Can Trump beat Clinton?

[westend1]

Englebert, what are you?  Some kind of expert witness?

[Hagar]

Based on the political postings and people I've talked to, I'd sure be surprised if Any Republican can win.  I doubt enough Trump supporters would back Cruz or Rubio, and many of their supporters won't vote for Trump.  And neither group would likely back whoever the RNC picks.  So, unless Something really out of the ordinary happens (as posted earlier) Hillary will win.  Had a friend that shot his self in the foot with his rifle.  The RNC has aimed it's rifle at its buttocks and pulled the trigger.  

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Yes way Rubio would have won the general.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

In the polls taken over the last four months or so, Rubio runs 15-4-1 against Clinton. Of her four wins, Clinton never wins by more than three points, whereas Rubio's largest spread is a whopping nine points. I should also note that all four of Clinton's wins and the tie came from the same three polling institutions, which have traditionally favored Democrats.

No, that's not the case. For the first two years of the Tea Party's existence, the entire GOP was very receptive to it, from the evangelicals to the establishment to the libertarians to the moderates to the business community. There is not some over-arching view in the party that the Tea Party is some threat to the power of any particular party faction; in fact, it was the Tea Party movement that put the party back in control of the House, which amplifies the influence of every party faction. You're assuming there's a view when the evidence directly contradicts it and I can tell you from personal experience that it's just not there.

The threat the Tea Party poses is not simply to the establishment wing or even to specific individuals like Mitch McConnell. The threat the Tea Party poses is to the entire party. It's the Tea Party's chicanery - that very "no compromise" attitude that you so adroitly pointed out - that makes the "party of no" tag line so effective. The people the Tea Party elect to office never propose a real solution beyond a rhetorical goal absent a concrete plan to get there (kinda sounds like that wall, doesn't it?), and just take up time spewing hot air. Nothing gets done, and the Democrats have an easy time making the Republicans out to be fools. All the divisive, inflammatory rhetoric coming from the Tea Party, as I've pointed out a thousand times, doesn't help, either. The Tea Party is just shooting itself in the foot and, for whatever reason, is too blind to realize it. Unfortunately, it's making the rest of the party bleed with it.

You don't have to prove it to me. I don't want Trump to be president, and as much as it burns me to my core that I have to live with this, I would take Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, and I'm not even part of the establishment wing.

Yeah, you heard that right. The lifelong Republican who owns a dozen or so guns, hates taxes, wouldn't mind if Texas was its own country, worked for a Republican congressman, served as president of a Tea Party student outreach group in undergrad and is about to take the vice presidency in a conservative law student org, would prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. I won't vote for her - if it's between the two of them and no independent GOP candidate jumps in, I'm voting for the libertarian candidate - but I'll take her over Trump. Why? Because she's not racist maniac that uses Hitleresque, rhetorical demagoguery to sow anger, encourage division on social lines, play on people's fears and destroy every philosophical facet of the republic we live in.

But hey, like I said, it doesn't matter. We've already lost this election. Hillary Clinton is your next president. And when 2016 is in the books and the tombstone for GOP chances is erected in the graveyard of failed presidential campaigns, "They did it to themselves." will be the Tea Party's epitaph. It really is a crying shame.

Clinton over Trump...wow...and all the reasons you give are kinda drama queenish...and 2016 is the end on the Republican party if Clinton is elected...OK

I have been seeing polls for many years that were wrong by the so called experts, so that sure doesn't sell me on Rubio's success, especially when he has done so poorly, so no way Rubio.

And don't blame the Tea Party for what the establishment has done to itself.

[PN-G bamatex]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Clinton over Trump...wow...and all the reasons you give are kinda drama queenish...and 2016 is the end on the Republican party if Clinton is elected...OK

Drama queenish? You're telling me I'm "drama queenish" for calling Trump's rhetoric racist when y'all are running around saying Obama's trying to destroy the country because he's liberal?

