It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
.MASSHOLE.Well he isn't winning and I have been saying that since day 1. So am I wrong? He lost ground, again.
Morally he certainly won. Mathematically you cannot believe he did.
I didn't say he is winning. You are short sighted. "Mathematically" lol fuck off mr pretentious. Stop trying to sound smart. It's sickening and probably why you have no friends.
You arent autistic are you? I'd feel really bad if you are.
THEPROPHETI didn't say he is winning. You are short sighted. "Mathematically" lol fuck off mr pretentious. Stop trying to sound smart. It's sickening and probably why you have no friends.
You arent autistic are you? I'd feel really bad if you are.
Well that's what I've been saying, that he won't win.
Short-sighted? How, I've been saying he won't have the demographics he'll need to win since day one and every win or loss has shown that.
I mean morally he did win, Clinton had a 20% point lead going into the polls and she lost it. Shows the electability label should be thrown out.
But mathematically he did lose. He's down 200 delegates not including super delegates and will need to over-perform on his expected wins from here on out.
If I was, shouldn't you feel bad an autistic kid is making you look like an idiot?
THEPROPHETI didn't say he is winning. You are short sighted. "Mathematically" lol fuck off mr pretentious. Stop trying to sound smart. It's sickening and probably why you have no friends.
You arent autistic are you? I'd feel really bad if you are.
So cute when people run out of constructive input and they start hailing insults. Says a lot about what type of person you are.
louie.miragsSo cute when people run out of constructive input and they start hailing insults. Says a lot about what type of person you are.
I find it amusing. I am not insulting him or his beliefs, I just want to point out its a moral victory and nothing more. The circle jerk on the internet about Sanders in most online communities is absurd.
DeforestationI had a feeling he was going to win Michigan, and had he not, I think it would have been pretty much impossible to gain rnough momentum to take the nomination.
When you search "presidential primaries" and the Google charts come up, it looks like Clinton is leading by a shitton because of superdelegates, which I feel is seriously unfair to Sanders. How many ill-informed and flip/floppy voters are going to look at that, see what looks like Clinton doubling-up Bernie, and just vote for her because it looks like hope is lost? They need to remove the superdelegate count from the main graph.[/QUOT
Every single media source has been reporting it like that for months, barely ever mentioning that the superdelegates will switch to whoever has the most pledged delegates like they did with obama in 08. This is one of the most brazen examples of what the Sanders campaign is up against in terms of the corporate media and establishment in general.
.MASSHOLE.I find it amusing. I am not insulting him or his beliefs, I just want to point out its a moral victory and nothing more. The circle jerk on the internet about Sanders in most online communities is absurd.
It's absurd? Why is it absurd Mr. Pretentious? To good for passion? Only losers are passionate right?
"It's a moral victory and nothing more"
NO
Its one more victory no one thought possible and one step closer to winning.
How many states has Hillary won that will be Red states in November?
You wont vote, you don't support any candidates, you don't believe anything can work or will happen.
THEPROPHETIt's absurd? Why is it absurd Mr. Pretentious? To good for passion? Only losers are passionate right?
"It's a moral victory and nothing more"
NO
Its one more victory no one thought possible and one step closer to winning.
How many states has Hillary won that will be Red states in November?
You wont vote, you don't support any candidates, you don't believe anything can work or will happen.
You are thick and pretentious.
It is just a moral victory. It is not one step closer to winning, he is now further behind in delegates than he was on Tuesday morning. He will need to have MASSIVE margins to overcome the 200+ delegates Clinton has won, margins he has only seen in NH and VT.
I am not the only one saying this, Onenerdykid agreed with me, someone who is an open Sanders supporter.
It frankly doesn't matter what states are red or blue, you cannot think about that because you are even leading the nomination to get there.
No, I believe things can work and can happen, but it takes more than just the president. It takes a Congress and SC that agrees with him/her.
Being realistic doesn't make me thick or pretentious. Jaded perhaps, cynical, certainly. But has history shown anything different?
foolmetwiceI had a feeling he was going to win Michigan, and had he not, I think it would have been pretty much impossible to gain rnough momentum to take the nomination.
