Octopus Overlords

stimpy wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Jeff V wrote: 2 has been discredited, at least with what we know

By who? He's rich, dude, he's a buisness man. He's a YUGE success. HE IS TEH BEST FOR TEH ECONOMY. Those saying he's not a success are commie pinko liars.

Oh, about everyone with a brain! If he did nothing with his starting fortune, he'd have three times more money than he has. He basically took a $13B fortune and created a $4 billion fortune. And in the wake left a bunch of bankrupt companies.

Oh shit, I hope you didn't have plane tickets for Trump Airlines!

And if I saved a dollar a day since I was born I'd have $20,000 more than I have now.
Hindsight and all that.......

The point is not to reminisce over mistakes made, but to highlight the fact he is definitely NOT some magical genius when it comes to business. Unless that business involves turning a large fortune into a much smaller one.

Americans don't know how to think about the economy. Trump could announce a grand economic policy using made-up words and impossible math, and the crowd would cheer him for a genius.

Anyway, it's not the economy. His followers love him because they want to hurt people, and Trump promises to do it for them.

Max Peck wrote:

Rip wrote:

Max Peck wrote: You need to remember a couple of things:

1. Roughly half of the general population is of below average intelligence; and
2. Trump was probably never more sincere than when he said "I love the poorly educated."

education!=intelligence

Oh, I've worked with enough idiotic engineers to know that. My poorly-made point is that between the intellectually unendowed and the poorly educated, Trump has a solid base of support to build on. Much of his career has been built on exploiting those very demographics.

It's also possible that I was making a cheap joke (and as you know, I don't let things like facts or fairness get in the way of a bad joke).

I just find it funny given how much of Hillary's support is comprised of uneducated minorities. Imagine the fallout of referring to them as unintelligent. People who live in house built on discrimination accusations love to throw stones.

Defiant wrote:

Jeff V wrote: 2 has been discredited, at least with what we know

By who? He's rich, dude, he's a buisness man. He's a YUGE success. HE IS TEH BEST FOR TEH ECONOMY. Those saying he's not a success are commie pinko socialist illegal immigrant loving liars.

FTFY

Rip wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Rip wrote:

Max Peck wrote: You need to remember a couple of things:

1. Roughly half of the general population is of below average intelligence; and
2. Trump was probably never more sincere than when he said "I love the poorly educated."

education!=intelligence

Oh, I've worked with enough idiotic engineers to know that. My poorly-made point is that between the intellectually unendowed and the poorly educated, Trump has a solid base of support to build on. Much of his career has been built on exploiting those very demographics.

It's also possible that I was making a cheap joke (and as you know, I don't let things like facts or fairness get in the way of a bad joke).

I just find it funny given how much of Hillary's support is comprised of uneducated minorities. Imagine the fallout of referring to them as unintelligent. People who live in house built on discrimination accusations love to throw stones.

No wonder if they are all crammed into one house.

60 damn pages about this guy.

Moliere wrote:60 damn pages about this guy.

He ain't the sideshow, he's the main attraction.

Holman wrote:His followers love him because they want to hurt people, and Trump promises to do it for them.

His followers think that he'll either give them jobs that allow them to hurt people or hurt them from their existing jobs, and shield them from consequences.

Never forget what?

It's an odd phrase to add. It's not like Carson died or something.

Rip wrote:I just find it funny given how much of Hillary's support is comprised of uneducated minorities.

Do you have polling data or something to back that up, or is that just your opinion of minorities?

Max Peck wrote:

Rip wrote:I just find it funny given how much of Hillary's support is comprised of uneducated minorities.

Do you have polling data or something to back that up, or is that just your opinion of minorities?

It's not true. Although it's not as stark as other factors (age, race, etc) and might not be the case in every election (I only checked a few) Clinton tends to do better among the better educated. For example, here is the exit poll for MA, which was a very close race. Sanders wins among HS or less and Some college, but Clinton barely wins among college grads and wins significantly among post grads.

Max Peck wrote:

Rip wrote:I just find it funny given how much of Hillary's support is comprised of uneducated minorities.

Do you have polling data or something to back that up, or is that just your opinion of minorities?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-m ... nd-unequal

Defiant wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Rip wrote:I just find it funny given how much of Hillary's support is comprised of uneducated minorities.

Do you have polling data or something to back that up, or is that just your opinion of minorities?

It's not true. Although it's not as stark as other factors (age, race, etc) and might not be the case in every election (I only checked a few) Clinton tends to do better among the better educated. For example, here is the exit poll for MA, which was a very close race. Sanders wins among HS or less and Some college, but Clinton barely wins among college grads and wins significantly among post grads.

So are you disputing that minorities receive less education opportunities or that minorities support Clinton?

Alright, I'll bite: I dispute that Clinton's supporters are only black (and that she receives 100% of the black vote) Or that most of her voters are uneducated (since the exit polls seem to disagree with that) In fact, I would expect less than half of Democratic primary voters haven't attended at least some college. Maybe even less than a third.

