. Against Clinton, Kasich is 17% (or nearly 1 in 5 voters switching) ahead of Trump. 

 

Now for popularity. Trump Favourability

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

-35%. 64.5% of the population have an unfavorable view of him, compared to 29% having a favorable view. If he were to be nominated, this would make him the least popular nominee ever. 

 

Clinton Favourbility

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html

-14%. 54% unfavourable vs 40% favourable. Not good, but a hell of a lot better than Trump.

 

Kasich Favorability, the most popular of the lot

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/kasich_favorableunfavorable-4260.html#!

+14%, 42% favorable, 30% unfavorable. Of course that leaves the biggest lot of undecideds of the three people compared above, so isn't a direct comparison as he has 70% giving a view compered to ~95%. His good score is mostly come from a lack of negativity, and is within margin of error of Clinton on the number of people with a favorable view. 

 

Now for the Cruz Numbers

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/cruz_favorableunfavorable-3887.html

-21% better than Trump but still worse than Clinton. 32% favorable and 53.4% unfavorable, which also means 15% not giving a view. But unlike with kasich who has a good favorable number Cruz's favorable number is only 3% above Trump. 

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

Now the matchup does show a much closer race than the others. However since he started being talked about as having a real chance of beating Trump, he has fallen. Could be random variation, or could be that as he gets more focus people like him less. Bearing in mind that no one that has had to work with him likes him, some of that may be feeding into the electorate. 

 

Now none of these numbers for a moment should be taken as saying that Clinton is a good candidate. She isn't, and I have said that before. She is a mediocre candidate that after 8 years of democrat rule should make it easy for the Republicans. However, somehow, the Republicans have decided to have a nasty scrappy fight between a relatively bad candidate and a frankly godawful candidate. This is why the betting markets are betting on Clinton

 

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149

 

Clinton at 2/5 compared to Trump at 6/1. Or Clinton with a 72% chance of being President, Trump with a 12%. 

 

Cruz actually slightly behind Sanders at 11/1 compared to 10/1 for sanders. 

 

(For a comparison, Obama's job approval is currently +8%, making him 42% more popular than the leading republican candidate).

[Lysistrata]

a) Libertarians want all even if it hurts others, hence full capitalism is it highest form (I wantz all teh monahz!!!), aka narcissists (enough S's? )

 

If you're taking so much time typing something out, you might want to try making sense. There must be something lost in translation. I try very hard to understand your point, and how it relates to the issues, but sometimes it's too frustrating. Too much of what you say is gibberish to me.

 

Libertarians have never said a thing about anything being "even"... and the Capitalists that earn that money, own that money... not you. Such is talking American politics with Europeans... things are not anywhere near the same here, as they are there.

[Lysistrata]

Blah Blah Blah

and none of it means a thing right now.

[Icewolf]

So you think it's meaningless that the two front runners for the Republican nomination are effectively competing to be the least popular nominee in history?

[Lysistrata]

So you think it's meaningless that the two front runners for the Republican nomination are effectively competing to be the least popular nominee in history?

You're obsessed with hating Republicans... and not only that... you're obsessed with hating Republicans in the USA, when you're in the UK. It's not healthy for you, and you're forgetting about how hated Hillary Clinton is here... yeah she's a shinning example of a loved American folk hero. This will all work itself out in time. Either it will end up okay, or we always have our guns. One way or the other... we will be fine in the end. We're Americans... we love to fight.

[Icewolf]

I just gave you the numbers. Clinton is far less hated than Cruz or Trump.

[Lysistrata]

I just gave you the numbers. Clinton is far less hated than Cruz or Trump.

We have Cruz people hating Trump... Trump people hating Cruz... the Republican Party hates them both... Democrats hate everyone. There will not be anyone liking anyone until November, so nothing right now matters.

[Icewolf]

Historically, do you have on example of a candidate winning the Presidency after starting out in April with a -30% favorability rating?

[Dandy]

Unfortunately why I can never vote Republican. As much as I support the second amendment and many other conservative ideals. They just have the wrong priorities.

Homosexual men and women fight and die for this country, and they come home to people telling them they don't deserve their rights.

We have an astounding number of homeless and starving. Though people choose to deamonize them and tear food from their mouths on the assumption that 100% of everyone on federal assistance is just lazy good for nothing's that don't want to work. A single mother needs help feeding her three kids, but we just spit in her face with "Well you shouldn't have had those kids". While at the same time making it hard for her to get birth control and telling her she can't have abortions if that so is her choice. Don't have those kids, but like hell we'll let you not have them besides having no sex or hoping the condom doesn't break. If it does, then sucks to be you.