When you search "presidential primaries" and the Google charts come up, it looks like Clinton is leading by a shitton because of superdelegates, which I feel is seriously unfair to Sanders. How many ill-informed and flip/floppy voters are going to look at that, see what looks like Clinton doubling-up Bernie, and just vote for her because it looks like hope is lost? They need to remove the superdelegate count from the main graph.[/QUOT
Every single media source has been reporting it like that for months, barely ever mentioning that the superdelegates will switch to whoever has the most pledged delegates like they did with obama in 08. This is one of the most brazen examples of what the Sanders campaign is up against in terms of the corporate media and establishment in general.
.MASSHOLE.It is just a moral victory. It is not one step closer to winning, he is now further behind in delegates than he was on Tuesday morning. He will need to have MASSIVE margins to overcome the 200+ delegates Clinton has won, margins he has only seen in NH and VT.
I am not the only one saying this, Onenerdykid agreed with me, someone who is an open Sanders supporter.
It frankly doesn't matter what states are red or blue, you cannot think about that because you are even leading the nomination to get there.
No, I believe things can work and can happen, but it takes more than just the president. It takes a Congress and SC that agrees with him/her.
Being realistic doesn't make me thick or pretentious. Jaded perhaps, cynical, certainly. But has history shown anything different?
BeefiestExpertwhy is everyone saying sanders is a communist?
Because he labeled himself as a democratic socialist. People took the socialist out of that and associated it with communism. It's the misinformed view.
THEPROPHETThe uninspired are always just "being realistic"
I mean, please give me one example where an anti-establishment member successfully became a president.
Show me where a president was able to overcome a Congress and SC that did not agree with his views.
Give me an example of where a candidate was able to overcome a 200+ (and likely to increase with FL, OH, IL, and possibly NC) delegate disadvantage.
If you can show all of those (with one candidate), I will never, ever post in a political thread again.
.MASSHOLE.I mean, please give me one example where an anti-establishment member successfully became a president.
Show me where a president was able to overcome a Congress and SC that did not agree with his views.
Give me an example of where a candidate was able to overcome a 200+ (and likely to increase with FL, OH, IL, and possibly NC) delegate disadvantage.
If you can show all of those (with one candidate), I will never, ever post in a political thread again.
Anti-establishment: Jackson was obviously the most prominent as he was basically trying to dissolve the central banking system to a point, super into individual liberties, but I mean that was ~200 years ago so maybe not the best example.
FDR circa 1936 was pretty anti-establishment as well, didn't act on it as much as Jackson, but if you look at his campaign speeches, they bear a striking resemblance to the anti-establishment agenda we're seing now.
Also, hopefully you've already noticed this, but there's about a 99.9% chance that Trump or Cruz is going to win the primary and a decent chance that one is going to win the election; both of them being anti-establishment.
Congress overcoming SC and Congress: I'd have to look this one up, but I'm sure it's happened. Also, they're not voting.
Candidate overcoming 200+: Idk if this has happened, but look at this graph from the 200 primary:
Obama was down by 100 to start and ended up winning by 200+. If Bernie went at that rate, he'd easily come out with the victory. Furthermore, he's already closed in at a faster pace than Obama did since he started even further below her. It's most definately possible that he comes out with enough to win.
Obviously the odds aren't necessarily in his favor, and nobody has gone against all 3 points you mentioned at once, but at the same time, Donald Trump is leading a Republican nomination, and the man in close second is the zodiac killer, so maybe America's just out of whack/readyfor change enough to elect him.
DeforestationAnti-establishment: Jackson was obviously the most prominent as he was basically trying to dissolve the central banking system to a point, super into individual liberties, but I mean that was ~200 years ago so maybe not the best example.
FDR circa 1936 was pretty anti-establishment as well, didn't act on it as much as Jackson, but if you look at his campaign speeches, they bear a striking resemblance to the anti-establishment agenda we're seing now.
Also, hopefully you've already noticed this, but there's about a 99.9% chance that Trump or Cruz is going to win the primary and a decent chance that one is going to win the election; both of them being anti-establishment.
