CNN poll : Donald Trump now competitive in general election

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cheebo said:
Because it would throw off the cherry picked list. Can't let the facts about Hillary being liberal sneak out there!

How dare people realize Hillary is *gasp*a Democrat with a Democrat voting record from the fairly liberal New York?!


Except she IS liberal. Look at her entire voting record. You know, do some actual real research? But that would ruin your little small world view and we can't have that.
Click to expand...

What I posted thwarts exactly what you're saying. Forget the list, look up the voting history yourself. These are important things to Americans, just because they aren't to you doesn't mean I live in a small world, that's just what you call my perspective. Man you are spittin' acid over there

"Fuck your cherry-picked list! She's from NEW YORK!!! 'Nuff said!" Jesus Christ
 
IronicallyTwisted said:
People aren't entitled to walk into another country and declare themselves citizens without going through some formal process. If I walked into Canada and lived there for 10 years does that make me a citizen? Of course it doesn't.
Click to expand...
I don't want to necessarily excuse people who willingly came here illegally, but many of them did so because of how broken the system is, in addition to fleeing from violence in multiple cases. As a result many undocumented immigrants also brought their children, with some as young as babies, such as in my case. It's an awful situation to be in, but a majority of us are doing our best to be great, law-abiding residents otherwise, even if we're not citizens. I hope you can at least understand that a little bit, because I grew up in this country virtually my entire life, and I can't imagine being anywhere else, as imperfect as it is.

I harbor no ill will towards those who believe the law should be followed, but when they mask/combine that with racism and painting a broad stroke on the rest of us for the crimes of a pathetic minority, that's when I take issue. Anyway, I hope I showed you a different perspective on the issue, one from an individual who along with millions of others is directly at the center of the debate, because it's certainly complicated, and there are many emotions running high.
 
GreatestHits said:
What I posted thwarts exactly what you're saying. Forget the list, look up the voting history yourself. These are important things to Americans, just because they aren't to you doesn't mean I live in a small world, that's just what you call my perspective. Man you are spittin' acid over there
Click to expand...
No your little image does not thrawt it. Look at the dailykos link I posted. Yours cherry picked things, hell it even cherry picks things incorrectly (see: gay marriage). The links I posted instead of cherry picking things they actually analyze her entire voting record factually compared to the entire senate.

My logic isn't she is from New York. If you think that is my reasoning you clearly refused to click a single article I posted. You are refusing to look at the actual evidence. When you look at her voting record. Her ACTUAL voting record not a fun little JPEG her voting record comes up as the 11th most liberal of the entire senate.

Please explain to me how can someone with the 11th most liberal record of the senate not be a liberal? Unless your claim is the vast majority of democratic senators (including Obama at that time!) are not liberal?


Show me a single article from a legitimate news organization that calls her voting record anything but liberal. One single source. You won't, because there isnt any. Any single person who has put any time or effort to research her actual voting record shows it is one of the most liberal of the party of her time in the senate.

And this is not even factoring in the fact her stances on issues across the board are MORE liberal now than when she was in the senate.


To say Hillary is anything other than liberal is factually incorrect and every single time this has been researched or reported on from actual journalists this has been the result.
 
Cheebo said:
No your little image does not thrawt it. Look at the dailykos link I posted. Yours cherry picked things, hell it even cherry picks things incorrectly (see: gay marriage). The links I posted instead of cherry picking things they actually analyze her entire voting record factually compared to the entire senate.

My logic isn't she is from New York. If you think that is my reasoning you clearly refused to click a single article I posted. You are refusing to look at the actual evidence. When you look at her voting record. Her ACTUAL voting record not a fun little JPEG her voting record comes up as the 11th most liberal of the entire senate.

Please explain to me how can someone with the 11th most liberal record of the senate not be a liberal? Unless your claim is the vast majority of democratic senators (including Obama at that time!) are not liberal?
Click to expand...

This one is actually more cherry-picked lol. Gun control is on this one.

tumblr_no1uyoQnAn1s8p52ho1_500.jpg
 
NeoXChaos said:
This one is actually more cherry-picked lol. Gun control is on this one.

tumblr_no1uyoQnAn1s8p52ho1_500.jpg
Click to expand...
The sad thing is the crazies won't realize you are posting that just to make fun of them and truly believe these absurd little images over actual reporting.