All the while we have alcohol and tobacco. Things proven time and time again to kills thousands upon thousands of people a year, but people are utterly terrified of marijauana. Never mind the countless families destroyed by drunk drivers, or tobacco related cancers, no, it's the weed that takes it to far.

Right now, there is not a single Republican candidate I can think of who has said a single word about improving our disgraceful public school system, addressed the staggering number of American companies who ship jobs overseas, or the just disgusting actions and handling of the Veterans Administration. I will grant that not much has been said about these things on the Democrats side either, but no one on the Democratic side puts the fear in me that my fellow Americans might not hold the same rights as me. A straight, white male. How can this be the home of the free, because of the brave if everyone isn't as free as I am?

However, if it's between Hillary and anyone else, I'm voting Republican because that swine of a bitch is a traitor to our men and women in uniform. Fuck her with a sand paper and broken glass dildo. I'd rather have Trump and hope someone can fix the damage after he is out of office than have that beauty sleep needing cow sitting at the desk her husband got head under.

[Lysistrata]

Unfortunately why I can never vote Republican. As much as I support the second amendment and many other conservative ideals. They just have the wrong priorities.

Homosexual men and women fight and die for this country, and they come home to people telling them they don't deserve their rights.

What rights are they being denied?

We have an astounding number of homeless and starving. Though people choose to deamonize them and tear food from their mouths on the assumption that 100% of everyone on federal assistance is just lazy good for nothing's that don't want to work. A single mother needs help feeding her three kids, but we just spit in her face with "Well you shouldn't have had those kids". While at the same time making it hard for her to get birth control and telling her she can't have abortions if that so is her choice. Don't have those kids, but like hell we'll let you not have them besides having no sex or hoping the condom doesn't break. If it does, then sucks to be you.

It's not the job of the Federal Government to redistribute wealth, supply homes, abort unwanted pregnancy, or supply birth control.

All the while we have alcohol and tobacco. Things proven time and time again to kills thousands upon thousands of people a year, but people are utterly terrified of marijauana. Never mind the countless families destroyed by drunk drivers, or tobacco related cancers, no, it's the weed that takes it to far.

Alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed and regulated... and contribute greatly to all that stuff above that is not the job of the Federal Government. Are you saying that alcohol and tobacco should be outlawed, and marijuana should be taxed and regulated? Or just tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol and tobacco? How would doing that change things proven to kill thousands? How about Meth? Should we tax and regulate that? Where do we draw the line?

Right now, there is not a single Republican candidate I can think of who has said a single word about improving our disgraceful public school system, addressed the staggering number of American companies who ship jobs overseas, or the just disgusting actions and handling of the Veterans Administration. I will grant that not much has been said about these things on the Democrats side either, but no one on the Democratic side puts the fear in me that my fellow Americans might not hold the same rights as me. A straight, white male. How can this be the home of the free, because of the brave if everyone isn't as free as I am?

If you believe the red part... you haven't been paying attention. Add in the immigration problem and you have the Trump campaign in one sentence. The last time I checked, he's still running as a Republican. I still do not understand who is not as free as you are?

However, if it's between Hillary and anyone else, I'm voting Republican because that swine of a bitch is a traitor to our men and women in uniform. Fuck her with a sand paper and broken glass dildo. I'd rather have Trump and hope someone can fix the damage after he is out of office than have that beauty sleep needing cow sitting at the desk her husband got head under.

I don't know what's going to happen... I have never seen things this bad.

[Niels]

 

 

Homosexual men and women fight and die for this country, and they come home to people telling them they don't deserve their rights.

What rights are they being denied?

 

One CANNOT generally discriminate for the following reasons: Race, Religion, Sex, National Origin
One CAN generally discriminate for the following reason: Homosexuality

• 28 US States, mostly run by Republicans, say it is acceptable to fire (or not hire) someone because they are discovered to be gay.  (0 states allow the same for someone discovered to be say ... Jewish)
• 18 US States, mostly run by Republicans, extend the above to public sector employment!  Maybe you think it is acceptable to not force a private employer to be an equal opportunity employer, but government jobs should not have the same ability given that everyone (even "the gays") pay taxes for the maintenance of those positions
• 28 US States, mostly run by Republicans, say it is acceptable for a landlord to terminate the lease of someone for being gay.  (0 states allow the same for someone who was discovered to be say ... in an interracial heterosexual relationship)
• 29 US States, mostly run by Republicans, say it is acceptable to deny public accommodations to gays (e.g. deny a hotel room, refuse to serve in a restaurant).  (0 states allow the same for someone who ... looks Chinese and speaks as though English is not their native language)

If other groups cannot be discriminated in these ways, but homosexuals can, then yes, they are being denied rights.  There is in particular, no defense for those states not having non-discrimination laws for public employment.