Congress overcoming SC and Congress: I'd have to look this one up, but I'm sure it's happened. Also, they're not voting.
Candidate overcoming 200+: Idk if this has happened, but look at this graph from the 200 primary:
Obama was down by 100 to start and ended up winning by 200+. If Bernie went at that rate, he'd easily come out with the victory. Furthermore, he's already closed in at a faster pace than Obama did since he started even further below her. It's most definately possible that he comes out with enough to win.
Obviously the odds aren't necessarily in his favor, and nobody has gone against all 3 points you mentioned at once, but at the same time, Donald Trump is leading a Republican nomination, and the man in close second is the zodiac killer, so maybe America's just out of whack/readyfor change enough to elect him.
It is very tough to compare the 1800s and early-mid 20th century to now. You had an entirely different set of social and political concerns.
That being said, I don't know how much resistance the SC or Congress put up against the actions those two presidents attempted to pass. Not an American history buff so I can't really comment. I do know Jackson's presidency was a disaster in terms of currency, it created some pretty big issues.
It is not about Congress voting in the President however, it is about them supporting the initiatives that Sanders/Trump would attempt to pass through Congress. Look at Obama, he was railroaded at every turn by the Republicans and barely passed the ACA. He at least had the democratic members on his side, I do not think Sanders/Trump would enjoy the same percentage as Obama did seeing as they are much more "radical" and their party is less likely to side with their more "extreme" ideas.
I don't consider Cruz anti-establishment since he clearly has a side of the party that likes him, the Tea Party. For your average conservative voter he certainly is radical, but for a Tea Party follower, he is not. But that is just my take.
That graph illustrates the point I have made since day 1. Obama controlled a VERY different demographic than Sanders did. The strength of Sander's supporters is in the white, young, and overly liberal men and women. He has not polled well among the African Americans, hence why he has seen some MASSIVE defeats in the Deep South. Obama was CRUSHING those states, Sanders is getting decimated.
To make up the difference Sanders is going to see margins of victory that frankly may not be possible. He controls the youth vote, but the youth are notoriously unpredictable. Another group that is just as unpredictable and unreliable are the Independents. Some of the upcoming states will be closed primaries, meaning Independents will not be able to vote if they do not register as a Democrat.
We will see what happens. Sanders is lagging behind where he would need to be to win the nomination in terms of delegates, while Clinton is ahead.
DeforestationObviously the odds aren't necessarily in his favor, and nobody has gone against all 3 points you mentioned at once, but at the same time, Donald Trump is leading a Republican nomination, and the man in close second is the zodiac killer, so maybe America's just out of whack/readyfor change enough to elect him.
Forgot to address this.
Trump is going against 3 different candidates (formerly 4), thereby splitting the voting group into even smaller pockets. If it were 1v1 it would likely be a very different and more competitive story.
.MASSHOLE.. Not an American history buff so I can't really comment.
I don't consider Cruz anti-establishment since he clearly has a side of the party that likes him, the Tea Party. The Teap Party IS anti establishment ya fucking kumquat.
That graph illustrates the point I have made since day 1. Obama controlled a VERY different demographic than Sanders did. The strength of Sander's supporters is in the white, young, and overly liberal men and women. WRONG
To make up the difference Sanders is going to see margins of victory that frankly may not be possible. YOU DONT KNOW THAT. STOP ACTING LIKE A FORTUNE TELLER.
We will see what happens. Sanders is lagging behind where he would need to be to win the nomination in terms of delegates, while Clinton is ahead.
Thank you for proving you have a rudementary understanding of the candidates and American history in general. Now please stop posting you cnn bullshit
Trump is going against 3 different candidates (formerly 4), thereby splitting the voting group into even smaller pockets. If it were 1v1 it would likely be a very different and more competitive story.
Yur a lil outdated bud. Rubio is done. Its Trump vs Cruz
btw. Cruz is certainly extreme.