"Truly support gay marriage". That is amazing.
 
GreatestHits said:
What I posted thwarts exactly what you're saying. Forget the list, look up the voting history yourself. These are important things to Americans, just because they aren't to you doesn't mean I live in a small world, that's just what you call my perspective. Man you are spittin' acid over there

"Fuck your cherry-picked list! She's from NEW YORK!!! 'Nuff said!" Jesus Christ
Click to expand...

Do you realize how much you sound like a Republican, what with their obsession with ideological purity, RINOs and "true conservatives?"
 
I remember the last time we heard this kind of "there's no difference"/"not liberal" nonsense.

Anyone paying the most basic level of attention learned that, yes, there is indeed a difference, but it was a rather painful 8 years.
 
They probably have no idea that you are referencing to Gore, there is no way these DINO rambling guys were old enough to vote or follow politics in 2000. No one who went through that as a liberal can still be this naive in 2016.

Flo_Evans said:
What do people that say a "socialist" have zero chance of being elected sound like?
Click to expand...
That is an opinion based on legitimate polling results. Calling Hillary a republican/conservative is a blatant and complete falsehood. That has no basis in reality and has been disproven time and time again when researched and reported on.

You know who people who refuse to read articles from countless legitimate news sources that show Hillarys voting record was consistently one of the most liberal in the senate sound like? Climate Change deniers who refuse to read actual research and prefer to rely on fun buzz words and easy to digest images that are easier to accept than actual research.
 
Cheebo said:
You know who people who refuse to read articles from countless legitimate news sources that show Hillarys voting record was consistently one of the most liberal in the senate sound like? Climate Change deniers who refuse to read actual research and prefer to rely on fun buzz words and easy to digest images that are easier to accept than actual research.
Click to expand...

Bam!
 
Flo_Evans said:
What do people that say a "socialist" have zero chance of being elected sound like?
Click to expand...
I personally would love to elect a socialist. But for the better part of the last century, the word "socialist" has been driven into voters' heads as an incredibly dirty word. And it's remarkably naive to think that one clever election campaign could undo decades of programming.

Do you realize just how very close modern campaigns are? Two or three points shifted in another direction, and the outcome is completely different. If I were picking a nominee, I'm not adding the connotations of that word to my nominee's general election campaign obstacles, especially when attempting the historically difficult feat of winning a third consecutive term for my party.

Cheebo said:
They probably have no idea that you are referencing to Gore, there is no way these DINO rambling guys were old enough to vote or follow politics in 2000. No one who went through that as a liberal can still be this naive in 2016.
Click to expand...
I was trying to be a bit oblique and nice, but.. yeah. It's goddamn amazing.
 
You can tell they were too young to vote in 2004 likely as well. You can see they for the most part do not understand how it feels to lose. How easy it is to lose. That absolte ideological purity is not the answer, no one who remembers how it felt to lose his this youthful sort of invincibility feeing when it comes to politics.
 
BertramCooper said:
Do you realize how much you sound like a Republican, what with their obsession with ideological purity, RINOs and "true conservatives?"
Click to expand...

That's fine I had one simple point to make before Hilary's campaign manager swooped in with 75% anger 25% a point. It's not the quantity of her liberal votes, it's asinine to look at that and not what votes we're considering, IMO. I'm talking about "cherry-picked" issues that stand out above the rest. Ones that carry weight with people like me, kids too young to remember Gore.

