Will they steal the election from Trump?

Scroll to see replies

I hate her too, she's scum. How can you possibly be able to run for Presidency when you're being investigated by the FBI?!

Because unfortunately she intends to push this under the rug like with everything else...

I hate to play the "its the Jewish media!" card... but no one really brings this up. I don't think they'll even bring it up in the general. Maybe Trump will...?

Reply 41

BeastOfSyracuse

They don't need to steal the election from him. Trump is unelectable

Reply 42

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by chemting

I hate to play the "its the Jewish media!" card... but no one really brings this up.

Oh dear. I wondered how long it would take for the loony tunes and fascists to come out of the woodwork

Reply 43

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by Dodgypirate

I hate her too, she's scum. How can you possibly be able to run for Presidency when you're being investigated by the FBI?!

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Aren't you righties always shrieking about constitutional rights?

Reply 44

balanced

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

The man has alienated the latinos, the blacks, the Mormons, the gays, the women, and the list goes on. He has stolen the election from himself, if anything. If the other Republicans don't want him nominated as Republican presidential candidate, I can completely understand that - they want a candidate that stands a chance of winning.

I'm afraid that your uneducated statement does not stand up to the facts. He has gained the support of Latinos, Blacks, Gays and many other groups besides. He is the most successful candidate among these groups the republicans have ever had.

Reply 45

chemting

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

Oh dear. I wondered how long it would take for the loony tunes and fascists to come out of the woodwork

So CNN/MSNBC and co have been covering Hillary's FBI investigation non-stop?

If they are, I'll take it all back.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 46

balanced

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

They don't need to steal the election from him. Trump is unelectable

Trump is the opposite of unelectable, it's what he's known for.

Reply 47

Dodgypirate

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Aren't you righties always shrieking about constitutional rights?

I didn't say she's guilty, I said she's under investigation. Jesus.

Reply 48

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by balanced

Trump is the opposite of unelectable, it's what he's known for.

He's known for winning elections? He's never run for public office.

Even without a massively divisive candidate like Trump who is despised by many in his own party and who will struggle to raise money from the usual big Republican donors, a GOP candidate already faces an uphill struggle in presidential elections due to demographics.

The polls and best predictions suggest Trump would get stuffed in an election, maybe even a 1972 level landslide.

Reply 49

balanced

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

He's known for gaining huge support for saying what he wants, if that's not electable I don't know what is.

Reply 50

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by chemting

So CNN/MSNBC and co have been covering Hillary's FBI investigation non-stop?

If they are, I'll take it all back.

Why should they cover it non-stop? All American media has covered it, and they have covered new developments. If there were major new developments every day, you would see non-stop coverage.

CNN? You blithering idiot. CNN is owned by Ted Turner. MSNBC is owned by Comcast which is a publicly traded company.

It's also unclear what any of that would have to do with Judaism even if they were owned by Jewish people.

In short, you're a moron.

Reply 51

Asolare

If he doesn't reach the 1237 figure, but has the most delegates and still isn't elected, then it's probably going to cause a whole lot of :dolphin:

across America.

I think the Republicans will try and do everything to stop him, but unfortunately by doing so they really are sacrificing the price of ''democracy''.

Reply 52

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by balanced

He's known for gaining huge support for saying what he wants, if that's not electable I don't know what is.

He's "known" for that? How is he "known" for that? That implies some kind of history of electoral support that simply doesn't exist. He tried to run for the Republican nomination in 2012 and crashed and burned.

He gains significant support from angry white Republicans at the expense of completely alienating all democrats and democrat-sympathising independents, and all moderate Republicans. His own strategy and views massively alienates Republicans who he would need to get out to the polls to win, while electrifying and energising the Democratic base to get them out to the polls to prevent a Trump victory (remember voting isn't compulsory, so energising your base to get them to actually bother to vote is as important as convincing undecided voters)

And his own history of supporting abortion and other moderate positions like universal healthcare will alienate even many of the hard right republicans who he seeks to have as his base.

Also, your assertion is just a bare, anecdotal claim based on nothing. No data, no experience, no insight... just assertion.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 53

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by Inexorably

I think the Republicans will try and do everything to stop him, but unfortunately by doing so they really are sacrificing the price of ''democracy''.