In normal circumstance Cruz himself would be considered the political outsider: an extreme conservative, religious, anti-abortion, anti-gun control and anti-gay marriage Tea Party candidate whose main support base is firmly on the Republican right.
Right wing republicans are the type of people that still believe in the white mans Burden. Cruz is a fucking creep
THEPROPHETThank you for proving you have a rudementary understanding of the candidates and American history in general. Now please stop posting you cnn bullshit
The TP is not anti-establishment in the same sense as Sanders or Trump. It fits the conventional, albeit extremist, version of the Republican Party. Both Sanders and Trump fall outside the traditional lines of either party.
Please, Obama and Sanders controlled VERY different demographics. You cannot honestly tell me the bulk of Sander's supporters are not youthful very liberal men and women. He victories completely depend on the youth vote. Look where he has won vs. where he has lost. Obama controlled both this group AND the African Americans. Go look at the exit poll statistics, they certainly support this.
THEPROPHETYur a lil outdated bud. Rubio is done. Its Trump vs Cruz
btw. Cruz is certainly extreme.
In normal circumstance Cruz himself would be considered the political outsider: an extreme conservative, religious, anti-abortion, anti-gun control and anti-gay marriage Tea Party candidate whose main support base is firmly on the Republican right.
Right wing republicans are the type of people that still believe in the white mans Burden. Cruz is a fucking creep
Rubio is still in the race, he has not pulled out, yet. And you are forgetting Kasich, he is still in the race as well. So, by my count, that is still 3 vs. 1.
Oh I agree he is extreme, but that extreme has become almost a norm for the Republican party now. It's a disgrace.
.MASSHOLE.The TP is not anti-establishment in the same sense as Sanders or Trump. It fits the conventional, albeit extremist, version of the Republican Party. Both Sanders and Trump fall outside the traditional lines of either party.
Please, Obama and Sanders controlled VERY different demographics. You cannot honestly tell me the bulk of Sander's supporters are not youthful very liberal men and women. He victories completely depend on the youth vote. Look where he has won vs. where he has lost. Obama controlled both this group AND the African Americans. Go look at the exit poll statistics, they certainly support this.
I don't use CNN. I use foreign news sources and FiveThirtyEight.
Clinton did far better with black voters, as expected, winning that bloc, 65%-31%, but that was a much smaller margin than in Southern states, and black voters made up less than one-quarter of those voting. And among the 68% of voters who were white, Sanders won handily, 57%-41%.
you fail to see the insignificance of the African American vote in this election. It's a last ditch effort by the media to make people believe sanders doesn't have a chance because it was the demographic Obama utilized to win.
way to fall into the brainwashing champ.
Lol "statisical equations". staticians are always looking into their crystal ball.
538 is in extremely bias and why the hell would you get news about the USA from another country? you get your information from outsiders. Good job...
THEPROPHETClinton did far better with black voters, as expected, winning that bloc, 65%-31%, but that was a much smaller margin than in Southern states, and black voters made up less than one-quarter of those voting. And among the 68% of voters who were white, Sanders won handily, 57%-41%.
you fail to see the insignificance of the African American vote in this election. It's a last ditch effort by the media to make people believe sanders doesn't have a chance because it was the demographic Obama utilized to win.
way to fall into the brainwashing champ.
Lol "statisical equations". staticians are always looking into their crystal ball.
538 is in extremely bias and why the hell would you get news about the USA from another country? you get your information from outsiders. Good job...
And that black voter margin is why she is expected to win the remaining Southern states, increasing her lead to more than 200+ delegates. You're missing my point. Sander's is facing a MASSIVE uphill battle to regain those delegates and potentially pull ahead. He needs massive victories to do so, victories like Clinton saw in the South....
Wait, so if I use US sources I am biased, but if I use foreign sources I am uninformed? Shit, where do I get my information?
And by the way, you can look at those methods, the numbers aren't biased. You're just a sheeple who thinks any info that is anti-Bernie is bad and wrong.
.MASSHOLE.And that black voter margin is why she is expected to win the remaining Southern states, increasing her lead to more than 200+ delegates. You're missing my point. Sander's is facing a MASSIVE uphill battle to regain those delegates and potentially pull ahead. He needs massive victories to do so, victories like Clinton saw in the South....
