ADVERTISEMENT

Donald Drumpf sucks thread but come in and watch Sir Gal and Coke kneel before the dumbass

I love how 85 is now suddenly campaigning for Johnson to be put into the debates so that he can get a larger share of the votes. Too bad we can search the old message boards. Id bring up the old debates about why I wanted a 3rd party to be present in those debates while 85 was say no way should they be allowed since they didnt have enough of a percentage to get put on the debate in the first place. Something about the 3rd party only taking away votes from the main 2 choices...

LOL- seriously? Here's the context you chose to avoid:

In 2012, Johnson managed a whopping .99% of the national vote. BARELY edging out some random Green Party person. At no time leading up to the election was he EVER running above 1.5%. He was statistically closer to the "Socialism and Liberation Party" than he was either one of the major parties. In other words, it was an absolute irrelevant campaign in 2012.

In 2008, Libertarian Bob Barr was on 47 state ballots yet managed a total of 500,000 votes. Again- utterly irrelevant.

Today, however, Johnson is legitimately polling at 10-12% with 6 months left to go until the election. This is nothing like 2008 and 2012 and is reflective of the nature of this year's election. It's much more credible to lobby for someone running at 12% to be on the debate stage vs. someone running at .99%.

Your argument is invalid.
 
The next dire Trump prediction to come true will be the first.

Seriously you guys sound as stupid as Israel Firster, Bill Kristolbergwiczsteinmengoldsilverman.

 
Bottom line is Hillary or Donald will be next prez. none of the rest of these matter. It would be good to see libertarian get 5% so they can get matching funds, but lets get real they are not trying to, nor going to win.
 
He was polling around 5-7% before the election and got around 5% during the election if I recall. But maybe he wouldve gotten more had he been in the debates. Isnt that your argument now? I just wanted to have all voices heard in the debates while you only wanted the 2.

Johnson doesnt have the 15% needed for the up coming debates. Why arent you sticking to your guns on this one?
 
He was polling around 5-7% before the election and got around 5% during the election if I recall. But maybe he wouldve gotten more had he been in the debates. Isnt that your argument now? I just wanted to have all voices heard in the debates while you only wanted the 2.

Johnson doesnt have the 15% needed for the up coming debates. Why arent you sticking to your guns on this one?

What?? I'm not making up .99%- that is the mathematical exact % of the national vote he got. He didn't break 1%, much less approach 7%.

Again- you're missing context. We're still 6 months away from the election and there's a 3rd party running at 12%. That is a viable 3rd party campaign at this stage and should be included in a debate. Now, if we get to 3 months out and they still can't crack 15% then fine, bring it down to just the 2 front runners. We're 6 months out still.
 
lesson of the primary is that Celebrity Candidates are hard to poll/predict

Cj3iPRfWgAAAoSY.jpg
 
Fresh poll showing that 21% of those polled would not vote for either Trump or Hillary.

Hillary leads but only gets to 44%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0YT2QS

Like I said, this is the best year ever for a 3rd party candidate to make a serious dent in the vote totals and if no one gets to 50%, a Republican House picks the President.
I don't know what will happen in the end but I would wager good money 50% is not reached by either. My guess is trump will be leading when all is said and done at poll closing time
 
I don't know what will happen in the end but I would wager good money 50% is not reached by either. My guess is trump will be leading when all is said and done at poll closing time
The libertarian candidate Gary Johnson would have to take 1 state, that would probably be enough to not allow either to get 50% of the electoral college votes. I would think his best shot is NM where Johnson was governor and has name recognition, but Clinton has a pretty solid lead there. I think his best shot via the poll results is Utah. He's currently at 16% there, while Trump and Clinton are at 26% and 29%.
 
The libertarian candidate Gary Johnson would have to take 1 state, that would probably be enough to not allow either to get 50% of the electoral college votes. I would think his best shot is NM where Johnson was governor and has name recognition, but Clinton has a pretty solid lead there. I think his best shot via the poll results is Utah. He's currently at 16% there, while Trump and Clinton are at 26% and 29%.
Big mountain to climb
 
I would love to vote Libertarian but I just could not look at myself if I knew that helped Hillary, not that I think anyone will beat her, that 47% Mitt spoke about four years ago is well over 50% by now.
 
Fresh poll showing that 21% of those polled would not vote for either Trump or Hillary.

Hillary leads but only gets to 44%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0YT2QS

Like I said, this is the best year ever for a 3rd party candidate to make a serious dent in the vote totals and if no one gets to 50%, a Republican House picks the President.
You're talking electoral vote as if it is reflected by the popular vote. Popular vote doesn't matter - even if it's a majority of the country. Nobody needs 50% to win any state. They only need the most to get the state's electoral votes (in most states anyway. I think a couple may do by house district, but almost all states are winner take all as far as electoral votes). You could have the vote be 34%, 33%, 33% and the 34% wins the state.
 