If by saying that Hillary stands for none of the ideals that I care about, makes me obsessed with ideology in your eyes, that's not surprising in this seemingly emotional discussion. I had a simple point to make about the fact that no matter WHAT her history is, the things she stands for do not align with me at all. That's it. Continue flaming

Cheebo said:
You can tell they were too young to vote in 2004 likely as well. You can see they for the most part do not understand how it feels to lose. How easy it is to lose. That absolte ideological purity is not the answer, no one who remembers how it felt to lose his this youthful sort of invincibility feeing when it comes to politics.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. You're pissed because Bernie's got my vote and you think it has some sort of effect on the GOP's
in
ability to get it going this time around. I don't play the game of politics, I don't vote for one thing when I want another. IMO that shit needs to stop. I vote for the best candidate, in this case the only candidate that represents my voice on the matters that are important to me
 
GreatestHits said:
That's fine I had one simple point to make before Hilary's campaign manager swooped in with 75% anger 25% a point. It's not the quantity of her liberal votes, it's asinine to look at that and not what votes we're considering, IMO. I'm talking about "cherry-picked" issues that stand out above the rest. Ones that carry weight with people like me, kids too young to remember Gore.

If by saying that Hillary stands for none of the ideals that I care about, makes me obsessed with ideology in your eyes, that's not surprising in this seemingly emotional discussion. I had a simple point to make about the fact that no matter WHAT her history is, the things she stands for do not align with me at all. That's it. Continue flaming
Click to expand...
your list was heavily focused on who was right "first".

Which of Hillarys declared stances and policies as a candidate for President in 2016 do you disagree with so vehemently? Purely in terms of 2016 election stances and policies, which are so appalling to you? No little images. Your actual views as they stand for the 2016 election and present day policies of the candidates.
 
Cheebo said:
your list was heavily focused on who was right "first".
Click to expand...

I don't even consider candidates who are even close to as flippant as what you're implying when you ask me to look into her 'new policies'. That's the main reason my list focused on "who was right first". Because this dude doesn't flip. Some of us don't accept that. Some of us who haven't been conditioned to it for years.

There are no good reasons to change your stance on policies like gay marriage unless you have some sort of epiphany. Also, if you can't calm the **** down, please. I'm eating and you are too nauseating to talk to with all your anger
 
GreatestHits said:
I don't even consider candidates who are even close to as flippant as what you're implying when you ask me to look into her 'new policies'. That's the main reason my list focused on "who was right first". Because this dude doesn't flip. Some of us don't accept that. Some of us who haven't been conditioned to it for years.

There are no good reasons to change your stance on policies like gay marriage unless you have some sort of epiphany.
Click to expand...
So you pretty much admit then none of her current policies are dramatically different than yourself then.

Candidates aren't allowed to change their minds? Evolve over time? She has grown more liberal as she has grown as a politician.

The "stand firm no flip flopping!" Is the exact same nonsense shit Bush pulled against Kerry in 2004. That is playbook Karl Rove speak you are throwing out there.

And no please do not tell me if you know who Karl Rove is, I am sure the answer would just make me feel old.
 
GreatestHits said:
Lol I think we're done here. Look man, pick a different target
Click to expand...
When you get older and know what it feels like to lose a presidential election you will feel differently. Trust me. All young people who start out following politics act like you, they never stay that way after they lose a few general elections.
 
Cheebo said:
When you get older and know what it feels like to lose a presidential election you will feel differently. Trust me. All young people who start out following politics act like you, they never stay that way after they lose a few general elections.
Click to expand...

You were one once? Does losing humble oneself? If Bernie loses the primary, what happens?
 
We have Hillary, whose stances are near identical to Bernie or we have Trump who said he wants to give Sarah Palin a cabinet position. Yeah, Trump clearly is the second choice here when Bernie loses. The logic checks out.

Well, we will have people old enough to vote who were TEN in the 2008 election, so they may not know who Palin is either.

We have people who might have been young as eight who are going to vote during the Clinton vs Obama mania in the early days of the Dem primary. Let that sink in.
 
NeoXChaos said:
This one is actually more cherry-picked lol. Gun control is on this one.

tumblr_no1uyoQnAn1s8p52ho1_500.jpg
Click to expand...

What the hell is this?

Anti-Big Business? . . . Uh . . . I like my google. I like my Intel.

Truly Supports gay marriage?

Against Wall Street? Uh . . . they need regulation but I'm not 'against' them.


What fluffy headed nonsense. And I think Bernie would agree.
 
Cheebo said:
When you get older and know what it feels like to lose a presidential election you will feel differently. Trust me. All young people who start out following politics act like you, they never stay that way after they lose a few general elections.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was too young to give a shit about 2000, so I stayed home. By 2004, I had become politically aware after the lunacy of the invasion of Iraq.

