2016 US Presidential election thread

[Torplexed]

Kasich should just switch and run in the Democratic primary. He can come in 3rd and claim a triumph.

If Rubio's "Marcobot" performance did nothing else last night, it will certainly encourage Kasich and Jeb! a great deal. If either gets to double digits in New Hampshire, it's hard to see either leaving the race before Florida and Ohio.

[mapuc]

An election technically questions:

From now and until some day in June there are some partial elections through the United States. I think especially of the Republican-elections. If Mr Trump wins the next-elections, does this means that the GOP chose him as their candidate? Or can they choice another candidate ?

Markus

[Oberon]

As far as I understand it, and they do try to make it very hard to understand it at times, if Trump is able to win enough votes during the Caucuses then he becomes the Republican party nomination for the presidential run to face off against whoever the Democrats elect.
It's way too early to be certain which way it'll go on either side, Cruz won an early victory, but Trump still leads in the polls, however both his and Cruzs poor performance in the latest GOP debate may cost them a few votes.
The day when we should have a better idea of how things are panning out is 'Super Tuesday' which is when a good portion of the US states do their voting, which is March 1st in this election.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Oberon

As far as I understand it, and they do try to make it very hard to understand it at times, if Trump is able to win enough votes during the Caucuses then he becomes the Republican party nomination for the presidential run to face off against whoever the Democrats elect.
It's way too early to be certain which way it'll go on either side, Cruz won an early victory, but Trump still leads in the polls, however both his and Cruzs poor performance in the latest GOP debate may cost them a few votes.
The day when we should have a better idea of how things are panning out is 'Super Tuesday' which is when a good portion of the US states do their voting, which is March 1st in this election.

Thank you for your answer.

Read here and other places, That Mr Trump very well could win the Caucuses and Then It is those expert I see and hear on Danish and Swedish TV-who say The GOP will not/not likely choice Trump as their Republican candidate.

That's why I asked

Markus

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Thank you for your answer.

Read here and other places, That Mr Trump very well could win the Caucuses and Then It is those expert I see and hear on Danish and Swedish TV-who say The GOP will not/not likely choice Trump as their Republican candidate.

That's why I asked

Markus

It could well be possible, I doubt it would be as simple as whoever wins the primaries gets the seat. There could well be ways that the Republican Party could choose someone else over Trump, especially if it becomes a close race.

[GT182]

I had an amazing dream about one candidate.....

I really don't like Hillary...
She is creepy. She's like... the democrats Sarah Palin.

[GT182]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I really don't like Hillary...
She is creepy. She's like... the democrats Sarah Palin.

I'll take Sarah Palin over Clinton any day. At least she tells it like it is. Clinton does nothing but lie to us.... always has and always will.

[mapuc]

Earlier today I saw a link on a friends FB-wall the headline in this link made me think of our two thread in GT.

Could we be witness to a unintentional drop ?

If the FBI find enough evidence against Clinton and arrest her

Markus

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mapuc

An election technically questions:

From now and until some day in June there are some partial elections through the United States. I think especially of the Republican-elections. If Mr Trump wins the next-elections, does this means that the GOP chose him as their candidate? Or can they choice another candidate ?

Markus

That is a very cogent question.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publi...nation-process

This is a good explanation of the process (with the proviso that the term process is used in its most .. if you pardon the pun.. liberal interpretation)

It is a confusing system that is changing.

Originally Posted by GT182

I'll take Sarah Palin over Clinton any day. At least she tells it like it is. Clinton does nothing but lie to us.... always has and always will.

Riiight... that... that is probably... how it is...







A few funny (sad?) examples.
Man there's even a BOOK dedicated to the lies and BS Palin spilled.

Liars and oxygen thieves are liars and oxygen thieves - their political view should be secondary.
Ever so often I have the feeling that people blindly support whoever is running for their side, no matter how crazy, delusional or - in Palin's case - 'simple' the politician is.

But hey, I agree with you.
I'd take Palin over Clinton any time as well, she is at least human... and a milf.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Riiight... that... that is probably... how it is...








A few funny (sad?) examples.
Man there's even a BOOK dedicated to the lies and BS Palin spilled.

Liars and oxygen thieves are liars and oxygen thieves - their political view should be secondary.
Ever so often I have the feeling that people blindly support whoever is running for their side, no matter how crazy, delusional or - in Palin's case - 'simple' the politician is.

But hey, I agree with you.
I'd take Palin over Clinton any time as well, she is at least human... and a milf.

When Palin first came into the public view, she had that infamous interview that was lampooned on Saturday Night Live; the most damning thing about the lampoon was the fact they used, verbatim, Palin's statements from the original interview. As some people say, sometimes you can't write material that great from scratch...


<O>

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Riiight... that... that is probably... how it is...

Hold it, Albright said that, it is not a misquote, has nothing to do with Palin.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by vienna

When Palin first came into the public view, she had that infamous interview that was lampooned on Saturday Night Live; the most damning thing about the lampoon was the fact they used, verbatim, Palin's statements from the original interview. As some people say, sometimes you can't write material that great from scratch...


<O>

IIRC Palin took all that in her stride, heck to be honest it probably only improved her image (which speaks volumes about the American political system) and from what I've heard she was pretty cool about the SNL sketch, appearing herself alongside Tina Feys Palin for one sketch (You've got to give people who can laugh at themselves a bit of credit, heck even Dubya could do that, so at least they're not so far up their backside that they can't take a joke).

As Betonov put it, no publicity is bad publicity. The rule of thumb in politics today seems to be, it doesn't matter how crass or stupid it is, say it so it gets people talking, because the more the news outlets say your name, the more your name is pumped into the American people and seemingly the higher you'll poll.
Although it doesn't actually seem to be translating into votes when it comes to electing people...yet.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Hold it, Albright said that, it is not a misquote, has nothing to do with Palin.

Hey good find, I'll take that one down then!
(I should have just linked any of her interviews, but then again... what's the point)

Edit: On a side note, Mrs. Albright doesn't seem to be that bright at all (anymore).
Why does everything today needs to be dumbed down to a race or gender debate, that is so... incredibly ridiculous!
What Albright said is just embarrassing.