Right.

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I have been seeing polls for many years that were wrong by the so called experts, so that sure doesn't sell me on Rubio's success, especially when he has done so poorly, so no way Rubio.

I think I'll take Nate Silver's opinion over yours, and he agrees with me. His statistical modeling has never gotten a general election match-up wrong, by the way.

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

And don't blame the Tea Party for what the establishment has done to itself.

Yeah, okay. You go on thinking like that. We'll just wait and see what happens in November.

[PN-G bamatex]

2 hours ago, westend1 said:

What is going on here?  actual discussion?  This hasn't happened in about 7 years.

It's amazing what happens when somebody holds smitty accountable for his dribble.

[Englebert]

3 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Whatever.

Okay, fine, let's assume just for the sake of argument that I don't know anything about what shaped about Obama's views. What is it that you've "read, heard and researched" about the man that gives you such powerful insight into his background? Because if you're going to sit here and act like he's only discussing racial issues to stoke the flames of racial divide, you better have a whole lot of real, tangible, credible evidence to back it up. Given the fact that you have, thus far, done absolutely nothing to substantiate those accusations despite the number of times I've called you out for not presenting any evidence to support them, I really don't think that you do. And I think it's pretty hypocritical - or perhaps "condescending" - to act like you're the expert on Obama's real intentions when you haven't presented any evidence to sustain your point, but then turn around and act like I'm just projecting personal experiences on Obama's racial commentary.

I apologize. I assumed you could fully account for all of the context, like the numerous examples of legislation of varying types that addressed a wide variety of issues passed by LBJ and FDR which I cited as examples of presidential productivity in the exact same paragraph. I guess I figured you would read the post instead of glancing it over. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

"The Obama Administration had to change the name when they figured out the sheeple weren't following along like they should. The man should go to prison for even suggesting Cap & Trade."

Let that sink in for a minute.

"The Obama Administration had to change the name when they figured out the sheeple weren't following along like they should. The man should go to prison for even suggesting Cap & Trade."

So the man should go to prison for proposing a particular policy in the context of the duties of his office, and for expressing support for that policy both within the context of those powers and under his God-given, constitutionally enshrined Freedom of Speech, simply because you think it's a really, really bad idea?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're elevating a difference of opinion to the level of criminal activity. That's the exact kind of polarizing, demonizing rhetoric that I've been railing against smitty for.

That statement is wholly lacking in perspective, objectivity and reason. This is why American political discourse has reached such harrowing levels of toxicity. It's also why it's becoming harder and harder for the average American voter to take our party seriously.

A difference of opinion is not a grave moral crime against the country.

You did not call me out. I called you out because you said I had a misunderstanding of Obama's view's. Again...let that sink in. I called you out because you arrogantly stated that I had a misunderstanding of Obama's view on race. I made the point that you were condescending because you have no idea what I know about the man, but you arrogantly assumed I was some blowhard you could talk down to. I have never stated that I knew, read, or researched anything on Obama. I said you don't know what I know about the man, but somehow your opinion is more valid than mine. That's the epitome of condescension. But you won't admit it.

Again assuming are you.

Yes, let Cap & Trade sink in. Anyone that does 30 minutes of research on man-made global warming can quickly find out that it is a lie. And when a president proposes transforming the entire national economy on a lie, in my opinion he should go to prison. I'm fairly certain Obama knows man-made global warming is a lie, but he wants to spend trillions of tax payer dollars on it. Many men have gone to prison for far less.

[LumRaiderFan]

15 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Drama queenish? You're telling me I'm "drama queenish" for calling Trump's rhetoric racist when y'all are running around saying Obama's trying to destroy the country because he's liberal?

Right.

I think I'll take Nate Silver's predictions over yours, and he agrees with me. His statistical modeling has never gotten a general election wrong, by the way.