I thought there was no way Kerry could lose. Surely the rest of the country saw what a disaster Bush was. But nope, Bush got a second term.

The scary thing is that Bush was trying to privatize Social Security and other crazy shit in his second term. The only reason he was stopped was because his congress was worried about re-elections. Bush is considered a moderate. Could you imagine if one of those tea party crazies gets into the white house with a Republican house and senate backing them up?

We'll be screwed for decades.
 
BertramCooper said:
Trump's campaign is just remarkable. I mean, it's based 100% on racism. There's virtually nothing else to it.

That's why it's cutting across all parts of the GOP and not just the Tea Party, as everyone initally assumed. I mean, you look at these poll numbers and basically can surmise that yes, 32% of the Republican Party are hardcore racist shits.
Click to expand...

That is what a lot of it comes down to.

"We need to take our country back" (From what?)
"We need guns and a big military to protect ourselves" (From who?)
"We need the government to stop giving away handouts" (To who?)

Racism is the glue that holds the party together, and is how wanting a small government but a huge military and jail presence makes sense.
 
I'm not going to say that every trump supporter is a racist but he is appealing hardcore right now to the racists in that party and is likely a huge racist himself based on past statements.
 
HylianHistorian said:
I don't want to necessarily excuse people who willingly came here illegally, but many of them did so because of how broken the system is, in addition to fleeing from violence in multiple cases. As a result many undocumented immigrants also brought their children, with some as young as babies, such as in my case. It's an awful situation to be in, but a majority of us are doing our best to be great, law-abiding residents otherwise, even if we're not citizens. I hope you can at least understand that a little bit, because I grew up in this country virtually my entire life, and I can't imagine being anywhere else, as imperfect as it is.
Click to expand...

People who came to the US knew the risks of moving into a country illegally, i'm sorry to say. A country is under no obligation to grant citizenship to anyone. Relative to the rest of the world Mexico is not a poor country, and immigrants into the US from Mexico tend to be wealthier than average. It takes economic means to successfully navigate through the US border into the country.

There is no humanitarian case for widespread Mexican immigration. Many people in Bangladesh, India and the African continent are in much more severe circumstances, but they don't get to live in the US because they have no way to get here. If mass immigration was about alleviating suffering relatively few people would be taken from Latin America - there are other parts of the world that are much worse.

This isn't a personal issue. Developed countries do not accept low skilled workers en mass as a matter of policy with the exception of the US. So long as advanced societies have broad welfare states this will be true, since citizens can be expensive in such a model. Many proponents of this kind of immigration want to greatly expand the welfare state, putting even more pressure on Governments finances.
 
IronicallyTwisted said:
People who came to the US knew the risks of moving into a country illegally, i'm sorry to say. A country is under no obligation to grant citizenship to anyone. Relative to the rest of the world Mexico is not a poor country, and immigrants into the US from Mexico tend to be wealthier than average. It takes economic means to successfully navigate through the US border into the country.

There is no humanitarian case for widespread Mexican immigration. Many people in Bangladesh, India and the African continent are in much more severe circumstances, but they don't get to live in the US because they have no way to get here. If mass immigration was about alleviating suffering relatively few people would be taken from Latin America - there are other parts of the world that are much worse.

This isn't a personal issue. Developed countries do not accept low skilled workers en mass as a matter of policy with the exception of the US. So long as advanced societies have broad welfare states this will be true, since citizens can be expensive in such a model. Many proponents of this kind of immigration want to greatly expand the welfare state, putting even more pressure on Governments finances.
Click to expand...

Developed countries don't accept low skilled workers en mass because they're racist and hate foreigners. The world has always hated outsiders. We're basically throwing out all of history prior to 1960 at the very least if we're going with "rational dislike of immigration" and we're throwing out essentially all economic research. For fucks sake, Europe doesn't want refugees from a civil war where the dictator is gassing his own citizens and might be the good side in the civil war.

Other than that (and "other people have it worse so suck that down" whataboutism), solid argument.