I would love to vote Libertarian but I just could not look at myself if I knew that helped Hillary, not that I think anyone will beat her, that 47% Mitt spoke about four years ago is well over 50% by now.
I've voted Libertarian the last few presidential elections, because based on track records, actual action, the last couple decades there isn't much difference between the red and blue team. It's really a sweet good cop / bad cop scheme they have going on. If I can offer even a grain of sand of support against that system, I can sleep at night.

This election is a bit different, since Trump is an outsider of that system. Unfortunately that's about the only thing I like about him. So I'll almost certainly be voting Libertarian again.
 
I would love to vote Libertarian but I just could not look at myself if I knew that helped Hillary, not that I think anyone will beat her, that 47% Mitt spoke about four years ago is well over 50% by now.

WAIT A MINUTE

Like 2 weeks ago you were assuring me that Trump would win. Democrats and Independents would flock to him!!

Now you're already preparing yourself for the Trump defeat? Did a lightbulb go off?
 
Lolz more lame conjecture, Trump is going skullfûck the Democrat nominee. The prediction is as easy as Obama winning vs R Money. The only people who can't see it are still in denial about the Donald.
 
WAIT A MINUTE

Like 2 weeks ago you were assuring me that Trump would win. Democrats and Independents would flock to him!!

Now you're already preparing yourself for the Trump defeat? Did a lightbulb go off?
I said that he would do better than establishment republican and he will but I also said that a republican will it win a national elections again due to demographics. Those are facts, unless you promise free stuff for all you can't win, too many stupid people.
 
I said that he would do better than establishment republican and he will but I also said that a republican will it win a national elections again due to demographics. Those are facts, unless you promise free stuff for all you can't win, too many stupid people.

No, you said he'd win. You're now conveniently backtracking.

And I know you hate facts, like verifiable polls, but most polls had both Kasich and Rubio squarely beating Hillary in a General. Mostly because they're sane people with good ideas, vs what Trump stands for.

Let's be clear- this was the most winnable election for a Republican, maybe since Reagan annihilated the D's in 1984, and people like you helped nominate the biggest asshat loser in the history of modern politics. A man so hated and despised that he's managed to outpace Hillary's negative ratings, which would have been a historic unfavorable, if not for Trump.

So when Hillary is elected, be sure to pat yourself on the back for being stupid enough to help a psycho racist like Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ace of Knights
Oh, look at Trump paling it up with Al Sharpton. Those were probably taken at DNC fundraisers, probably for the Clintons!
 
No, you said he'd win. You're now conveniently backtracking.

And I know you hate facts, like verifiable polls, but most polls had both Kasich and Rubio squarely beating Hillary in a General. Mostly because they're sane people with good ideas, vs what Trump stands for.

Let's be clear- this was the most winnable election for a Republican, maybe since Reagan annihilated the D's in 1984, and people like you helped nominate the biggest asshat loser in the history of modern politics. A man so hated and despised that he's managed to outpace Hillary's negative ratings, which would have been a historic unfavorable, if not for Trump.

So when Hillary is elected, be sure to pat yourself on the back for being stupid enough to help a psycho racist like Trump.
Please go back and find any post where I said he would win the presidency. I've said many times that a republican can't win a national election. I wanted Trump so it would destroy what is the Republican Party today and for the most part it has. You're a fool if you think any republican can win a national election. Tell me 85, which states does. Rubio take that Trump would not and for hat matter which states would Rubio take hat Romney did not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
Sir G has stated numerous times he doesn't think the GOP can win an election due to demographics. Now whether or not he has contradicted himself is another story.
 
Here is a good idea. Let's get rid of trade agreements we currently have, bring all of those jobs back to America, so some people can have jobs, while the prices for those goods rise during a tariff war, and the Wal Mart they shop at goes bankrupt. Great plan.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-lays-out-protectionist-views-in-trade-speech-1467145538

Donald Trump pledged Tuesday to withdraw the U.S. from global trade alliances, saying he would exit the North American Free Trade Agreement if it isn’t renegotiated, would label China a currency manipulator and would kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a Pacific Rim trade deal.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s trade proposals amount to a wholesale rejection of longstanding Republican orthodoxy and leave the party with a candidate arguing against the very policies that most GOP leaders have enacted and supported. He spoke longingly about 18th century economic policy that funded the federal government largely on tariffs.

“Our original Constitution did not even have an income tax. Instead, it had tariffs—emphasizing taxation of foreign, not domestic, production,” Mr. Trump said. “Yet today, 240 years after the revolution, we have turned things completely upside-down.”