Yeah, okay. You go on thinking like that. We'll just wait and see what happens in November.

lol...no, I'm not calling you drama queenish...I'm saying the "end of the world / party over" scenarios you threw out if either Clinton or Trump are elected are.

I don't need to wait until November to see the damage the establishment has done to the party...I been watching it for a while.

By the way, whether you take my opinion over anyone else's makes no difference to me.

But I'm curious, how accurate was Silver about Trump's success?

[PN-G bamatex]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

You did not call me out. I called you out because you said I had a misunderstanding of Obama's view's. Again...let that sink in. I called you out because you arrogantly stated that I had a misunderstanding of Obama's view on race. I made the point that you were condescending because you have no idea what I know about the man, but you arrogantly assumed I was some blowhard you could talk down to. I have never stated that I knew, read, or researched anything on Obama. I said you don't know what I know about the man, but somehow your opinion is more valid than mine. That's the epitome of condescension. But you won't admit it.

Wait a minute, hold up here. I just want to make sure I have this straight. You're saying you never said that you had knew, read or researched anything about Obama?

8 hours ago, Englebert said:

And again, your personal experiences do not give you any more insight on Obama's personal experiences, and neither does mine. To say you can understand Obama's views and I only have a misunderstanding of his views is condescending. You have no clue as to what I have read, heard, or researched about the man.

So you never said the above quote?

I never said nor assumed that you were "some blowhard" that I could "talk down to." I said that about smitty in different wording, and I stand by that. But I didn't take that approach with you. You might want to go back and read my posts. If you'll recall, I expressed surprise at, admitted I was impressed by and even thanked you for the relatively substantive argument you provided. It's a welcome departure from the norm on this website, and reminds me of how this place used to be.

What I did say about you was that it is evident to me that you have jumped to conclusions about Barack Obama's intentions in the face of a total lack of supporting evidence, and I stand by that as well. That is why I revealed my personal experiences. I never so much as insinuated that they have a direct bearing on Obama himself, as you seem to think I did. I related those experience to provide context - an important aspect of this discussion that we seem to be going back and forth about. It was meant merely to convey the point that racism is very much alive in this day and age, and no axiom like "most people aren't racist" is going to change the fact that it is very much alive in this day and age, or the fact that it is a constant issue that black Americans have to deal with.

I made that point, in the hopes that an implied point would follow from it which I presumed you would be able to put together on your own. I can only guess that you did not, so I'll make it explicit. In light of the fact that we still have crosses burning, schools segregating, racial slurs flying through the air, and death threats being left on windshields all because of the color of the driver's skin in this country, what do you think is more likely? That when the nation's first black president speaks his mind on a racial issue he is expressing genuine concern and shedding light on a perspective with which you may not be particularly familiar, or that he is attempting to "knowingly... creat[e] a racial divide" because he is "pure evil," as you put it?

That is why I believe you have severely misunderstood this man, and thus far, despite my giving you repeated opportunities to prove otherwise, you've more or less refused to give me reason to reconsider that belief. In fact, what you've done is strongly imply that you've done some research or have some rationale to justify your suspicion about Obama's intentions, and then completely renege on the assertion the moment you were asked to provide it.

Call that condescension. Call it arrogant. Call it naive. Call it stupid. Call it whatever you want. I call it the truth, and I'm not about to shy away from speaking it.

38 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Yes, let Cap & Trade sink in. Anyone that does 30 minutes of research on man-made global warming can quickly find out that it is a lie. And when a president proposes transforming the entire national economy on a lie, in my opinion he should go to prison. I'm fairly certain Obama knows man-made global warming is a lie, but he wants to spend trillions of tax payer dollars on it. Many men have gone to prison for far less.

The entire concept of climate change is a subject of ongoing debate, including whether it's a natural occurrence, a consequence of industrialization or some combination thereof. Being a subject of ongoing scientific debate, different people believe different things based, at least in most cases, on their own evaluation of the evidence. A particular world leader holding a particular belief about climate change, and then attempting to implement policies in line with that view, isn't even controversial, much less criminal.