Wait, no, it's worse because you're saying "I want higher taxes so that you and your family will be deported" to a poster.

And that's everything Trump supporters are supporting. They want to pay the government half a trillion more dollars so that families can be taken away from their homes. And that Trump's only policy.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Developed countries don't accept low skilled workers en mass because they're racist and hate foreigners. The world has always hated outsiders. We're basically throwing out all of history prior to 1960 at the very least if we're going with "rational dislike of immigration" and we're throwing out essentially all economic research.

Other than that (and "other people have it worse so suck that down" whataboutism), solid argument.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what you are talking about. Europe and the United States were far more racist a hundred years ago than they are now. Its no contest.

Prior to 1940 there was a minimal welfare state, thats the primary difference. As societies advance human capital investment from the Government goes up tremendously, not to mention expectations about quality of life. In that socioeconomic model immigrants are chosen based on their assumed economic performance - that they will generate more income than they will take from the Government.
 
IronicallyTwisted said:
This isn't a personal issue. Developed countries do not accept low skilled workers en mass as a matter of policy with the exception of the US. So long as advanced societies have broad welfare states this will be true, since citizens can be expensive in such a model. Many proponents of this kind of immigration want to greatly expand the welfare state, putting even more pressure on Governments finances.
Click to expand...
Lol. No. European countries have taken in a LOT of migrants. Canada too.
 
IronicallyTwisted said:
You don't even know what you are talking about. Europe and the United States were far more racist a hundred years ago than they are now. Its no contest.

Prior to 1940 there was a minimal welfare state, thats the primary difference. As societies advance human capital investment from the Government goes up tremendously, not to mention expectations about quality of life. In that socioeconomic model immigrants are chosen based on their assumed economic performance - that they will generate more income than they will take from the Government.
Click to expand...

My argument is "we're obviously still racist since two generations ago, we had immigration limits on Jews during WW2 and people don't change very quickly for god fucker sake," mmkay.
 
Downhome said:
I am shocked that people are still allowed to post blanket statements here on this board about entire groups of people, with no exception, such as all Trump supporters are racist.

I'm just as shocked that anyone actually believes that.
Click to expand...

I feel you brother man, makes it hard to try and have a discussion about him here, since ones attention can become narrowly focused if something stirs up lots of emotion within. Also some folks keep repeating the same stuff thats been proven incorrect multiple times (actual quote regarding immigrants).

We see what we want to see with strokes of truth colored in... Filtering everything with our custom set of rose colored ray bans... (I do it, most all do it to varying degrees, noticing it, embracing and letting it go however is not as common...Personally I see it all as just stories built around ideas that we conclude to be our "selves", which is why I never take anything very personal...Who am "I" anyway...HA!)

Play your part... :)
 
spock said:
I feel you brother man, makes it hard to try and have a discussion about him here, since ones attention can become narrowly focused if something stirs up lots of emotion within. Also some folks keep repeating the same stuff thats been proven incorrect multiple times (actual quote regarding immigrants).

We see what we want to see with strokes of truth colored in... Filtering everything with our custom set of rose colored ray bans... (I do it, most all do it to varying degrees, noticing it, embracing and letting it go however is not as common...Personally I see it all as just stories built around ideas that we conclude to be our "selves", which is why I never take anything very personal...Who am "I" anyway...HA!)

Play your part... :)
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll use Trump's language since apparently that's okay.

Trump supporters are made up of racists and the worst of society. Some Trump supporters, I assume, are good people.

I am not generalizing any more than Trump did and I have those actual beliefs also.
 
There is not a person running on either side that represents America, good and bad, as much as Trump. It makes perfect sense to me that he'd be competitive in the general election. Still, that decision is a year away. A lot can happen in a year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Canada's election results are in
8
397
Jaybe replied
  • Poll
Favorite cryptid?
Poll 
35
2K
Liljagare replied
  • Poll
Have you ever tried directly messaging a NeoGAF staff member?
Poll  2
63
219
spons replied
  • Poll
Are you a hoarder?
Community Poll  2
56
2K
wondermega replied
  • Locked
Getting ads for a far-right party before the election in Germany
17
1K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom