Sam Harris absolutely demolished Drumpf on his most recent podcast (and defended Clinton, albeit somewhat tepidly). I liked it so much that, lacking any official transcript, I transcribed a bunch of it myself:
What is there to lose? The main loss would be the fact that the person who won the primary would be removed and replaced with someone that didn’t. You can’t rerun the primary, so how do you decide who to replace him with? Cruz because he came in second place? Kasich because he was the last one to drop out? Romney because he was the nominee the last time? Whoever Trump selects as VP assuming he’s chosen someone at the time of his withdrawal?
If the GOP conspires to take the nomination away from Trump, I think Cruz is the only one they can even sort-of credibly put up in his place. Romney is out and would have to rebuild his organization from scratch, and no one else has the support it would take to give their nomination a fig-leaf of legitimacy. I think once the dust settled, he (Cruz) could probably build enough momentum to make a contest of it; he at least has a campaign organization he can un-suspend (and which, unlike Trump’s, is a real campaign, with proper staffing and a GOTV operation).
Such a tactic would be tantamount to an admission that the Pubs have lost the general anyway. At least (and I do mean least) with Trump they can maintain some appearance of fairness. Nope, they picked their horse and they’re stuck with him.
True, but if you want Republicans to disown him, what better way than to just deny him the nomination?
Anyway, Trump nailed Clinton good on taking $30 million from countries that execute gays. It probably won’t make a difference in the election, but it does remind people that these countries represent “moderate Islam”.
So much for your promise to not carry water for Trump uh?
Incidentally if that is money for the election it would be illegal, so Hannity and Trump should come with the evidence; if they are referring to speeches or the Clinton foundation, unless those countries earmarked the money to hate gays it is more likely that the reason to take the money is to use it to fix serious problems all over the world. It’s a compromise and I do think that the republicans today would prefer to not help other nations. Regardless if they would not accept money from questionable nations (and if one remembers history the Republicans are not squeamish about it either).
And if one wonders about it for a moment this talking point looks silly when one remembers that previous Republican administrations did not complain about the money and help they got for intervening in the Middle East from those “friends of democracy”.
Yes, that’s what the billionaire sheikhs want, it’s to help people all over the world. Such nice people, those oil tycoons. So caring, their people live in poverty and they distract them by encouraging them to kill gays, and Westerners in general.
Clinton should give back the money.
And I’m not carrying water for Trump. I’m refusing to carry water for the oil sheikhs. Leave that to our leaders, who have decided that these are our allies. I understand why. The real moderates don’t command armies.
Adaher is right, but let’s not get into false equivalencies here.
Nor are those moderates the best influence against Iran.
Missing the point, it should be clear that those sheiks also give money to the Red Crescent (the equivalent to the red cross) and I could agree with you that they are not really being all innocent in the help they are giving there either, but it would be really silly to demand that they return the money that people that do really care and do help also in women’s and children issues are using for good.
Sorry, but you did carry his water by telling us that Trump had a good point, he did not.
EVen Trump can be right sometimes. The oil sheikhs are not philanthropists, unless you consider funding terrorism to be philanthropy.
When you throw shit in every direction, eventually some will hit the toilet.
:rolleyes:
I already told you that the money they give does not clean them, but denying that the money also benefits what even the sheiks oppose is something that should not be jettison just because it is not pure enough for you.
BTW Trump is on record of not including his sheik friends in his promised Muslim ban.
In any other election year a candidate with Clinton’s numberswould be toast: 55% unfavorable overall, 63% unfavorable with independents and 25% unfavorable within her own party. But this isn’t any other year, and Trump’s numbers are fucking dire: not just the 70% unfavorable overall but when he only cracks a majority in “favorable” in his own party - and that only 65% - and has unfavorables amongst blacks at 94%, Hispanics at 89% and college grads at 75%, things look very bad. He didn’t even get over the line with conservatives.
So Clinton is terrible and will struggle to get a majority, but Trump is still far behind her.
True. The real suspense, iMO, is what the third party numbers will be. These two candidates are the best thing to ever happen to the Greens and LP. If only the Greens were running Ralph Nader for the first time…
The Greens will only do well if the “Bernie or Bust” crowd defect en masse to them. They may see a slight uptick but I don’t see Stein getting Perot-level numbers. Gary Johnson will probably benefit more, although again I think many of the people currently expressing support for him will chicken out on the day and vote for the guy with the ® next to his name.
Stein with Perot-like numbers? No, I don’t think there are that many liberals in the country, even if we assumed they all voted Green.
But she will beat Nader’s 2000 total.
Possible but not probable. Another one for the predictions thread?
That ABC/WaPo poll is a lot of fun. I enjoyed RedState’s take:
I’m not so sure they will chicken out if it looks like Drumpf is going down in flames anyway. Why bother to hold their nose and vote for someone they hate, who is pretty much a guaranteed loser?
If that last 39-29 poll holds up, there’s just no reason to vote for Clinton if you don’t want. Let her get her sub-40 plurality.