Meanwhile, Republican foreign policy veterans rebuke Trump worldview

More than 90 Republican foreign policy veterans have pledged to oppose Donald Trump, saying his proposals would undermine U.S. security, in the latest sign of fissures between the Republican presidential front-runner and the party establishment. "Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world," the signatories wrote in a open letter on Wednesday. "Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States," said the letter, which was posted on a blog called War on the Rocks. The signatories include Robert Zoellick, a former World Bank president and deputy secretary of state; former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; and Dov Zakheim, a top Pentagon official under President George W. Bush. They represent both centrist Republican foreign policy circles and neoconservatives who favor a robust U.S. international role and wielded clout during Bush's 2001-2009 presidency.

The letter, in full (because some folks don't like to click links):

We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:

• His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.
• His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.
• His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.
• His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
• Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.
• Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.
• His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.
• He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.
• His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.

Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Defiant wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

It's possible that a very close three way race still manages to give Trump a majority of the electoral votes.

Yes, but that's not how I read Enough's hypothetical.

As a political science major in my undergrad years before pivoting to natural science in grad school, and as someone that has been very involved with politics earlier in life (I ran the student campaign for a US Senate candidate), I certainly understand the electoral system. What I didn't know is that Bloomberg said only if Sanders runs.

I wasn't trying to impugn your Constitutional knowledge - I just thought I should clear that up, since it wasn't obvious based on what you said in your original post. Had you posted your full CV and demonstrated your knowledge of the electoral process with your original post, I never would have posted such a rude and impertinent reply. I humbly apologize, and will try to keep your credentials in mind whenever I respond to any of your future posts. If you have a link to your knowledge and experiences handy, I'll be sure to bookmark it and consult in the future.

( , if it wasn't obvious.)

El Guapo wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Enough wrote:4. It becomes an even three-way race to the finish with each candidate in that 33% area.

5. Trump narrowly pulls it out in a squeaker.

If no one wins a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to Congress. You can't win the presidency with a plurality.

Actually, I suppose this could wind up being the GOP's longshot. If Trump comes up short of a majority, give the nomination to Rubio via brokered convention and try to appease the Donald. If he runs an independent candidacy anyway, try to deny Hillary (and Trump) a delegate majority, and then have the House elect Rubio.

Which would ultimately lead to a constitutional crisis when the Tea Party refuses to push Rubio over the top and instead insists on the Sphere of Rage.

Rubio is one of the original Tea Party darlings. I think he'd be fine.

Hannity just now on Twitter,

Hey Marc,@marcorubio is now pawn for establishment. Sad to me. That's not man I knew.

Defiant wrote:Alright, I'll bite: I dispute that Clinton's supporters are only black (and that she receives 100% of the black vote) Or that most of her voters are uneducated (since the exit polls seem to disagree with that) In fact, I would expect less than half haven't attended at least some college. Maybe even less than a third.

I didn't say only black or that she gets them all BUT.

Another question is whether generational differences are evident within different racial groups. To explore this question we combine our last four weekly surveys to give us the opinions of 13,000 registered Democrats who were surveyed between Dec. 28 and Jan. 24. Overall, non-white Democrats strongly favor Clinton over Sanders by large margins, but white voters are nearly evenly split in their support - 46% support Clinton and 44% support Sanders.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... ng-n505381

I'm just a little confused by the apparent belief among many here that being uneducated makes those peoples votes less valid or somehow worthy of scorn. Interestingly enough, I have found the least trustworthy people I have met are very often some of the most well educated.

Mitt to make a play for the nomination the convention?

Washington (CNN)Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney's inner circle says.

The 2012 GOP nominee's advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising.

"It sounds like the plan is to lock the convention," said the source.

Romney is focused on suppressing Trump's delegate count to prevent him from accumulating the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination.

But implicit in Romney's request to his team to explore the possibility of a convention fight is his willingness to step in and carry the party's banner into the fall general election as the Republican nominee. Another name these sources mentioned was House Speaker Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate in 2012.

Again, you've done nothing to show that the majority of Clinton's support is uneducated, when the exit poll shows she has strength among educated voters. (And I don't even see why it's funny if she funny even if she did)

Rip wrote:
I'm just a little confused by the apparent belief among many here that being uneducated makes those peoples votes less valid or somehow worthy of scorn. Interestingly enough, I have found the least trustworthy people I have met are very often some of the most well educated.

I don't think uneducated people are less valid. I do, however, find validity in educating people that post incorrect statements without evidence.

Rip wrote:Interestingly enough, I have found the least trustworthy people I have met are very often some of the most well educated.

And nothing says Trustworthy like Drumpf Trump. Is Wharton considered a good school? Would you consider it's graduates to be well educated?

Defiant wrote:Again, you've done nothing to show that the majority of Clinton's support is uneducated, when the exit poll shows she has strength among educated voters. (And I don't even see why it's funny if she funny even if she did)

Rip wrote:
I'm just a little confused by the apparent belief among many here that being uneducated makes those peoples votes less valid or somehow worthy of scorn. Interestingly enough, I have found the least trustworthy people I have met are very often some of the most well educated.

I don't think uneducated people are less valid. I do, however, find validity in educating people that post incorrect statements without evidence.

I didn't say majority so it is you who are making statements without evidence.

Rip wrote:
I didn't say majority so it is you who are making statements without evidence.

Well, I interpreted that you were saying that her strength was in uneducated voters rather than educated voters. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.

Max Peck wrote:Is Wharton considered a good school?

I'm betting it's better than Trump University.

Exodor wrote:Mitt to make a play for the nomination the convention?

If they did this, they would need someone that excited, or at least was acceptable to the different wings of the party. I don't know whether or not that's true of Romney or Ryan. I would probably guess Ryan is the better bet, since Romney is probably more associated with the 2008 loss than Ryan is (and he seems to be staying out of the fray in this fight against Trump)

Defiant wrote:

Rip wrote:
I didn't say majority so it is you who are making statements without evidence.

Well, I interpreted that you were saying that her strength was in uneducated voters rather than educated voters. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.

No my statement is more about them both having a very substantial amount of uneducated voters and when they vote the way some people want they are praised and pandered to, when they don't they are ostracized and ridiculed. Doing so doesn't pull them away from Trump it pushes them to him.

Talking down to them and suggesting that they need the educated elite to steer them in the right direction is fundamentally what got them in this mess in the first place. It damn sure isn't going to get them out of it.

The only question in my mind is if they are too stupid to see this or that they don't care and if they can't be the head of household they would rather burn it down.

Which ironically is the thing they always fear when they throw the likes of Romney or McCain out there and can't understand why the fringe groups are reluctant to jump on the wagon. The reason of course is because in the back of their minds they knew if they ever got the chance to pick the nominee, the people whose wagons they had helped push would do EXACTLY what they are doing. The exact things they strong-armed them from doing when the roles were reversed.

Chickens have come home to roost.

If Mitt Romney leads a fight that stops this ignorant asshole from winning the nomination, he has my vote.

All the infighting and rifts this is generating within the Republican party is better than anything the Dems could have dreamed up. Romney is basically dead to Donald after today for one simple e.g. The big tent is turning into the big brawl.

It appears to be going that way.

Republican party going the way of the Whig party.

Could lead to a revival of the Know Nothing party.

RunningMn9 wrote:If Mitt Romney leads a fight that stops this ignorant asshole from winning the nomination, he has my vote.

What do you have against America and why don't you want to make her great again? Or is it that you've been investing in binders over the last 4 years and anticipate making a killing as demand surges? Romney is against same-sex marriages and wanted to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. No way he's gaining any traction by claiming Trump is a terrible person and terrible for America.

Defiant wrote:They like him because 1) cult of personality/his attitude and 2) It's the economy, stupid.

Mostly 1, but some 2.

The reason I see cited most often is "He tells it like it is." He speaks on a 4th grade level and doesn't confuse people with a lot of numbers and confusing policies and complicated stuff they don't understand or care about because it's probably a pack of lies anyway.

Smoove_B wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:If Mitt Romney leads a fight that stops this ignorant asshole from winning the nomination, he has my vote.

What do you have against America and why don't you want to make her great again? Or is it that you've been investing in binders over the last 4 years and anticipate making a killing as demand surges? Romney is against same-sex marriages and wanted to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. No way he's gaining any traction by claiming Trump is a terrible person and terrible for America.

That could change. Romney like Clinton would don whatever position got him the job. Heck, he would suck the cock of every member of the house and senate to become POTUS.

Rip wrote:Could lead to a revival of the Know Nothing party.

Too bad Sgt. Schultz isn't still around.

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote:They like him because 1) cult of personality/his attitude and 2) It's the economy, stupid.

Mostly 1, but some 2.

The reason I see cited most often is "He tells it like it is." He speaks on a 4th grade level and doesn't confuse people with a lot of numbers and confusing policies and complicated stuff they don't understand or care about because it's probably a pack of lies anyway.

The anti-Perot.

Smoove_B wrote:Romney is against same-sex marriages and wanted to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. No way he's gaining any traction by claiming Trump is a terrible person and terrible for America.

Sometimes you have to support the adult in the room even if you don't agree with them on anything. I'm sure as hell not voting for Hillary unless forced to by a Trump or Cruz nomination.

I get what you're saying, but I can't cast a vote for anyone that has publicly espoused the nonsense that Romney has; I can't support it. Or Creepy Cruz. Or Climate-change denier Rubio. Additionally, I can't vote for Clinton or Trump either, so it's a mess on all levels.

The debate just LITERALLY turned into a dick measuring contest.

That reply LITERALLY shows you don't know what literally means.

There needs to be a debate every night from now until November. THIS IS EPIC

hepcat wrote:That reply LITERALLY shows you don't know what literally means.

Well, literally literally doesn't (necessarily) mean literally anymore.

hepcat wrote:That reply LITERALLY shows you don't know what literally means.

Well... it's close. Trump literally claimed to have a big dick, and he keeps referring to Rubio as "Little Marco."