Jump to content

Republican Convention Trainwreck - Deserves its Own Thread


Legaltitan

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, patsplat said:

Sure, and those candidates tend to be despotic 

Oooohhh.  "Despotic".  Well said sir.  All those candidates wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply
51 minutes ago, patsplat said:

Sure, and those candidates tend to be despotic 

The guy that wants NY gun laws for the whole US, including west of the Rockies, calls a law and order candidate "despotic."

That's rich dude, really rich.

The first thing every despot in the history of the world has done, is disarm his people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

The guy that wants NY gun laws for the whole US, including west of the Rockies, calls a law and order candidate "despotic."

That's rich dude, really rich.

The first thing every despot in the history of the world has done, is disarm his people.

Historically the first thing a despot does is ensure they have a band of armed private thugs.

Yes most law-n-order candidates are bigots who blame economic problems on a vulnerable minority.  Gypsies, Mexicans, any available Thug will do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, patsplat said:

Historically the first thing a despot does is ensure they have a band of armed private thugs.

Quote

 

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.   -  Barack Obama, 2008

 

Are you sure about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

Are you sure about that?

funding police departments isn't the same as ensuring that right-wing paramilitary groups have access to all the weaponry they desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, patsplat said:

funding police departments isn't the same as ensuring that right-wing paramilitary groups have access to all the weaponry they desire.

You obviously haven't seen the size of the DHS lately. 

http://breakingdefense.com/2011/09/homeland-security-department-colossal-inefficient-boondoggle/

225,000 and that doesn't include contractors.

They're another 200,000

https://fcw.com/articles/2010/03/01/dhs-has-too-many-contract-employees-senators-charge.aspx

And that was 2011.  No telling what their numbers look like now.

So, hire enforcers, and then disarm the people.

Nah, nothing despotic about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 4:47 PM, Face said:

I'm not "anti-conservative". I'm just saying how conservative a guy is shouldn't be the main quality when assessing Presidential candidates. Ted Cruz is very conservative but personally the guy rubs me the wrong way.  Mitt Romney was considered more of a moderate & I think he would've been an excellent choice as President.

They do that b/c it's the far right that votes the most in the primaries so in order to get their vote, they play up to them and say whatever their base wants them to say. If they don't, they lose. Trump just did a better job of it by saying bat shit crazy stuff.

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 4:30 PM, Face said:

This is one of the things I like about Trump, that he doesn't give a shit about how conservative the party thinks he is.

True but he also doesn't give a shit about anything or anyone else. He just cares about himself and making as much money and gaining as much power as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumps speech wasn't that great at convincing those not already on board. Worst of the last 15 speeches.

"Of course, the data show that 73% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said the convention made them more likely to vote for Trump, compared with 2% of Democrats. In other words, reaction to the speech was basically a reinforcement of pre-existing attitudes."

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/194000/first-time-trump-image-par-clinton.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Gallup, for the first time ever, for any convention (they have been doing this since the  80s) the RNC caused more people to not want to vote for the party nominee than the other way around.  Something like 35% of people said, based on what they saw from the RNC, they are now more likely to vote for Trump.  51% or something like that said they are now less likely.  Seems to put a nice bowtie on this thread.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/194084/americans-positive-democratic-gop-convention.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Legaltitan said:

According to Gallup, for the first time ever, for any convention (they have been doing this since the  80s) the RNC caused more people to not want to vote for the party nominee than the other way around.  Something like 35% of people said, based on what they saw from the RNC, they are now more likely to vote for Trump.  51% or something like that said they are now less likely.  Seems to put a nice bowtie on this thread.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/194084/americans-positive-democratic-gop-convention.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Trump might not have got any bounce, which, if so, would be very bad for him.  The reason for no bounce: Clinton was trending down right before the Republican Convention because of the FBI announcement.  Before July, she was up around 5 to 7 points. By the time the Republican Convention started two weeks later, her lead had been cut to 1 to 2 points.  In other words she lost about 4 to 5 points on her own over that two week period.   Trump came out of his convention tied to up to 2 points or so ahead.  That was declared a 3 to 4 point bounce because right before to right after, which is how convention bounces are measured, was that type of gain from him but its is very plausible to conclude that Clinton trajectory of the first few weeks of July was still happening, and Trump's "bounce" was just a continued decline for her from the early July stuff.  Then she gained most of it back after her convention.  So the trend was all Clinton (Trump had no bounce) could be argued. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...