The fact that you stated that said leader shut be thrown in jail for expressing that opinion and acting on it is truly telling in regards to how much you actually appreciate Freedom of Speech, or the will of the people that elected that leader.

[Englebert]

3 hours ago, westend1 said:

Englebert, what are you?  Some kind of expert witness?

No. And thanks for not thinking I was the one sitting in the Defendant's chair.

[PN-G bamatex]

45 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol...no, I'm not calling you drama queenish...I'm saying the "end of the world / party over" scenarios you threw out if either Clinton or Trump are elected are.

Where exactly did I articulate an "end of the world" scenario? All I said was that Trump's racist, Clinton's not and we're going to lose in 2016, all of which is backed up by a wealth of statistical and empirical data.

46 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I don't need to wait until November to see the damage the establishment has done to the party...I been watching it for a while.

Yup, it's all that dirty ol' establishment's fault! They totally created Donald Trump and perverted the conservative message to the point that it seems insane to the average voter! It's all on them!

Ignorance like that is why we're marching to a beating in November.

47 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

By the way, whether you take my opinion over anyone else's makes no difference to me.

Cool, dude.

48 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

But I'm curious, how accurate was Silver about Trump's success?

Actually, most of his state primary predictions have proven accurate. I think he missed Oklahoma for the GOP and Michigan for the Democrats, and that's about it.

[Englebert]

2 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Wait a minute, hold up here. I just want to make sure I have this straight. You're saying you never said that you had knew, read or researched anything about Obama?

So you never said the above quote?

I never said nor assumed that you were "some blowhard" that I could "talk down to." I said that about smitty in different wording, and I stand by that. But I didn't take that approach with you. You might want to go back and read my posts. If you'll recall, I expressed surprise at, admitted I was impressed by and even thanked you for the relatively substantive argument you provided. It's a welcome departure from the norm on this website, and reminds me of how this place used to be.

What I did say about you was that it is evident to me that you have jumped to conclusions about Barack Obama's intentions in the face of a total lack of supporting evidence, and I stand by that as well. That is why I revealed my personal experiences. I never so much as insinuated that they have a direct bearing on Obama himself, as you seem to think I did. I related those experience to provide context - an important aspect of this discussion that we seem to be going back and forth about. It was meant merely to convey the point that racism is very much alive in this day and age, and no axiom like "most people aren't racist" is going to change the fact that it is very much alive in this day and age, or the fact that it is a constant issue that black Americans have to deal with.

I made that point, in the hopes that an implied point would follow from it which I presumed you would be able to put together on your own. I can only guess that you did not, so I'll make it explicit. In light of the fact that we still have crosses burning, schools segregating, racial slurs flying through the air, and death threats being left on windshields all because of the color of the driver's skin in this country, what do you think is more likely? That when the nation's first black president speaks his mind on a racial issue he is expressing genuine concern and shedding light on a perspective with which you may not be particularly familiar, or that he is attempting to "knowingly... creat[e] a racial divide" because he is "pure evil," as you put it?

That is why I believe you have severely misunderstood this man, and thus far, despite my giving you repeated opportunities to prove otherwise, you've more or less refused to give me reason to reconsider that belief. In fact, what you've done is strongly imply that you've done some research or have some rationale to justify your suspicion about Obama's intentions, and then completely renege on the assertion the moment you were asked to provide it.

Call that condescension. Call it arrogant. Call it naive. Call it stupid. Call it whatever you want. I call it the truth, and I'm not about to shy away from speaking it.

The entire concept of climate change is a subject of ongoing debate, including whether it's a natural occurrence, a consequence of industrialization or some combination thereof. Being a subject of ongoing scientific debate, different people believe different things based, at least in most cases, on their own evaluation of the evidence. A particular world leader holding a particular belief about climate change, and then attempting to implement policies in line with that view, isn't even controversial, much less criminal.