 

And, if for some reason you don't think any of the above is a denial of rights enjoyed by other groups, we can still look to the very recent past and note that (1) gays were denied equal rights in marriage and military service, and (2) Republicans supported such measures much more so than Democrats.  Even if formal discrimination is deemed over, people will understandably remember that.

As an example, let us take the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, which let gays serve in the military without forcing them to lie about themselves (to recruiter at least, and possible to comrades for years).  Although when in the military one has curtailed constitutional freedoms, this particular case was (eventually) determined to be a pointless free speech reduction where a straight soldier discussing his sexual preferences was fine, but a gay one doing the same would have discharge proceedings begin.

What was the vote on the repeal of that policy?:
Democrats: 55 AYE, 1 abstain
Republicans: 8 AYE, 3 abstain, 31 NO

 

Aww shucks ... maybe Republicans will stand for equal treatment under the law and free speech protections next time ...

(Source of numbers on states allowing discrimination against gays, but not other groups: New York Times, 6/27/2015)

[Lysistrata]

Hi Niels... you have the right to be gay if you want to be gay. You do not have the right to force anyone to hire you. The rights of an individual end when those rights begin to infringe on the rights of someone else. You are confusing rights with totalitarianism.

[MWilson]

Niels, military service is and has always been a privilege, not a right.

[Niels]

Hi Niels... you have the right to be gay if you want to be gay. You do not have the right to force anyone to hire you. The rights of an individual end when those rights begin to infringe on the rights of someone else. You are confusing rights with totalitarianism.

 

Fortunately, the sit-ins in the South and the subsequent Civil Rights Acts put an end to this kind of thinking for certain groups of people.

The tide is turning for those not covered then as well.

 

Niels, military service is and has always been a privilege, not a right.

 

You are absolutely correct that it has been a privilege (except during periods of draft, when it was a compulsory activity).

However, even things that are privileges cannot be simply curtailed for certain types of people without reasonable justification:
Example: Driving is a privilege - yet, the DMV cannot simply deny licenses to African Americans who meet all stated and neutral criteria
 

[Lysistrata]

for certain groups of people

When will you guys allow all American citizens to be treated equally? As long as you keep carving out special treatment for "certain groups of people", there will always be victims of your policies. The law is blind... this is why Lady Justice holds the scale and wears a blindfold. Progressives still believe they can make human emotions illegal.

[hilowe]

Niels, military service is and has always been a privilege, not a right.

 
You are absolutely correct that it has been a privilege (except during periods of draft, when it was a compulsory activity).

However, even things that are privileges cannot be simply curtailed for certain types of people without reasonable justification:
Example: Driving is a privilege - yet, the DMV cannot simply deny licenses to African Americans who meet all stated and neutral criteria

Ehh, kind of. Driving on public roads is a privilege. If you don't leave your own property, there is no Government permission card required. I grew up on a farm that was 3/4 of a section (if you don't know, a section is a square mile). Started driving farm machinery and pickup trucks at about 11 years of age. Never on the public roads.

Now, you are absolutely correct that the Government cannot discriminate. Since the Government uses our tax money to create the roads, and there is a specifically defined process to obtain permission to drive on it, you are correct.

However, a personal business has the right to refuse service to anyone they don't want to. If a person running a business decides they no longer want to provide services to a specific group of people (take your pick how they are defined), then they have that right. They also have to deal with the repercussions of their choices of who to do business with.

So, there was a story a while back about a cake business that decided they didn't want to make a cake for a homosexual couple's wedding, and the whole internet got up in arms about it, leaving fake bad reviews online, I think they got hacked, and I think there were even death threats (been way too long, and I'm not searching for that on my work computer). That was the businesses choice. Now, once that was made clear, it was on every other couple or business to determine if that was in line with their values, and act accordingly. I don't think what was done to the business was right, however, had every couple that decided that wasn't in line with their views canceled cake orders, the company would have thought it over again.