Wait, so if I use US sources I am biased, but if I use foreign sources I am uninformed? Shit, where do I get my information?
And by the way, you can look at those methods, the numbers aren't biased. You're just a sheeple who thinks any info that is anti-Bernie is bad and wrong.
Now, I am in no shape or form a Trump fan, or supporter, but what happened in Chicago needs to be condemned by all the candidates, especially Sanders. Bernie's comments should be somewhat upsetting to any of his followers given his history of supporting peaceful protests, no matter the situation.
"I don't think our supporters are inciting. What our supporters are doing is responding to a candidate who has, in fact, in many ways, encouraged violence."
Yes, Trump is a constant stem controversial statements, and has mentioned violence in his speeches. His own supporter punched a black man earlier in the week. He is no bastion of integrity, that is certain.
But to disrupt and attack supporters and police at this event was both uncalled for, downright dangerous, and a black eye on the Bernie supporters. I don't know how many of you watched the event go down, but you could both see and hear Bernie supporters chanting "Bernie, Bernie" as the crowds became aggressive. Even today, a man who is a Bernie supporter per his twitter, attacked Trump.
I believe there were BLM members in Chicago as well, so I cannot say who was more responsible for the violence, but it is clear that Sanders supporters were behind the movement.
It should be upsetting to many of you, as it is a black-eye on the campaign, and frankly his response was no better.
Now, Sander's is not the only one claiming Trump brought it upon himself. Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and countless media members did as well (unsure about Clinton, I imagine she did). He certainly bears partial responsibility, but rather than saying it is his fault, they all need to come out and say what happened is unacceptable and as just a regressive tactic as some of his statements are.
It is disappointing to see this because while I will never vote for Bernie, I certainly admire(d?) him as a person and what he stands for. But this is rather disappointing. Out of all the candidates, I expected better from him.
.MASSHOLE.Now, I am in no shape or form a Trump fan, or supporter, but what happened in Chicago needs to be condemned by all the candidates, especially Sanders. Bernie's comments should be somewhat upsetting to any of his followers given his history of supporting peaceful protests, no matter the situation.
"I don't think our supporters are inciting. What our supporters are doing is responding to a candidate who has, in fact, in many ways, encouraged violence."
Yes, Trump is a constant stem controversial statements, and has mentioned violence in his speeches. His own supporter punched a black man earlier in the week. He is no bastion of integrity, that is certain.
But to disrupt and attack supporters and police at this event was both uncalled for, downright dangerous, and a black eye on the Bernie supporters. I don't know how many of you watched the event go down, but you could both see and hear Bernie supporters chanting "Bernie, Bernie" as the crowds became aggressive. Even today, a man who is a Bernie supporter per his twitter, attacked Trump.
I believe there were BLM members in Chicago as well, so I cannot say who was more responsible for the violence, but it is clear that Sanders supporters were behind the movement.
It should be upsetting to many of you, as it is a black-eye on the campaign, and frankly his response was no better.
Now, Sander's is not the only one claiming Trump brought it upon himself. Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and countless media members did as well (unsure about Clinton, I imagine she did). He certainly bears partial responsibility, but rather than saying it is his fault, they all need to come out and say what happened is unacceptable and as just a regressive tactic as some of his statements are.
It is disappointing to see this because while I will never vote for Bernie, I certainly admire(d?) him as a person and what he stands for. But this is rather disappointing. Out of all the candidates, I expected better from him.
How is Bernie responsible for what his supporters do? It's not like he said "ok guys you're going to need to disrupt the Trump rally". No, he didn't say anything.
Abu-BaghdadiHow is Bernie responsible for what his supporters do? It's not like he said "ok guys you're going to need to disrupt the Trump rally". No, he didn't say anything.
No, but rather than condemning the actions he basically said "I support what they did because of what Trump said to incite them."
Given his history on protests, it is rather disappointing.
.MASSHOLE.No, but rather than condemning the actions he basically said "I support what they did because of what Trump said to incite them."
