Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by longway

when antrobertson made the wager he didn't even expect Trump to win any primaries.

I don't recall saying that.

I actually want Trump to win the nomination.

ant is following me around picking childish arguments with me; he is the one sweating bullets.

Meanwhile, back here in reality...

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by longway

The cost of the wall is a few billion dollars, the profits that Mexico makes per year on trade with the USA is 10s of billions of dollars, not to mention the enormous sums well connected mexicans must be skimming off, they will do what they are told.

The profits that they make are just that: their profits.

Trump can't make them do anything no matter how many angry tweets he sends. This is the real world, not a Hollywood western where sheriff Trump can demand another sovereign nation bow to him and acquiesce to his demands.

He doesn't need their permission to impose tariffs; he has said quite clearly he is willing to break the NAFTA agreement if it cannot be renegotiated.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by longway

when antrobertson made the wager he didn't even expect Trump to win any primaries.

I don't recall saying that.

I actually want Trump to win the nomination.

Ok fair enough

^^You really do seem like quite the neophyte on the subjects of international trade and politics. As I've said tariffs won't work: U.S. consumers like their cheap goods and services too much.

He can talk all he likes (and no doubt will) but what he's saying simply isn't realistic.

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by longway

when antrobertson made the wager he didn't even expect Trump to win any primaries.

I don't recall saying that.

I actually want Trump to win the nomination.

Ok fair enough

Is it? Did I say that or not?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^^You really do seem like quite the neophyte on the subjects of international trade and politics. As I've said tariffs won't work: U.S. consumers like their cheap goods and services too much.

He can talk all he likes (and no doubt will) but what he's saying simply isn't realistic.

Says you.

Originally Posted by longway

childish arguments

Originally Posted by longway

Says you.

Ah huh.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by longway

when antrobertson made the wager he didn't even expect Trump to win any primaries.

I don't recall saying that.

I actually want Trump to win the nomination.

Ok fair enough

Is it? Did I say that or not?

Originally Posted by longway

ant is following me around picking childish arguments with me; he is the one sweating bullets.

So I didn't say it then?

Just in the habit of making stuff up and then calling others childish are you?

^ pathological

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And while you are at it, explain how he's going to deport 12 million people without due process.

And how he's going to get Mexico to pay for a wall.

Mexico makes a lot of money from the usa; they can either pay for it directly, or pay for through tariffs levied on mexican goods.

I can't see any way that he can realistically deport so many illegal migrants on the timelines he is talking about.

So he's going to start a trade war with two of America's biggest trade partners.

Yeah, fucking brilliant idea that one.

Oh, and by the way, if you think you have a problem with Mexican immigrants now, imagine how many are going to pour over the border when their factories close because Trump's priced them out of the market.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

But if I may slightly correct you here , there is no such thing as Government money as in the end it all comes from the tax payer,

Then there is no such thing as taxpayer's money since it all comes from the government printing press. (just using your logic).

^^^ it's called negotiation. He wants to renegotiate with the interest of the US worker in mind, a novel concept.

^^ the wall will come in handy then.

Originally Posted by longway

^ pathological

Well I wouldn't quite go that far but it does appear that you've been caught telling a fib, yes. Pretty childish really.

Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills to testify under oath about Hillary’s email server and related inquiries. Judicial Watch had been trying to get the depositions as the State Department kept dragging it’s feet until Judge Sullivan had enough of their lies. He issued a ruling that Abedin, Mills and any relevant State Department officials would have to agree to depositions taken under oath and subject to perjury charges, by April. To keep anyone from dragging their feet, Sullivan threatened to subpoena Hillary’s entire email set up.

This creates a dilemma for the democrats. The depositions will possibly come after Clinton locks in the nomination. Therein lies the rub. If anything harmful comes from the depositions then it could cripple Hillary’s campaign and even if she agrees to drop out of the race, only Bernie Sanders would be fully prepared to take over. That’s a thought that scares them. Anyone else would look like a desperation candidate.

This is better than any congressional investigation because jerks like Elijah Cummings will not be able to sit in and attempt to disrupt the proceedings and both Tom Fitton and his Judicial Watch team know how to get to the heart of the matter, without worrying about political ramifications. Abedin and Mills, may very well fall on their swords. However, it’s highly unlikely that every State Department officials, especially those looking to collect their pension, would fall on theirs. The Hillary camp is calling the judge’s decision just more right wing conspiracy crap. They are going to have a tough time of it since Sullivan was appointed to the bench by none other than Bill Clinton.

Simultaneously, the FBI is well advanced in their investigation and sources have leaked information that shows the evidence is stronger against Hillary than it was against others who have been convicted under the same statutes by the Obama caliphate. I never thought that in my lifetime, I would see a nominee for president who was under investigation by the FBI. The surprise is that it is a democrat. I was so shocked, you could have knocked me over with a Sherman tank.

8kShareTweetPinterest
Sponsored by

Judge Orders Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills to Testify Under Oath ...
dailyheadlines.net › 2016/02 › judge-ord...

"Anyone who thinks Donald Trump can't become president either hasn't been paying close attention to our country and our love of celebrity, or has been paying attention to the wrong things, like demography in a regular election cycle, or history...but white resentment and anger are things for which precious Nate Silver's statistical models cannot control. This is why you shouldn't trust math geeks (no offense, as I normally love me some math geeks) to tell you who's going to win elections. In normal times they may be spot on. These are not normal times. The Latino vote will be irrelevant, sadly, in this campaign because it is concentrated in states that are already safely Dem or Republican. All Trump needs is the overwhelmingly white states of Ohio, PA and Michigan along with VA and NC or Wisconsin and he would win. And what is the plan to defeat him there? Run a candidate who is tied to all the shitty trade deals that wrecked their economies and put lots of white blue collar workers out of work in those places? Yeah, that's genius...Look, don't get me wrong, I desperately want to be proved wrong on this. But I have learned never to underestimate white folks, especially older ones, and their penchant for reactionary nonsense. Underestimating them now risks everything..." (Tim Wise)

^
Hate to say it but he could be right.

What's new? It always boils down to a few states. That's where a disproportionate amount of campaign money is spent.

^^^I would not want to rule out a trump victory for those reasons too. And its not like there is a president.... prohibition comes to mind

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

And what is the plan to defeat him there? Run a candidate who is tied to all the shitty trade deals that wrecked their economies and put lots of white blue collar workers out of work in those places?

Ive been saying the same thing for quite some time now, but no acknowledgment of the inherent weakness of Shillary as a candidate.

Add a bit of the obligatory white bashing

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

But I have learned never to underestimate white folks, especially older ones, and their penchant for reactionary nonsense. Underestimating them now risks everything..."

and...

Originally Posted by MrG

^ Hate to say it but he could be right.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What's new? It always boils down to a few states. That's where a disproportionate amount of campaign money is spent.

Originally Posted by hazz

^^^I would not want to rule out a trump victory for those reasons too.

South Carolina has started voting. Results (start coming in) after 7:00pm EST

Where things stand,….

Hard to see past a thumping Clinton win tbh.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Hard to see past a thumping Clinton win tbh.

Expected, yes?

Trump vs. Clinton


More of the same old cycles.
Lesser of the evil establishment.



Why folks bother, I can't imagine.