Within hours of Mr. Trump’s remarks in Pennsylvania, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton offered a strikingly different economic view in an address on technology, saying she would aim to connect every U.S. home to high-speed internet and calling for expanding free Wi-Fi networks in public spaces. “We need to get back into the future business, because that’s who we are as Americans,” she said in Denver.

Mr. Trump’s speech drew condemnation from both Democrats allied with Mrs. Clinton and Republicans who have long sought to boost U.S. trade. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent much of Mr. Trump’s speech arguing against his views on its Twitter account, saying his approach would cost 3.5 million U.S. jobs and result in “higher prices” and “a weaker economy.”

Little of what Mr. Trump proposed came as a surprise to observers of the 2016 presidential campaign. From the beginning, the New Yorker has articulated nationalist policies on the economy, trade and immigration that have driven his appeal, particularly among working-class voters who have seen jobs disappear in an increasingly global economy.

Some of his most specific criticism Tuesday was aimed at China. “I am going to instruct my treasury secretary to label China a currency manipulator. Any country that devalues their currency in order to take advantage of the United States will be met with sharply,” he said.

Chinese officials regularly say they are letting markets play a bigger role in setting the yuan’s value against the dollar. The International Monetary Fund has argued that the yuan no longer is undervalued.

He also vowed “to instruct the U.S. trade representative to bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO. China’s unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO, and I intend to enforce those rules,” he said of the World Trade Organization.

Mr. Trump didn’t mention the most aggressive trade policies he touted during his primary campaign: a tariff of up to 45% on Chinese-made goods and stiff financial penalties on U.S. companies that move factory work to Mexico. But he did seek to tie his own brand of economic nationalism with the U.K.’s vote last week to leave the EU.

“Our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their economy, politics and borders,” Mr. Trump said. “I was on the right side of that issue as you know—with the people. I said it was going to happen, I felt it, while Hillary, as always, stood with the elites. Both she and President Obama predicted that one and many others totally wrong.”

Mr. Trump’s protectionist trade proposals put him closer ideologically to recent Democratic presidential candidates than to Republicans, who in 2012 placed enacting the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the official GOP platform. Both Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton in 2008 said they would seek to renegotiate Nafta, though Mr. Obama didn’t follow through while in office.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, in his primary challenge of Mrs. Clinton, boasted that he had voted against Nafta and said he wasn’t comfortable with any recent U.S. trade agreement. Mr. Sanders said he would reject the TPP, and Mrs. Clinton eventually agreed with him.

Mr. Trump has previously lambasted Nafta, which was signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton but largely negotiated by his predecessor, Republican President George H.W. Bush.

“I’m going tell our Nafta partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers,” Mr. Trump said Tuesday, for the first time citing specific presidential authority to end the pact. “If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice…that America intends to withdraw from the deal.”

Mr. Obama is to meet with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts Wednesday in Ottawa at what has become known as the annual “Three Amigos” summit.

Without specifically addressing Mr. Trump’s trade speech, Mrs. Clinton, in her remarks, said her Republican opponent’s signature slogan to “make America great again” amounts to “code” for rolling back inclusive policies.

“Forget about technology, forget about inclusivity, forget about giving everybody an opportunity to have a real shot at the best possible future,” Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Trump’s proposals. “Well, that is not who we are as Americans. We don’t go back—we go forward.”

Democrats sought to cast the businessman as a hypocrite who pays lip service to making products in the U.S. while outsourcing jobs in an effort to bolster his own bottom line. On her Twitter account, Mrs. Clinton noted that Mr. Trump’s signature shirts are made in Bangladesh.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who leads the nation’s largest labor group, said Mr. Trump “embodies everything that is wrong with our current trade policies. He personally profited from Nafta.…And he has consistently sent American jobs overseas to line his own pockets.”

Mr. Trump cast doubt upon Mrs. Clinton’s own professed doubts about the TPP, which includes the U.S. and 11 other nations. He predicted she would “rush to embrace it” once in office.

“Ask Hillary Clinton if she is willing to withdraw from the TPP her first day in office and unconditionally rule out its passage in any form,” Mr. Trump said.

Jesse Ferguson, a Clinton campaign spokesman, pushed back against Mr. Trump’s assertion that the former secretary of state would support the Pacific trade pact if she were elected.

“Hillary Clinton opposes TPP today, she will oppose it in November, and she would not move it forward in January,” Mr. Ferguson said. “Hillary Clinton has made clear that she is not interested in tinkering around the margins with TPP. As she has said repeatedly, she believes we need a new approach to trade that protects American jobs, raises incomes for American workers, and strengthens our national security.”
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT