If u are correct, Hillary has already won and there is no reason for anyone here to be bothered by Trump for even half of one millisecond. I don't see "victory for Murica and the world" when I read responses here, from Repub politicians, or Dem politicians. Curious. What do u think a Hillary America will look like?
Trump may very well also be filthy rich. Are u ever upset with Dems for being filthy rich? If yes, name names please. Ad hominem of Rush. Zero refutation of his logical arguments. So very BP of u.
You're deflecting, you're the one who made the statement. This has nothing to do with me. Rush Limbaugh is not worth however long it would take me to go trough whatever that link is. Rush is infamous for his extremely right views, far more than even Fox News. When he's giving Bill O' Riley flack for not being right enough, you get a feel for the guy. Then again, I don't click most links you link. But you'll never get me to click Rush Limbaugh anymore. I've been down that road and I've seen enough.
That's how I see it, and I don't see much chance of the republicans winning, but I can always be wrong. With a wildcard like trump it does introduce more uncertainty - though Hilary will likely also get a boost from women voters... so it seems like its in the bag for the dems. As for what Hillary will be like as president - I have no idea, I haven't followed her (I guess craziness on the republican side is much more entertaining for the British press).
If it wasn't for my concern with how well Trump is doing and what it means I would be ignoring him entirely. With his antics and how they have damaged the Republican brand I don't see how this election goes any way but D.
This echoes my feelings on the subject. Dems defo have the better demographics to vote for them, we've seen that in the last two elections. And the amount of stereotypical white men republicans is lowering significantly, percentage wise. Latinos, women, teens etc. Unless Republicans come out swinging really hard, they don't have much chance against Hilary, whom I don't really like (personally I'd rather see Obama x3, but laws and whatnot), who is too established to not win that race. The way I see it, a Ted Cruz/Rubio/JebBush if he ever got his Bane Shift together/a non-politician that isn't an idiot has the best chance of beating hilary (I don't think Sanders can get enough votes from the masses that don't give much ****s about politics, for a number of reasons). I could be wrong, but this is my observation as an outsider.
Yeah boy Trump is just really good at establishing himself. It's how he's build his brand and how he's continuing to build it right now. If ever we see some number, I bet his company is doing great business right now. Regardless of the enormous biggot he is/pretends to be, a portion of Americans is eating his BS like cookies on Sunday.
I appreciate your honesty. I see a lot of hand wringing from some that incessantly state Trump has no chance in the general election. They also said he would not run at all, that he would not file his financials, or achieve first place in polls, or stay in first, that the polls were faulty, again that Trump would fade, many dozens more polls were faulty, that for sure this time Trump would fade, that hundreds of polls were still wrong, and now that Trump will either lose in the primary or forever destroy the GOP. I would be fine with the GOP brand dying out just as long as the Dem brand died too. They both represent the corrupt and filthy rich that **** darn near everyone for a bit of power and fame and money. Have a great day man. Respect from me to you.
I think the republicans are also trapped by the US system (as I understand it) where the candidates first need to publically campaign to get nominated - which means playing to their right wing audience, and seems to involve a race to the bottom to be as (as I see it) bigotted and milateristic and so on as possible. And only after doing can they work on any kind of campaign to win over voters from the wider electorate - and by this time they look pretty toxic. If it was using the British system where the parties choose their leader however they want, who then campaigns to be in government, then the party could get round a table and work out a strategy for increasing it's share of the vote. The republicans can only do that after they have shlt all over their wider public perception in the primaries.
My wife agrees with the majority of Trump's positions, but she really dislikes his style. She is less complimentary of his character, because she says he cheated on his first wife and maybe his second too. But she despises Hillary, so she would vote for Trump if forced. My lady wife says nothing will stop her from voting against Hillary, except the cold grasp of death. She prefers Cruz or Carson a LOT more than DJT. So there you go.
I see I could see people voting for Cruz, but Carson? The guy is a male Sarah Palin with a higher IQ, but just as clueless. If you can't name one ally of the US, (question was: what ally would you call first) in two tries and the third try you say "well all of them", im sorry you're done. When even your own advisors come out and say you're absolutely clueless on foreign policy and need weekly schooling to "make you smart", you just can't expect to run. Everything about Carson rieks about incompetence as a US president. I personally wouldn't vote Republican, but if Forced, I'd go for either Rubio/Bush, with Cruz or that governor of Ohio guy. F something. He gets no exposure whatsoever so it would feel like a wasted vote. Either how, stuff.
Very good discussion going on tonight. Kudos! I am fine with all the disagreements, btw. Replies are not nasty.
By the way, how do you feel about Trump's liberal use of money and lawyers (e.g. Eminent Domain) to "purchase" people's properties even when they don't want to sell for his developments?
Is this a Protestant-to-Church objection to academia, or more like Catholic-to-Church criticism? Do you have a problem with the institutions, or just dislike the current iteration?
Do you think this is an institutional problem, or something that is just particular the current elements within academic systems?
"Fear of Islamist extremism within Britain's police is widespread despite the protestations of the authorities." http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/62...ech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-London Most politicians and most media folks need to stop lying incessantly.
Maybe I am not making this question clear -- Do you think that the legal and societal structure of academia is a problem, or do you think that those systems are mostly fine and that it's the particular professors who are the problem? Or is there some third thing I'm missing?