Here's another example. Take the second amendment, and concealed carry (legal in my state). By law, there are certain places carved out where I am not allowed to carry, even if I'm licensed (bars, churches (without permission), court rooms, etc). Unless it is specifically defined in that law, the Government is not supposed to further restrict my rights. Now, business owners, being private companies, can make the choice to put up a sign telling me I'm not welcome with my legally concealed weapon. Fine, I'm left with a choice (agree with them and do business there, or go somewhere else to do business). I almost always choose to do my business elsewhere. The first time I see the sign at a business, I will provide a card to the on duty store manager or business owner that explains why I'm taking my business elsewhere.

[Niels]

 

 

Niels, military service is and has always been a privilege, not a right.

 
You are absolutely correct that it has been a privilege (except during periods of draft, when it was a compulsory activity).

However, even things that are privileges cannot be simply curtailed for certain types of people without reasonable justification:
Example: Driving is a privilege - yet, the DMV cannot simply deny licenses to African Americans who meet all stated and neutral criteria

 

Ehh, kind of. Driving on public roads is a privilege. If you don't leave your own property, there is no Government permission card required. I grew up on a farm that was 3/4 of a section (if you don't know, a section is a square mile). Started driving farm machinery and pickup trucks at about 11 years of age. Never on the public roads.

Now, you are absolutely correct that the Government cannot discriminate. Since the Government uses our tax money to create the roads, and there is a specifically defined process to obtain permission to drive on it, you are correct.

However, a personal business has the right to refuse service to anyone they don't want to. If a person running a business decides they no longer want to provide services to a specific group of people (take your pick how they are defined), then they have that right. They also have to deal with the repercussions of their choices of who to do business with.

 

 

Sure, I'll accept the clarification of non-discrimination regarding the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.  And yes, very familiar with the concept of a section - my uncle has one-and-a-half in Montana, and I too learned to drive (cars, tractors, and a combine harvester) on it prior to getting a road license.

 

Here's another example (mostly for the perusal of MWilson):
Perhaps you recall the IRS targeting controversy, when the IRS supposedly discriminated against certain groups' applications for tax exempt status due to their political beliefs?
Of course, establishing a tax exempt organization is not a right, but a privilege.  Yet, here were all these people upset that they were discriminated against by the government in pursuit of that privilege.
It's almost as if they admitted that the government shouldn't have the right to do that.  And if it shouldn't there, and it shouldn't with regards to driver's licenses as we discussed, it also shouldn't have with regards to non-closeted gays and the privilege to serve in their country's armed forces.

 

On your final point regarding the right of business owners to not serve a specific group of people, sure, they can do that.

The two examples you provided resulted in losses in the court of public opinion.*

For certain other choices though (race, religion, other protected categories) there may also be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and subjection to large fines (ex: $54M fine of Denny's in 1994).  Here, both court of law & court of public opinion losses would be the result.

 

* - I will also state emphatically that any hacking or death threats were unacceptable.  They're pretty much unacceptable regardless of the rationale employed or the person(s) targeted.

[onbekende]

 

a) Libertarians want all even if it hurts others, hence full capitalism is it highest form (I wantz all teh monahz!!!), aka narcissists (enough S's? )

 

If you're taking so much time typing something out, you might want to try making sense. There must be something lost in translation. I try very hard to understand your point, and how it relates to the issues, but sometimes it's too frustrating. Too much of what you say is gibberish to me.

 

Libertarians have never said a thing about anything being "even"... and the Capitalists that earn that money, own that money... not you. Such is talking American politics with Europeans... things are not anywhere near the same here, as they are there.

 

the "even" is not about "equal", change it to "regardless" then if you so desire.

for "monahz", its "money", but perhaps you got that one

the narcissism is me being funny on the Sadist notion

 

And you conflate socialism with "taking money from side A to side B", which it isn't. Socialism's money is Nations A money used to uplift side B which has sadly fallen behind side A for various reasons. Free-rides are as much a fathom as they are in the US.

 

Indeed not the same, hence we need a framework in which we can relate with the same idea behind the words used.

[Shahenshah]

This is some excellent discussion going on.

[Lysistrata]

This is some excellent discussion going on.

Not so much huh? The entire thing has devolved into a contest to keep Trump from the nomination. The Donald will sweep the northeast starting with New York on the 19th. They are no longer just firing inside their own tent... they are throwing dynamite. Us that have already voted can only sit back and watch what happens.