[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?

  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Formula1269
160720-just-another-day_zpsjzb10zww.jpg
Click to expand...
Sanji Himura
I think that it has some doubts, but I think twitter should have some weight here. Trump knew that Cruz wasn't going to endorse him, why else do you think that Trump threw a hissy fit over the speakers issue before the convention?
Click to expand...

LMSCorvetteGT2
Cause as you said Trump is a loon, and any bit more press he can get especially at a volatile event where a good amount wanted to see him ousted only helps him rise above, when he "wins" in spite of it. In reality Trump loosely makes the leap to being "right" because of what Cruz and co had happen at said event, thus he was validated in doing such. But this doesn't mean that it was a full on conspiracy has Beck tends to try and paint the entire world, he sees through is glasses of paranoia.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty smart play actually. Trump likes the anti-establishment wave he rides, and a lot of his popularity is based on that. Allowing Cruz to come out and refuse to endorse him at the convention is actually a great way to remind everyone that the establishment republican party is still fighting him. It adds to his mystique as a candidate and helps remind his base that he's shaking things up.

Hope and change is a big part of the platform for anyone seeking to upend the incumbent party. Trump's success relies upon his image as new and exciting. Cruz played directly into that strategy. This is how trump works - it looks like a disaster and totally unscripted and yet he ends up smelling like a rose. I don't know how well orchestrated it is, but it keeps working out this way.

The scary part is that if Trump really is orchestrating these kinds of things - what if he actually does that as president? Could this man actually push an agenda through? I had previously thought that Trump and Hillary are both so marginalized that neither will get anything done. But if Trump is the master manipulator it sometimes seems, he may actually do some of the dumb stuff he wants to do.
 
Danoff
It's a pretty smart play actually. Trump likes the anti-establishment wave he rides, and a lot of his popularity is based on that. Allowing Cruz to come out and refuse to endorse him at the convention is actually a great way to remind everyone that the establishment republican party is still fighting him. It adds to his mystique as a candidate and helps remind his base that he's shaking things up.

Hope and change is a big part of the platform for anyone seeking to upend the incumbent party. Trump's success relies upon his image as new and exciting. Cruz played directly into that strategy. This is how trump works - it looks like a disaster and totally unscripted and yet he ends up smelling like a rose. I don't know how well orchestrated it is, but it keeps working out this way.

The scary part is that if Trump really is orchestrating these kinds of things - what if he actually does that as president? Could this man actually push an agenda through? I had previously thought that Trump and Hillary are both so marginalized that neither will get anything done. But if Trump is the master manipulator it sometimes seems, he may actually do some of the dumb stuff he wants to do.
Click to expand...

At this point, I find it easier to believe that coincidence and Trump aren't something equally met. So I feel it's quite organized, as much as speech writers not some how seeing an almost line by line speech from another person.

I feel there are plenty of plans in play being made up through social media, and once this event is over it will be time to use these tactics in full on Hilary. If it really is as constructed as I'm starting to see it be, then it's a clever way to win a Presidency. However, I feel people should be reminded that Clinton camp is just as good at this. Both as you're aware run the same potential scary manipulation when becoming president, I believe.

What I don't believe is that Trump would himself call for booing, rather that may have just been luck (as much as I don't see it as such) or last minute action in play to just make the situation even better for Trump. At this point, it's fascinating, especially when you're of the group not voting for either of these people anyways.
 
TenEightyOne
Is it important that the NATO standard leads to lots of overseas military sales for Lockheed, Boeing et. al.?
Click to expand...

For corporations like defense contractors NATO's existence is about crony capitalism.

In other news it's funny how you have a bunch of far left liberals adopting neoconservative talking points:

 
Last edited:
LMSCorvetteGT2
Those sales are already being made, no worries :D 👍
Click to expand...

Today, yes. Next year, yes. In years to follow? If a country reneges entirely on common defence commitments then why should other countries do their defence shopping there? It's not like there aren't alternatives in Europe.

A2K78
For corporations like defense contractors NATO's existence is about crony capitalism.
Click to expand...

And that's the economic part of it. In my opinion you're short-sighted to think that political economics works exactly the same way. According to Trump's "rules" if one country is felt to have fallen short of his Article 5 test then he would not let America be involved in protecting against their invasion. You can understand why that country's neighbour (who has passed the Trump sniff-test) might be concerned at that. World politics isn't something you can bankrupt and move on from, Trump may struggle if he tries to run it like his businesses.

Trump continues to demonstrate a woeful lack of understanding of world geography, world politics and the very articles of the agreement that are his Clickbait For Today.
 
TenEightyOne
Today, yes. Next year, yes. In years to follow? If a country reneges entirely on common defence commitments then why should other countries do their defence shopping there? It's not like there aren't alternatives in Europe.


.
Click to expand...

Well I mean most of the NATO super powers bought into a over budget warplane that will be used for many years to come and need maintenance help from said group. So that alone has sold itself. Plus the groups over there do plenty of US work, BAE being the biggest and then Dassault. Just off the top of my head.

I was simply joking off your comment, but now it's gone.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Well I mean most of the NATO super powers bought into a over budget warplane that will be used for many years to come and need maintenance help from said group.
Click to expand...

No, that was an early sticking point in JSF that was finally overcome - Britain (as with other owners) will have access to the manufacturing/repair technologies to allow their planes to be serviced with Euro-made parts in Italy. At the moment the full 2023 purchase exists as a letter of intent from a former Chancellor who now holds no mandate... I can genuinely see a lot of NATO (or ex-NATO?) countries looking harder at the Eurofighter solution above their statements of intent to the US.

And we could always bring Harrier back home :D
 
This might be interesting. I guess this "new policy", if it ever comes to be applied, will trigger an eightened self awareness from western (and "ex-eastern")european countries about their need to be able to stand - with or without the USA - against the continental bullyish neighbour.

Not sure how the UK would react 1. They are Euroepan; BUT 2. They fear the "European Army" in continental Europe, there's a WW I and WW II vibe to it ...

... but we might see France, Germany, Italy and Spain (just to mention the four bigger players) push forward an agenda of a military european treaty and force, to be stationed mostly in the East, replacing or not the older treaty (NATO) forces.


Geopolitics is a beast constantly on the move (although very quiet most of the times, it suddenly leaps) and a fascinating subject for speculation (which is what this post is 100% about).
 
I liked the RNC and thought they did a pretty good job overall.

Curious about next week and the planned fart protest next week at the DNC. :lol:
 
TenEightyOne
No, that was an early sticking point in JSF that was finally overcome - Britain (as with other owners) will have access to the manufacturing/repair technologies to allow their planes to be serviced with Euro-made parts in Italy. At the moment the full 2023 purchase exists as a letter of intent from a former Chancellor who now holds no mandate... I can genuinely see a lot of NATO (or ex-NATO?) countries looking harder at the Eurofighter solution above their statements of intent to the US.

And we could always bring Harrier back home :D
Click to expand...

This is probably best for the airplane thread where I can really break this down and enjoy it. 👍
 
Adamgp
I liked the RNC and thought they did a pretty good job overall
Click to expand...
Yes, this RNC defined a new standard for high level politic.
Aside for the 99% made of lies, outrage, Clinton death threat, plagiarism and The-Lord-Leads-Us-To-Donald stuff, of course.
 
Milouse
Yes, this RNC defined a new standard for high level politic.
Aside for the 99% made of lies, outrage, Clinton death threat, plagiarism and The-Lord-Leads-Us-To-Donald stuff, of course.
Click to expand...


Care to specify on the lies?

Of course there was outrage. One death threat from an advisor, ooh. How many death threats does Trump get per week?

Plagiarism, a couple lines, oh no. Plagiarism is nothing new in politics, Hillary, Obama, & Biden & others have all done it.
 
Adamgp
Care to specify on the lies?

Of course there was outrage. One death threat from an advisor, ooh. How many death threats does Trump get per week?

Plagiarism, a couple lines, oh no. Plagiarism is nothing new in politics, Hillary, Obama, & Biden & others have all done it.
Click to expand...
If you're going to ask for specifics of one person's post, and then claim something which is "not new in politics" then giving a list of people who have done so already....

Wouldn't you list "specifics" on what those people said?
 
Here's a bit of a novice question, but what happens if Trump wins the Presidential election but then the Republican top brass decide they don't want him as leader any more...? Is the Presidential nominee the 'leader' of the party, and can they be ousted from within and replaced by the VP or even someone else, short of impeachment - or would it trigger another election? I have a sneaking suspicion that something like this might happen and that Trump will be a lame duck president if he is elected (although I don't think that is going to happen, but you never know). Here in the UK, we've managed to replace the Prime Minister without lifting a finger, and everyone seems cockahoop about it (well, not quite) - ironically, it is the opposition who are having a nightmare trying to decide who their leader should be. But how easy would it be for the GOP to basically get rid of Trump once he has won the Presidency for them?
 
TenEightyOne
Today, yes. Next year, yes. In years to follow? If a country reneges entirely on common defence commitments then why should other countries do their defence shopping there? It's not like there aren't alternatives in Europe.



And that's the economic part of it. In my opinion you're short-sighted to think that political economics works exactly the same way. According to Trump's "rules" if one country is felt to have fallen short of his Article 5 test then he would not let America be involved in protecting against their invasion. You can understand why that country's neighbour (who has passed the Trump sniff-test) might be concerned at that. World politics isn't something you can bankrupt and move on from, Trump may struggle if he tries to run it like his businesses.

Trump continues to demonstrate a woeful lack of understanding of world geography, world politics and the very articles of the agreement that are his Clickbait For Today.
Click to expand...


When you consider the fact that it's the American taxpayer who is bearing the burden when it come to NATO he's still right. That said why should my hard earned money go into supporting other countries militarily?
 
Touring Mars
Here's a bit of a novice question, but what happens if Trump wins the Presidential election but then the Republican top brass decide they don't want him as leader any more...? Is the Presidential nominee the 'leader' of the party, and can they be ousted from within and replaced by the VP or even someone else, short of impeachment - or would it trigger another election? I have a sneaking suspicion that something like this might happen and that Trump will be a lame duck president if he is elected (although I don't think that is going to happen, but you never know). Here in the UK, we've managed to replace the Prime Minister without lifting a finger, and everyone seems cockahoop about it (well, not quite) - ironically, it is the opposition who are having a nightmare trying to decide who their leader should be. But how easy would it be for the GOP to basically get rid of Trump once he has won the Presidency for them?
Click to expand...
Unless he is impeached he cannot be forcibly removed from office. He will serve out his term. The republicans can have a primary challenger in the next election though.

Basically, if Trump wins and doesn't do anything criminal while in office we are stuck with him for four years. He's selected by the people, not the party.
 
Touring Mars
Here's a bit of a novice question, but what happens if Trump wins the Presidential election but then the Republican top brass decide they don't want him as leader any more...? Is the Presidential nominee the 'leader' of the party, and can they be ousted from within and replaced by the VP or even someone else, short of impeachment - or would it trigger another election? I have a sneaking suspicion that something like this might happen and that Trump will be a lame duck president if he is elected (although I don't think that is going to happen, but you never know). Here in the UK, we've managed to replace the Prime Minister without lifting a finger, and everyone seems cockahoop about it (well, not quite) - ironically, it is the opposition who are having a nightmare trying to decide who their leader should be. But how easy would it be for the GOP to basically get rid of Trump once he has won the Presidency for them?
Click to expand...
I'll try to frame this as a continuation of your question as I'm not sure how correct I am.

I think that once the General Election is won by a particular ticket (POTUS & Vice POTUS), the winners will later be sworn in to occupy the Executive Branch of the Federal Government either with or without the support of a Party.

The Executive Branch might find it difficult to further their agenda without the support of the entire Legislative Branch*. Probably even more so than in a situation where there is, for example, a Democrat President & a Republican majority in the House.

Again, I'm not completely sure how correct that is.

*Edit: That was badly phrased.
I meant; without any support from any part of the Legislative Branch. As opposed to at least having support from most of the members of a large Party.
 
Last edited:
Touring Mars
Here's a bit of a novice question, but what happens if Trump wins the Presidential election but then the Republican top brass decide they don't want him as leader any more...? Is the Presidential nominee the 'leader' of the party, and can they be ousted from within and replaced by the VP or even someone else, short of impeachment - or would it trigger another election? I have a sneaking suspicion that something like this might happen and that Trump will be a lame duck president if he is elected (although I don't think that is going to happen, but you never know). Here in the UK, we've managed to replace the Prime Minister without lifting a finger, and everyone seems cockahoop about it (well, not quite) - ironically, it is the opposition who are having a nightmare trying to decide who their leader should be. But how easy would it be for the GOP to basically get rid of Trump once he has won the Presidency for them?
Click to expand...

No, doesn't work like that. Doesn't matter who you backed after the convention the American voters elected who they wanted and thus it would be up to the voters. Now they could try to get him impeached if something comes up and oust him that way, but realistically you're set. Their time to get rid of him was at the convention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wfooshee
Electoral College: Discuss!
3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
7K
TheCracker
TheCracker
Sanji Himura
  • Poll
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
316 317 318
Replies
10K
Views
400K
TexRex
TexRex
Sanji Himura
The 2018 US Mid-Term Elections Thread
8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
12K
PocketZeven
PocketZeven
Sanji Himura
US Midterm Elections 2014
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
4K
prisonermonkeys
prisonermonkeys
DK
US Congress Elections, 2016
Replies
1
Views
525
ryzno
ryzno

Latest Posts

Back