IGX

DARTH wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

johno wrote:It's not sexual assault if you...don't object [at the time].

That didn't take long. You perverted mother fucker. You are actually DEFENDING a man accused by 10+ women of sexual assault. Man, I have new respect to the absolute depths you will sink. You victim-shaming piece of shit.




Edit to add: This makes me so curious as to what the search history of your porn is. Gotta be fucking brutal.

I hope to Hell you face a charge some day. Let us all know so we can call you guilty.

Not a rape in the pile, accused of grabbing some pussy. Hey asshole, do you actually say " May I please fuck you know?" when you get laid? No one does, most sex starts with a pussy grab.

He's rich and famous, for all your shit talking, your bitch would let him grab her pussy and cum on her face and she'd not give a fuck about your opinion, you don't have a few billion and no one knows you.

So far these cunts claims fall quick. If there was truth to this shit, Cruz would have used it. Hilary hacks and just ask Seeahill about Gloria Allred.

Who hurt you?

Pinky wrote:The Johnson/Weld ticket, while still my favorite ticket on the ballot, should have been a Weld/Johnson ticket. Weld is far more polished and would have attracted more endorsements from prominent Republicans.

Yes, exactly like Pence/Trump, where the VP is the parent and the P is the child.

The racist curse of Barry Goldwater-Richard Nixon-Ronald Reagan still haunts the Republican Party.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:What Trump might believe, God only knows, what Trump has represented during the campaign is the true feelings of the GOP base as it is today.

What exactly has he represented? He's a populist with a protectionist trade/immigration policy, moderately isolationist foreign policy, and vision of expanded mandated social benefits (his maternity benefits proposal) with no clear idea how to pay for it-- this kind of candidate pops up in both parties. We saw that in the Dem primaries. All you're really saying is that there's very little substantive difference between the party bases.

And TBF, it's not the "base" of the GOP that he speaks for - it's really about 15MM people, which is really about one-quarter of the voting GOP.

And overwhelmingly Caucasian. Just like Sanders' base.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:What Trump might believe, God only knows, what Trump has represented during the campaign is the true feelings of the GOP base as it is today.

What exactly has he represented?

White anger and fear of displacement, for the most part. Just like the GOP since 1968.

Again, he convincingly won the votes of GOP primary voters, the only demographics he's winning are those that the GOP wins every election and polling indicates that more Republicans share his view of the GOP's future than the GOP Establishment's vision. He's the standard bearer for what the GOP is in 2016 - belligerence, ignorance, nativism, uninterested in governing.

At most he's lost the support of some moderate GOP voters (just as likely, some of the old non-college educated white voters died and were replaced by young white people not as racist and angry as their Hee-Haw gramps), he's got the usual base locked down.

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:What Trump might believe, God only knows, what Trump has represented during the campaign is the true feelings of the GOP base as it is today.

What exactly has he represented?

White anger and fear of displacement, for the most part. Just like the GOP since 1968.

Same can be said of sanders supporters. The difference being Trump supporters are less likely to live in their parents basements.

That would be a hell of a zing, if it were demographically accurate... or relevant. Bernie Sanders isn't running for President anymore, perhaps you noticed?

Sanders did fairly well with women and non-white voters - not as well as Clinton but exit polling often had him in the 40s for both camps. Contra Trump who at one point was polling fourth among black voters.

His young people demographic did express some of the same economic concerns as Trump voters/Republicans, with two major differences. Their fears are well-founded (Trump voters are fairly comfortable economically, they just feel scared because they might have a boss who wouldn't pass the paper bag test) and they don't blame the coloreds and Muslims.

Thud wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: OTOH, look at what Powell had to say in his hacked emails. There's a R who backed Obama, and I believe he has a fairly good relation with Clinton, but won't endorse her. So that says something, too.

Powell purportedly will vote for Clinton:

“I am voting for Hillary Clinton,” he said, according to Matthew Cohen, a spokesman for the association. Mr. Powell went on to praise Mrs. Clinton for her skills as a leader and her experience.

Paule Pachter, a Long Island Association board member, said that Mr. Powell was blunt.

“He said he would support Hillary Clinton and he also elaborated on several reason why he felt that Donald Trump was not the right candidate,” he said. “He spoke about his inexperience, he spoke about the messages that he’s sending out every day to his supporters, which really paints our country in a negative light across the globe with all our allies.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/po ... v=top-news

Duly noted.
In case you missed it above, I'm voting for Johnson, not Trump. If I thought it would be close in my state(NY), I might consider a Clinton vote, despite my strong distaste for her. At this point, I want to see Johnson get to 5%, and the LP to get matching funds. The GOP has become a joke; the only thing worse than the broken two party system we have now is the one party system we're going to have soon. It would be nice to see a party come along that actually resembles the old GOP marketing of "individual freedom, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility" without the bible thumping and xenophobia.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... story.html

It's too easy to dismiss Trump voters as racists, rednecks and idiots. Try not to be so lazy.

They're not rednecks - though rednecks, by and large, support Trump (they're just a less and less relevant group every election), but Trump supporters are racists and idiots. (Also an idiot: Michael Moore.)

Since the advent of the Southern Strategy to convert racist white Democrats to the GOP, racism has been a fundamental (though mostly nodded at rather than openly spoken - cf. Reagan in Philadelphia, Mississippi and Jesse Helms 'black hands' ad to Ron Paul's newsletters on and on) element to the GOP ethos. It's been remarkably effective - one of the hardest-core New Deal demographics opposes essentially every government program because they believe it all just helps 'those people' take away their power (except for Social Security and Medicare, because SS and Medicare obviously benefit old white people too).

Much like George Wallace's evil wasn't racism per se but using racism as a means to empower himself, the GOP establishment brought this on themselves - I highly doubt that most of the political class are truly racist themselves (educated, urban people being less likely as a whole) but they used it as a means to an end to serve other political desires.

Now they're in a position where you can't win a national election giving up 90% of the black vote (perhaps even 95% from now on), 80% of the Latino vote, 70% of the Asian vote, you can't win young people by hating the homos and crying about law and order - but how do they win back any of that while keeping the base (militantly anti-immigration - and immigrant, hostile to any kind of non-white ethnic identification group, still fighting the battles of the 1960s and 70s) from revolting?

The GOP's America doesn't actually look like America - it's not white and rural or even white and suburban. It's rapidly urbanizing, irreligious, apathetic or antipathetic to guns and polyglot.

The only thing keeping the party relevant has been its stranglehold over the shitholes of America - that l-shaped swath of meth and oxycontin with more cows than people. Unfortunately for the party, with a 5-4 or 6-3 Supreme Court and 12-16 years (or if you'd prefer 20 of 28 years from 1993 on) of lower-court appointees by Democrats, it's going to be a lot tougher to gerrymander and compromise voting rights so that, too, will fall.

The GOP's best hope is to consign the Southern Strategy to the dustbin of history and try to look like the UK Conservatives - fiscally conservative, socially moderate/inoffensive, steal back some of the middle, and let the angry whites vote for the Trump/Palin bitter clingin' party if they choose.

milosz wrote:Much like George Wallace's evil wasn't racism per se but using racism as a means to empower himself, the GOP establishment brought this on themselves - I highly doubt that most of the political class are truly racist themselves (educated, urban people being less likely as a whole) but they used it as a means to an end to serve other political desires.

Now they're in a position where you can't win a national election giving up 90% of the black vote (perhaps even 95% from now on), 80% of the Latino vote, 70% of the Asian vote, you can't win young people by hating the homos and crying about law and order - but how do they win back any of that while keeping the base (militantly anti-immigration - and immigrant, hostile to any kind of non-white ethnic identification group, still fighting the battles of the 1960s and 70s) from revolting?

The GOP's America doesn't actually look like America - it's not white and rural or even white and suburban. It's rapidly urbanizing, irreligious, apathetic or antipathetic to guns and polyglot.

The only thing keeping the party relevant has been its stranglehold over the shitholes of America - that l-shaped swath of meth and oxycontin with more cows than people. Unfortunately for the party, with a 5-4 or 6-3 Supreme Court and 12-16 years (or if you'd prefer 20 of 28 years from 1993 on) of lower-court appointees by Democrats, it's going to be a lot tougher to gerrymander and compromise voting rights so that, too, will fall.

The GOP's best hope is to consign the Southern Strategy to the dustbin of history and try to look like the UK Conservatives - fiscally conservative, socially moderate/inoffensive, steal back some of the middle, and let the angry whites vote for the Trump/Palin bitter clingin' party if they choose.

That argument is ridiculous. Any other candidate (except maybe Cruz) would be looking at an easy victory while maintaining majorities in both houses.

milosz wrote:They're not rednecks - though rednecks, by and large, support Trump (they're just a less and less relevant group every election), but Trump supporters are racists and idiots. (Also an idiot: Michael Moore.)

Since the advent of the Southern Strategy to convert racist white Democrats to the GOP, racism has been a fundamental (though mostly nodded at rather than openly spoken - cf. Reagan in Philadelphia, Mississippi and Jesse Helms 'black hands' ad to Ron Paul's newsletters on and on) element to the GOP ethos. It's been remarkably effective - one of the hardest-core New Deal demographics opposes essentially every government program because they believe it all just helps 'those people' take away their power (except for Social Security and Medicare, because SS and Medicare obviously benefit old white people too).

Have you ever actually spoken to a Trump supporter?

Turdacious wrote: That argument is ridiculous. Any other candidate (except maybe Cruz) would be looking at an easy victory while maintaining majorities in both houses.

Are you basing this on the one time a Republican won a national election since Windows 3.1 came out?

Demographically, the GOP is fucked, until they can figure out how to win minorities and young people. Kasich, et al., much like Pence, had a veneer of respectability and sanity because they were standing next to people like Cruz and Trump.

Could the GOP put up a candidate who could win? Yeah, sure, but such a candidate will never make it through the GOP primaries because he'd have to not be batshit insane.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: Have you ever actually spoken to a Trump supporter?

Sadly, yes. More importantly, I've seen the data on Trump voters.

Here's one, near the peak of his campaign - http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/ ... eferences/

Trump wins 50+ year old white Protestants with some or no college education.

While not Trump specific, his voters are Republican voters.
Stepping back to 2012 - http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us ... oted-2012/
Romney won, convincingly, 50+ year old white people who have been scammed into thinking budget deficits are the most serious issue facing the country (which is, of course, a massive irony given Reagan and Bush II). Not that moderates sided with the Kenyan socialist.

2008? http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us ... oted-2008/

McCain wins... well, 65-year old white people. Hard to believe that a cadre of voters who remember Jim Crow didn't break for the black guy.


The GOP won elections in the '70s and '80s on a disproportionate share of the white male vote - they've lost a little ground on that specific demographic, but more importantly, that group's value shrank relative to the voting population.

One key difference in 2008/12/16 and the one election Republicans have won since 1988 - Bush took 45% of the Latino vote in 2004. Kiss that goodbye for at least a generation.

Could the GOP put up a candidate who could win? Yeah, sure, but such a candidate will never make it through the GOP primaries because he'd have to not be batshit insane.

I have to agree with you here.

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote: That argument is ridiculous. Any other candidate (except maybe Cruz) would be looking at an easy victory while maintaining majorities in both houses.

Are you basing this on the one time a Republican won a national election since Windows 3.1 came out?

Demographically, the GOP is fucked, until they can figure out how to win minorities and young people. Kasich, et al., much like Pence, had a veneer of respectability and sanity because they were standing next to people like Cruz and Trump.

Could the GOP put up a candidate who could win? Yeah, sure, but such a candidate will never make it through the GOP primaries because he'd have to not be batshit insane.

You're making a lot of out of one election cycle.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote: That argument is ridiculous. Any other candidate (except maybe Cruz) would be looking at an easy victory while maintaining majorities in both houses.

Are you basing this on the one time a Republican won a national election since Windows 3.1 came out?

Demographically, the GOP is fucked, until they can figure out how to win minorities and young people. Kasich, et al., much like Pence, had a veneer of respectability and sanity because they were standing next to people like Cruz and Trump.

Could the GOP put up a candidate who could win? Yeah, sure, but such a candidate will never make it through the GOP primaries because he'd have to not be batshit insane.

You're making a lot of out of one election cycle.

are you sure?

romney had to rely on his magic underwear to win the nomination

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote: That argument is ridiculous. Any other candidate (except maybe Cruz) would be looking at an easy victory while maintaining majorities in both houses.

Are you basing this on the one time a Republican won a national election since Windows 3.1 came out?

Demographically, the GOP is fucked, until they can figure out how to win minorities and young people. Kasich, et al., much like Pence, had a veneer of respectability and sanity because they were standing next to people like Cruz and Trump.

Could the GOP put up a candidate who could win? Yeah, sure, but such a candidate will never make it through the GOP primaries because he'd have to not be batshit insane.

You're making a lot of out of one election cycle.

are you sure?

romney had to rely on his magic underwear to win the nomination

And Hillary barely beat a milquetoast disorganized Sanders.

Turdacious wrote:And Hillary barely beat a milquetoast disorganized Sanders.

You are crazy. She decisively beat Sanders without running a single negative ad or oppo release..

Turdacious wrote: You're making a lot of out of one election cycle.

You think this is the first election where the GOP has lost young people, minorities and women?

Here's who the GOP wins since Bill Clinton: aged white Christians who identify as conservative. That used to be an important enough group to carry the day - now it's not.

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote: You're making a lot of out of one election cycle.

You think this is the first election where the GOP has lost young people, minorities and women?

Here's who the GOP wins since Bill Clinton: aged white Christians who identify as conservative. That used to be an important enough group to carry the day - now it's not.

More frighteningly for the GOP, that's not the case. Bush 2000 had very good numbers with Asians and Muslims. Not any more.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote: That argument is ridiculous. Any other candidate (except maybe Cruz) would be looking at an easy victory while maintaining majorities in both houses.

Are you basing this on the one time a Republican won a national election since Windows 3.1 came out?

Demographically, the GOP is fucked, until they can figure out how to win minorities and young people. Kasich, et al., much like Pence, had a veneer of respectability and sanity because they were standing next to people like Cruz and Trump.

Could the GOP put up a candidate who could win? Yeah, sure, but such a candidate will never make it through the GOP primaries because he'd have to not be batshit insane.

You're making a lot of out of one election cycle.

The repubs conducted this big study after the last go-around addressing exactly these issues. Donald Trump used it to wipe his ass on the way to clobbering everyone else in the primaries, which was pretty funny is a so sad sort of way.

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:

Turdacious wrote: That argument is ridiculous. Any other candidate (except maybe Cruz) would be looking at an easy victory while maintaining majorities in both houses.

Are you basing this on the one time a Republican won a national election since Windows 3.1 came out?

Demographically, the GOP is fucked, until they can figure out how to win minorities and young people. Kasich, et al., much like Pence, had a veneer of respectability and sanity because they were standing next to people like Cruz and Trump.

Could the GOP put up a candidate who could win? Yeah, sure, but such a candidate will never make it through the GOP primaries because he'd have to not be batshit insane.

You're making a lot of out of one election cycle.

are you sure?

romney had to rely on his magic underwear to win the nomination

And Hillary barely beat a milquetoast disorganized Sanders.

Not true. HRC beat him by 880+ delegates and 12 points overall. In any other context that would be called a landslide. Also, Sanders didn't drop out which gives the impression it was closer. IMO, Sanders won with his effect on the platform and he'll be the Budget Chairman when HRC wins.