The fact that you stated that said leader shut be thrown in jail for expressing that opinion and acting on it is truly telling in regards to how much you actually appreciate Freedom of Speech, or the will of the people that elected that leader.

The whole conversation devolved into the fact that you stated, not that you believe, but the fact that I misunderstood Obama before you ever knew anything about me. For all you knew I could have been Michelle, but somehow you knew that I misunderstood the man. That is the definition of condescension, but you still won't admit it. You can believe I severely misunderstood Obama all you want. In fact, if you would have stated it that way in the first place, I would have probably not even continued with this.

And yes, I never said or strongly implied that I've done any research on the man. I said that "you have no idea what I've read, heard, or researched on the man." And you still don't. And what's laughable is you trying to say I reneged on an statement that I made when it was you that in fact made the statement.

I'm guessing that you threw out the trial balloon about your experiences of race to divert the conversation to a racial one, at which time you would try to throw out the old race card. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. It's an old tried and true tactic practiced daily. I get called a racist on a daily basis for just saying I disagree with Obama's policies. Hell I get called a racist for saying that I don't care for rap music. I wonder why I don't get called a racist for saying I don't care for Gregorian chants?

And no, your personal experiences have no bearing on the discussion. Your personal experiences provide not context and are irrelevant when attempting to ascertain Obama's view's.

So you think you can go to Alabama for a few years (I'm guessing four) and then deduce the plight of the black man all across this nation. Are the black lives in Alabama the same or different than say Connecticut? Or North Dakota? Or Alaska? I'm just gonna leave that at WOW.

You're not towing the liberal line on man-made global warming. (I prefer the more accurate term, after all, even my dogs know the climate changes. It's called weather.) Obama has stated many, many times that the debate is over. He has also repeatedly stated that 97% of all scientist agree that man is the cause of the warming (when in fact the temperature has remained unchanged for at least the past 16 years). If you attempt to transform the entire national economy based on an ongoing debate, not knowing if your subsequent actions will actually hurt, help, or be inconsequential then you should be fired/impeached. If you attempt to transform the economy based on a lie, then you should go to prison. And I have very little doubt that he knows it is a lie.

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

8 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Where exactly did I articulate an "end of the world" scenario? All I said was that Trump's racist, Clinton's not and we're going to lose in 2016, all of which is backed up by a wealth of statistical and empirical data.

Yup, it's all that dirty ol' establishment's fault! They totally created Donald Trump and perverted the conservative message to the point that it seems insane to the average voter! It's all on them!

Ignorance like that is why we're marching to a beating in November.

Cool, dude.

Actually, most of his state primary predictions have proven accurate. I think he missed Oklahoma for the GOP and Michigan for the Democrats, and that's about it.

The ignorance lies with folks like you that refuse to believe the GOP is it's own worst enemy.

Did the Tea party pick John McCain or Mitt Romney...no.

And Silver was blindsided and completely wrong about Trump...thought he would be a flash in the pan and go away.

[smitty]

The problem is, is that the GOP establishment is willing to lose this election to protect their power.  As Rush stated in comparison, " The Wizard of Oz didn't care what happened to Oz.  He cared what happened to him."  This is what we must fight.

[PN-G bamatex]

12 hours ago, Englebert said:

The whole conversation devolved into the fact that you stated, not that you believe, but the fact that I misunderstood Obama before you ever knew anything about me.

I made an assertion. Obviously, it was an expression of opinion - that's what an assertion is. I never said it was a fact. Don't get so easily worked up over it. I'm in law school. If you're really in court, you know that's what we do.

12 hours ago, Englebert said:

That is the definition of condescension, but you still won't admit it.

Jesus Christ, are you really still going on about this? Fine. If it'll make you feel better....

Hey guys, I'm a condescending douchebag!

And you know what else?

I really don't care!

That better? Moving on.

12 hours ago, Englebert said:

And yes, I never said or strongly implied that I've done any research on the man.

Wow. I blew your exact words up in bold, underlined letters and you're denying it? Are you related to the Donald?

12 hours ago, Englebert said:

I said that "you have no idea what I've read, heard, or researched on the man." And you still don't.  And what's laughable is you trying to say I reneged on an statement that I made when it was you that in fact made the statement.

You're right. I don't. Which is why I've now invited you to reveal what you've read, heard, researched and whatever else about Obama, and by proxy to give some substantiation to your accusations regarding his intentions, not once, not twice, but by my count, three times now. Each time you've failed to do so, and now you're more or less refusing to do so.

So, as a result, I'm going to continue with my - wait for it - *assumption* that you have not read, heard or researched anything of real substance about him. For the fourth time, you are free to prove me wrong at any point.

12 hours ago, Englebert said:

I'm guessing that you threw out the trial balloon about your experiences of race to divert the conversation to a racial one, at which time you would try to throw out the old race card. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. It's an old tried and true tactic practiced daily. I get called a racist on a daily basis for just saying I disagree with Obama's policies. Hell I get called a racist for saying that I don't care for rap music. I wonder why I don't get called a racist for saying I don't care for Gregorian chants?

Wow, taking wild guesses about my motivations when you hardly know anything about me!?

That is really condescending!

That's right. You are guessing. And (not surprisingly) you're guessing wrong. You not only have no evidence whatsoever to sustain your suspicion, I've literally already provided the explanation for my reflection on my personal experiences for you. Here's exactly what I said, word for word:

13 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

What I did say about you was that it is evident to me that you have jumped to conclusions about Barack Obama's intentions in the face of a total lack of supporting evidence, and I stand by that as well. That is why I revealed my personal experiences. I never so much as insinuated that they have a direct bearing on Obama himself, as you seem to think I did. I related those experience to provide context - an important aspect of this discussion that we seem to be going back and forth about. It was meant merely to convey the point that racism is very much alive in this day and age, and no axiom like "most people aren't racist" is going to change the fact that it is very much alive in this day and age, or the fact that it is a constant issue that black Americans have to deal with.

I made that point, in the hopes that an implied point would follow from it which I presumed you would be able to put together on your own. I can only guess that you did not, so I'll make it explicit. In light of the fact that we still have crosses burning, schools segregating, racial slurs flying through the air, and death threats being left on windshields all because of the color of the driver's skin in this country, what do you think is more likely? That when the nation's first black president speaks his mind on a racial issue he is expressing genuine concern and shedding light on a perspective with which you may not be particularly familiar, or that he is attempting to "knowingly... creat[e] a racial divide" because he is "pure evil," as you put it?

Remember that? Did you just skip that part when you were "glancing over" my posts on your courtroom breaks? Or are you just blatantly ignoring it and trying to make me out to be some kind of liar?

12 hours ago, Englebert said:

I get called a racist on a daily basis for just saying I disagree with Obama's policies. Hell I get called a racist for saying that I don't care for rap music. I wonder why I don't get called a racist for saying I don't care for Gregorian chants?

What a coincidence! So do I. And it's not right. But it is absolutely amazing to me that you bring that up. It bears so perfectly on this situation.

Labeling someone a racist over simple policy disagreements with a black man without some kind of evidentiary substantiation is jumping to conclusions about a person's intentions simply because he speaks his mind on contentious issues and expresses a view you don't like. You know what else fits the same description? Accusing a man of evilly conniving to inflame racial tensions by speaking on racial issues and expressing an opinion you don't agree with.

You're literally lamenting an accusation that is in principle no different than the one you levy.

12 hours ago, Englebert said:

And no, your personal experiences have no bearing on the discussion. Your personal experiences provide not context and are irrelevant when attempting to ascertain Obama's view's.