Given his history on protests, it is rather disappointing.
Hardly. Society needs to stand together against Trumps racism and bigotry. "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."-Edward Burke
Abu-BaghdadiHardly. Society needs to stand together against Trumps racism and bigotry. "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."-Edward Burke
Sorry, but when it comes to hurting the supporters, viewers, and police, it doesn't matter. Not all of Trumps supporters are racists, or bigots, or "fascists". Some just prefer his anti-establishment stance vs. Bernie's.
Lets put it in terms you understand where your bias isn't shining through. Would you be OK with attack Islamists who are listening to a radical cleric preach hateful rhetoric?
.MASSHOLE.Sorry, but when it comes to hurting the supporters, viewers, and police, it doesn't matter. Not all of Trumps supporters are racists, or bigots, or "fascists". Some just prefer his anti-establishment stance vs. Bernie's.
Lets put it in terms you understand where your bias isn't shining through. Would you be OK with attack Islamists who are listening to a radical cleric preach hateful rhetoric?
you're implying that I support the violence done by the protesters... But I guess a Trump supporter has never once been violent at a Trump rally towards a protester and it's the fault of the protesters? Solid logic
With regards to the violence, when you have a large group of people clashing it's hard to pinpoint the exact turning point of who got violent. I've seen just as much footage of Trump supporters being violent as I have Bernie supporters being violent.
Abu-Baghdadiyou're implying that I support the violence done by the protesters... But I guess a Trump supporter has never once been violent at a Trump rally towards a protester and it's the fault of the protesters? Solid logic
With regards to the violence, when you have a large group of people clashing it's hard to pinpoint the exact turning point of who got violent. I've seen just as much footage of Trump supporters being violent as I have Bernie supporters being violent.
No, you missed my initial post's point that both parties are at fault. However, Sander's ignored this and said his supporters were innocent and not to blame.
It takes two to tango, and he seemingly said what happened is OK because Trump and his supporters are racists and bigots. That doesn't fly with me. At all. I would be calling out Trump supporters if this happened at a Bernie event as well.
I have no clue who started the fight, as I said as well. I don't care who started it. But the Sander's supporters had a plan in place to disrupt and potentially shutdown the event. I can't imagine they all went in there with peaceful intentions. They certainly had no reasons to fight the cops, that is for sure.
.MASSHOLE.No, you missed my initial post's point that both parties are at fault. However, Sander's ignored this and said his supporters were innocent and not to blame.
It takes two to tango, and he seemingly said what happened is OK because Trump and his supporters are racists and bigots. That doesn't fly with me. At all. I would be calling out Trump supporters if this happened at a Bernie event as well.
I have no clue who started the fight, as I said as well. I don't care who started it. But the Sander's supporters had a plan in place to disrupt and potentially shutdown the event. I can't imagine they all went in there with peaceful intentions. They certainly had no reasons to fight the cops, that is for sure.
I just went though Bernies facebook page and couldn't find a statement regarding the issue. And all I could find on Bernie supporters assaulting police where a bunch of reddit threads. All seems very he said she said at this point in time.
Abu-BaghdadiI just went though Bernies facebook page and couldn't find a statement regarding the issue. And all I could find on Bernie supporters assaulting police where a bunch of reddit threads. All seems very he said she said at this point in time.
Here.
"I don't think our supporters are inciting. What our supporters are doing is responding to a candidate who has, in fact, in many ways, encouraged violence," Sanders said Saturday at a press conference in Chicago"
"At the corner of Racine and Van Buren, a group of police officers fought with protesters, with the group pushing back and forth, screaming. It was unclear what precipitated the fight."
Here is another CNN piece describing what went down. A lot of venom from the protestors towards the supporters.
It is a bad look for both campaigns, but in my opinion a lot more of the blame lies with the protestors. It is one thing to protest outside the event, but to go in, planning on disrupting the event, is asking for trouble.
Emotions are high, insults are going to be thrown, and all it takes is 1 or 2 bad apples on both sides to start taking swings.