Unless you have actual evidence that his opponents in the GOP have done something illegal like stuffing ballot boxes to prevent him winning, then the claim that they are "sacrificing democracy" comes across as puerile and hysterical.

The GOP nomination procedure has rules, if his opponents can find a way to get a brokered convention and get another candidate within the rules, then that is their democratic right.

Reply 54

chemting

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

Why should they cover it non-stop? All American media has covered it, and they have covered new developments. If there were major new developments every day, you would see non-stop coverage.

If Trump/Sanders was in some of sort of federal investigation, it will only be covered once and then it'll be dropped until "major developments", of course.

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

CNN? You blithering idiot. CNN is owned by Ted Turner. MSNBC is owned by Comcast which is a publicly traded company.

Yes and Ted Turner merged his company with Time Warner in 1996

The same Time Warner who has given money to Hillary...

Of course these are irrelevant and unrelated facts.

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

It's also unclear what any of that would have to do with Judaism even if they were owned by Jewish people.

I meant it as a joke... but if you want to take that seriously be my guest

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

In short, you're a moron.

I'm just a product of an infected education system and brainwashed by liberals...

Reply 55

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by balanced

I'm afraid that your uneducated statement does not stand up to the facts. He has gained the support of Latinos, Blacks, Gays and many other groups besides.

Are you unwell? You seem to be suffering from some kind of mental infarction and losing touch with reality.

Reply 56

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by chemting

Yes and Ted Turner merged his company with Time Warner in 1996

The same Time Warner who has given money to Hillary...

Of course these are irrelevant and unrelated facts.

Irrelevant and unrelated to Judaism, yes

Reply 57

chemting

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

Irrelevant and unrelated to Judaism, yes

Please, I have told you that the jewish thing was a joke... :facepalm2:

Unless this is your version of PC joke outrage?

Reply 58

chemting

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

He's known for winning elections? He's never run for public office.

He's known for popularity and name-recognition

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

Even without a massively divisive candidate like Trump who is despised by many in his own party and who will struggle to raise money from the usual big Republican donors, a GOP candidate already faces an uphill struggle in presidential elections due to demographics.

Does Trump really need to raise money? and even if that, if the donors see Trump has a chance of winning in the general, I think they might reconsider

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

The polls and best predictions suggest Trump would get stuffed in an election, maybe even a 1972 level landslide.

True but that's because he has said very liberal things and very extreme conservative things. I'd be interested to see which side he focuses on in the general...

Reply 59

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by chemting

He's known for popularity and name-recognition

Popularity? Do you even bother to look at polling? He's popular with one wing of the Republican Party. He's despised by all democrats and many Republicans, and disliked by moderate independents. His favourability ratings are substantially less than Hilary Clinton.

Just making moronic assertions that are not backed up by data or any actual experience of American politics doesn't move the debate forward, it simply makes you look like every other dilettante who thinks that following the presidential nominations for a couple of months actually means he has insight or something valuable to say on the subject.

Does Trump really need to raise money?

Trump is far less rich than he claims, and the wealth he does have is in assets, no cash in the bank. President Obama raised more than $1 billion in donations to fight the 2012 election. This cycle Clinton has already raised $110 million.

Trump has only raised $25 million, and in fact about that amount of money has been raised by conservative super-PACs whose sole purpose is to oppose Trump.

He'll go into the general with far less money than Clinton, with many Republicans extremely unenthused about him (and many of those most likely to support him don't even bother to vote in elections anyway). Against him he will face in Clinton a candidate with a lot of experience in presidential elections, who will be sitting on a $1 billion election warchest and leading an extremely fired-up Democratic Party which is determined to beat Trump. He'll be lucky to lose 45/55 to Clinton

if the donors see Trump has a chance of winning in the general, I think they might reconsider

Nah. Republican donors despise him, many of them whose business interests rely on international trade would rather let Hilary win. Many Republican donors who are interested in foreign policy issues are loathe to see Trump ruin the United States' foreign policy and relations. Moderate Republicans would rather Hilary win. Again, this is an example of you simply offering up unsubstantiated assertions based on your own superficial understanding of American politics.

I'd point you to the Goldwater example but it's unlikely you'd have a clue what I'm talking about without having to go look it up.