So you think you can go to Alabama for a few years (I'm guessing four) and then deduce the plight of the black man all across this nation. Are the black lives in Alabama the same or different than say Connecticut? Or North Dakota? Or Alaska? I'm just gonna leave that at WOW.

You know what? Fine. Let's sit here and pretend that crosses burning, racial slurs being spray-painted on buildings, all-white sororities rejecting every single black rush applicant, death threats containing racial slurs being left on the windshield of a car belonging to a black student because he was considering a run for elected office, and applications for appointed positions being tarnished with written racial slurs by white students who broke into a school office in the middle of the night aren't significant evidence of severe, pervasive racial bias on a college campus that attracts the largest share of the nation's most talented students from all over the country of any public university, constituting a significant example of racism that puts the national racial picture in perspective and provides essential context that explains why a black man might want to discuss race on a national stage following racially controversial incidents.

Instead, let's discuss Obama's own experiences.

In all that reading, hearing and researching about Obama that you implied that you did but won't come down either way about in writing, did you ever find anything about Obama's own experiences with racism? Did you read the stories about him getting called by racial slurs by his peers in grade school? How about the one about the old woman who accused him of stalking her because he shared an elevator with her in the apartment complex they both lived in? Did you read the one about people assuming he was the waiter at banquets and asking him to get coffee for them? What about the one where the tennis player told him to rub up on the competition chart because some of his color might rub off? Or the one where he and his teammates were called a "bunch of [n-word]s" by the coach of a team they beat in basketball?

13 hours ago, Englebert said:

You're not towing the liberal line on man-made global warming. (I prefer the more accurate term, after all, even my dogs know the climate changes. It's called weather.) Obama has stated many, many times that the debate is over. He has also repeatedly stated that 97% of all scientist agree that man is the cause of the warming (when in fact the temperature has remained unchanged for at least the past 16 years).

You're right. I'm not towing the liberal line on climate change. Because I don't buy into it. I'm not a liberal.

That doesn't mean I don't understand the argument, or why some people might be persuaded by it. Nor does it mean that I'm going to consider an elected official who was elected, at least in part, because people agreed with those views, somehow morally culpable for expressing those views and advocating for policies that line up with them. That's a basic role, expectation, and right of any elected official. Furthermore, it's a basic, constitutionally protected right of any American citizen. You don't get to take it away and throw someone in jail when you don't like the way one person exercises it.

About that "global temperatures haven't changed in 16 years" comment....

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

13 hours ago, Englebert said:

If you attempt to transform the entire national economy based on an ongoing debate, not knowing if your subsequent actions will actually hurt, help, or be inconsequential then you should be fired/impeached. If you attempt to transform the economy based on a lie, then you should go to prison. And I have very little doubt that he knows it is a lie.

There you go again, jumping to conclusions about a man's intentions without giving any substantiating evidence.

Let's be clear about something. However bad the policy may be, Cap & Trade is not a fundamental transformation of the economy. It's not a jump from capitalism to some kind of enviro-socialism or communism or some-other-kinda-ism. Cap & Trade was an attempt to cap emissions at industrial facilities, not to change the fundamental mechanisms by which the economy works. Its negative effect would have been the increase in prices it would have brought about. Would it have strained the economy? Yes. Transformed it? You're exaggerating.

Furthermore, Cap & Trade isn't new in America, by any means. In fact, it's already been implemented in specific contexts, and has been for forty years. We literally just got done discussing a lawsuit Chevron brought against the EPA over the way a Clean Air Act provision was interpreted and how a Cap & Trade style regulation was enforced against a plant in Texas City about twenty years ago. This wasn't some new, radical departure from existing American law.

[PN-G bamatex]

5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

The ignorance lies with folks like you that refuse to believe the GOP is it's own worst enemy.

Did the Tea party pick John McCain or Mitt Romney...no.

It hasn't picked any Republican winners yet, either.

Seriously, do you think any of the 2012 Tea Party picks could have won? Rick Santorum? I was personally a Newt fan, but I never really believed he could win the general.

5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

And Silver was blindsided and completely wrong about Trump...thought he would be a flash in the pan and go away.

You know, I had to scour the internet to find a Silver prediction about Trump that was wrong. I finally found one. Back in September, before we had any polling data, Silver rated Trump's chances of success in the primary at about 5%.

Go back and read my post. I said that Silver's general election models have never been incorrect. I didn't say anything about his primary picks, nor could that bear on Trump since we aren't in the general yet, so technically, your question was irrelevant to begin with. But since it's already been brought up, Silver makes predictions based on quantitative data such as polling and favorability numbers. His assessment of Trump at that time was, by his own admission in that very interview, purely qualitative, since we didn't have any of that data yet. The moment we had data to put in Silver's models, they started coming back in favor of Trump. As I stated earlier, his models have only been wrong about who would win the GOP primary in Oklahoma and the Democrat primary in Michigan. That's a strong record - I'd bet good money it's about a hundred times stronger than yours.

[PN-G bamatex]

1 hour ago, smitty said:

The problem is, is that the GOP establishment is willing to lose this election to protect their power.  As Rush stated in comparison, " The Wizard of Oz didn't care what happened to Oz.  He cared what happened to him."  This is what we must fight.

Hi, smitty! Thanks for coming back to the thread to engage the socialists, young and stupid again! Ready to answer those questions now? Or are you still trying to think of an answer?

[Englebert]

I didn't read it. Too childish.

[westend1]

15 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I didn't read it. Too childish.

Now this is a beaten man.   He is willing to fight it harder than you are.  I am not saying you are right or wrong, just beaten.

[Englebert]

Went back and read it. And you're right. You are a condescending douche bag.

That's about the only thing you got right in that whole childish post. And by the way, you do know the data in the graph you posted is manipulated data. Anyone that has looked into anything NASA has posted in around the last 8-10 years knows they use manipulated data. Hell, they even admit it. And I would love to build a time machine to go back to the late 1800s/early 1900s to get a look at the temperature scales they used. You know, the ones that can measure temperature all over the world to a hundredth of a degree.

[Englebert]

I don't know about beaten. Just not childish enough to continue. It's like fighting with Trump.

[westend1]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I don't know about beaten. Just not childish enough to continue. It's like fighting with Trump.

LOL.  You are right about Trump!  No winning that mud wrestling match.

[Englebert]

In fairness to Bamatex, I didn't keep it on an intellectual level either. And for that, I will apologize to Bamatex and the board.

...but he cracked first.

[westend1]

2 minutes ago, Englebert said:

In fairness to Bamatex, I didn't keep it on an intellectual level either. And for that, I will apologize to Bamatex and the board.

...but he cracked first.

No need to apologize.  This board hasn't  been on an "intellectual level" for several years.

[stevenash]

Bamatex- Have been reading, with interest, all of your exchanges in this thread.  I noticed that you mentioned how the President has chosen to address the racial issues facing this country and it appeared as though you felt it was a noble effort.  Don't you believe it would be equally noble of him to be willing to acknowledge the issues we face with Radical Islamic Terrorism ( including being willing to acknowledge that that is precisely what it is).  Both issues are problematic and both deserve the concern of the President.

[Englebert]

I do have a question for you Bamatex. You stated in previous posts that you saw or know about cross-burning, racial slurs spray painted on walls, death threats containing racial slurs, and some other stuff. My question is: Did you or anyone else report these things to the police, and better yet, to the media? All three of these things would have probably made the national news. And I'm sure you could have persuaded Al Sharpton to come down and investigate...uh, I mean give a speech. A guy I know that lives in Beaumont had his driveway spray painted with a racial slur about 10 years ago, and it made the national news. I'm sure cross burning and death threats should garner the media's attention. Did any of these things have a story printed/aired? Just curious.