I don't for one second agree with Trump or his messages, but it is his right to run a platform that allows him to say those things. By physically attacking him or his supporters is generating the results he wants.
This campaign has spun out of control on all fronts...
And I don't condemn the people pushing back against the Trump shitbags at all. Fuck those racist wankers. I don't want it to become violent, but these are violent, racist people who are attending these Trump rallies... so of course it's going to turn into that if you talk bad about their fuhrer to their face... It's like going to Nascar and talking shit to some guys with those hats on their heads you can drink beer from... you're gonna get a reaction... and you know what? I'm alright with that - the more Trump's supporters show that they're insane, the more likely the general public is going to alienate themselves from that base.
I've met a few random Trump dicks recently, just by nature of having to go to Reno for things once in a while... I just give them the ol' guilt trip and explain to them why they should be ashamed...
All in all, though... I don't think Trump can beat either Hillary OR Sanders... the states just don't add up... Trump can win all of Florida, Ohio AND Virginia - the most swingyest swing states out there, and still loses 272-266...
Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire all poll strongly for either one of the Democrats against Trump.. and in Colorado and New Hampshire, Sanders absolutely CRUSHES Trump. Donald has already lost New Mexico with his opinions on the Wall... he doesn't do well in Iowa against either democrat, he can't win anything in the Rust belt or the Northeast, He can't win his home state, and he's already got a hill to climb with more of the population being in Blue States to begin with. He might actually win Florida because that state is such a mixed bag of asshattery, but I don't see him winning in the Electoral at large due to what he'd need to overcome in states with populations that aren't buying into his lunacy.
Beyond that, even if this was a popular vote.. what's Trump got on either of them that would steer the general pop. in his favor??
Sanders is entirely clean, super positive, and he's running a campaign to unite people and lead us in a positive direction... I've even heard plenty of people who disagree with liberal political theories say they they believe he's probably the most well spoken, honest, and most on-point candidate for either side... He would swat down any garbage the Donald would be able to propose, and he's keeping the liberal base fired up... He'd smash the Donald in all non-southern states, and because businesses aren't keen on trump being president either, he won't have to compete with an opposition with a lobbying base.
Hillary.. What's he gonna do? Benghazi us to death? Talk about the Emails? Fox News already does that and it hasn't sunk her... I mean, yeah.. she's got plenty of dirt for him to dig up, no doubt... but compared to Trump? Compared to his brashness and unpopularity abroad? Compared to his insane notions? His joke of an idea that Mexico is going to pay for something just because he says so? She'll destroy him in the debates, and she has the political clout, experience, and the financial backing to fight fire with fire. She has a strong supporter base in many of the aforementioned swing states - especially Florida, and she's going to be difficult to beat on an ideological front in both campaign and debate setting. One thing's for sure... it will be an EXTREMELY negative campaign... it will literally be fear vs fear. Trump supporting xenophobes vs Hillary supporting Trumpaphobes...
At this point, I kinda can't wait to see who Trump picks for his ticket... if it's Sarah Palin or somebody equally as insane, I might end up having the strongest diaphragm of my life due to all the ensuing laughter I'll experience from abroad..
**This post was edited on Mar 14th 2016 at 8:38:18am
DingoSeanThis campaign has spun out of control on all fronts...
And I don't condemn the people pushing back against the Trump shitbags at all. Fuck those racist wankers. I don't want it to become violent, but these are violent, racist people who are attending these Trump rallies... so of course it's going to turn into that if you talk bad about their fuhrer to their face... It's like going to Nascar and talking shit to some guys with those hats on their heads you can drink beer from... you're gonna get a reaction... and you know what? I'm alright with that - the more Trump's supporters show that they're insane, the more likely the general public is going to alienate themselves from that base.
I am sorry but this is such a shitty stance. You can't say the violence only comes from one side when there is evidence of protestors instigating violence as well. I hate Trump's message as much as the next guy, but grouping all Trump supporters as "racist" or "fascist" is like lumping all Sander supporters as "socialists" or "free-riders".
That is not saying there are not racists or fascists in the group, but to label all his supports as such is both unfair and factually incorrect.
.MASSHOLE.I am sorry but this is such a shitty stance. You can't say the violence only comes from one side when there is evidence of protestors instigating violence as well. I hate Trump's message as much as the next guy, but grouping all Trump supporters as "racist" or "fascist" is like lumping all Sander supporters as "socialists" or "free-riders".
That is not saying there are not racists or fascists in the group, but to label all his supports as such is both unfair and factually incorrect. FALSE
I am sorry but this is such a shitty stance. You can't say that violence doesn't come from Trump. It doesnt matter who it is committing the violence because it's Trump who is causing it by spreading his hateful messages. I hate Trump's message. all Trump supporters are "racist" or "fascist" and claiming that is nothing like lumping all Sander supporters as "socialists" or "free-riders. One is true and the other isn't. ALL Trump supporters are ignorant hateful biggots, and are extremely misinformed. Sanders supporters are WAY more informed and fueled by love, compassion and empathy.
Trump supporters are facist because Trump is facist.
Trump supporters are facist and racist and highly conservative already... Trump is just giving them a place to congregate with their shitty attitudes and narrow ass worldviews.
THEPROPHETI am sorry but this is such a shitty stance. You can't say that violence doesn't come from Trump. It doesnt matter who it is committing the violence because it's Trump who is causing it by spreading his hateful messages. I hate Trump's message. all Trump supporters are "racist" or "fascist" and claiming that is nothing like lumping all Sander supporters as "socialists" or "free-riders. One is true and the other isn't. ALL Trump supporters are ignorant hateful biggots, and are extremely misinformed. Sanders supporters are WAY more informed and fueled by love, compassion and empathy.
Trump supporters are facist because Trump is facist.
DingoSeanTrump supporters are facist and racist and highly conservative already... Trump is just giving them a place to congregate with their shitty attitudes and narrow ass worldviews.
Violent speech does come from Trump, but it takes two to tango. You cannot say that the overwhelming evidence of protesters instigating violence with both police and Trump supporters is because Trump told these protesters to. They acted upon their own free will to fight and become aggressive. Did Trump put himself in a position to get criticized? He sure as hell did.
But by your logic all Sander's supporters are democratic socialists right and all support a $15 minimum wage, the .5% tax on financial trades, and every other platform of his? How about this, do all Muslim's who believe in the Quran believe in Sharia law? Or all Christians believe gay marriage is wrong?
Christ, I really hate how some liberals try to put all types of people into a singular block.
What about the black people who support Trump? Or the Mexican? Or the Vietnamese? Sure, there may not be a lot, but surely you can't call them racists? Fascists, perhaps, depending upon their views.
I am not saying there are not members of the party who are racist or fascists, but please, stop being so fucking blunt with your assumptions. Not every supporter believes in every single platform a candidate has.
Interesting article from someone who attended a Trump rally.
"At one point he said "We're going to build a wall. And who's going to pay for it?" And the crowd yelled, "Mexico!" and then they lost their minds."
"He mentioned ISIS several times. About ten. But not exactly how to stop ISIS. Just comments like, "We're gonna get ISIS," and "ISIS is going down." Blanket statements. He did say that for America to win again (any sort of winning, not just against ISIS) we have to go outside of the law and he isn't afraid to do it. And that's unsettling for several reasons. But I'm just reporting the facts. And that was all he said on policy. Completely void of content or substance. Just statements that would get the crowd cheering."
"One man had a shirt that said 'Love is the answer,' and he was thrown out. Trump's comment on this man was, 'And love is very important but I mean, who's making love to that guy?' And my stomach churned. A few minutes later, a woman stood up not far from where the other man was and starting protesting. She was removed. Trump's comment was, 'She was with the other guy. They're actually a couple. A *clears throat* beautiful *gagging noises* couple.' And the crowd laughed and cheered. It was horrifying."
Not to mention when Trump went on Fox and said we had to "go after their (terrorists) families". Literally talking about killing women and children. How a person that makes comments like that is a leading candidate it baffling. I guess it goes to show how fearful, ignorant, and stupid many people in America are...
