2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Polish Leppy 22]

You're weighing the consequences of having a leaky border to that of a global disaster in which 1000s of plants and animals will die, by our own doing?

Hahahah

The human bias is strong with this one's ego.

If the wrong person gets across that border with a chemical weapon, plants and animals won't be the only loss.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The poll I linked wasn't meant to prove anything. It was meant to show that the majority of Americans think other "challenges" we face are more important right now than climate change. And that poll was 4 months old, before Paris and San Bernardino.

Yeah, but see, e.g., George F. Loewenstein, Christopher K. Hsee, Elke U. Weber & Ned Welch, Risk as Feelings, 127 Psychological Bulletin 267, 275–76 (2001); Eric J. Johnson, John Hershey, Jacqueline Meszaros & Howard Kunreuther, Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions, 7 J. Risk & Uncertainty 35 (1993). (Showing that "Mass shootings [and terrorism] are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events.") Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir. 2015).

 

[IrishJayhawk]

If the wrong person gets across that border with a chemical weapon, plants and animals won't be the only loss.

They won't be with climate change either.

 

[wizards8507]

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

For the sake of argument, let's say I concede every one of your points. I'll go all in and say climate change is real and man-made. None of that changes the fact that the specific proposals put forth by the United Nations, the European Union, or the Democrat Party would do absolutely nothing to combat it. Their goals are twofold; a domestic carbon tax to launder money through "green" Democrat donor fronts (i.e. Solyndra), and global wealth redistribution from the United States to international entities. Fighting climate change through a carbon tax is like fighting terrorism through gun contr... oh, wait. But that's the problem with progressives. They take a presumably noble goal and use it as a shield to mask their agenda. Then, when you call them out on their masked agenda, they accuse you of being anti-the-noble-goal. Think racial quotas are destructive? You must hate black people. Think people should be given the option to manage their own Social Security? You must want to kill grandparents. Think a carbon tax would crush economic growth and do nothing to save the planet? You must love dirty air and dirty water.

 

[IrishinSyria]

For the sake of argument, let's say I concede every one of your points. I'll go all in and say climate change is real and man-made. None of that changes the fact that the specific proposals put forth by the United Nations, the European Union, or the Democrat Party would do absolutely nothing to combat it. Their goals are twofold; a domestic carbon tax to launder money through "green" Democrat donor fronts (i.e. Solyndra), and global wealth redistribution from the United States to international entities. Fighting climate change through a carbon tax is like fighting terrorism through gun contr... oh, wait. But that's the problem with progressives. They take a presumably noble goal and use it as a shield to mask their agenda. Then, when you call them out on their masked agenda, they accuse you of being anti-the-noble-goal. Think racial quotas are destructive? You must hate black people. Think people should be given the option to manage their own Social Security? You must want to kill grandparents. Think a carbon tax would crush economic growth and do nothing to save the planet? You must love dirty air and dirty water.

I actually don't mind this debate. A carbon tax is an attempt to cut down on carbon emissions in a free market framework, but if you think it's a bad idea there are other proposals out there too. There's a robust discussion to be had on who (if anyone) should bear the burden of reducing emissions, how to best achieve that goal, and how to manage environmental and economic trade-offs. That discussion is largely not being had in the US because of denialism.

edit, part of the reason for denialism is that the issues to be worked through are complicated, and there's no objectively true values in doing the economic calculations. Easier to just deny the problem depending on how you view the economics of uncertainty and global cost.

Skolnikoff, The Policy Gridlock on Global Warming, 79 Foreign Policy 77 (1990).

 

[wizards8507]

I actually don't mind this debate. A carbon tax is an attempt to cut down on carbon emissions in a free market framework, but if you think it's a bad idea there are other proposals out there too. There's a robust discussion to be had on who (if anyone) should bear the burden of reducing emissions, how to best achieve that goal, and how to manage environmental and economic trade-offs. That discussion is largely not being had in the US because of denialism.

Marco Rubio in the second Republican debate:

Well, and I don’t — he may have lined up with their positions on this issue. But here is the bottom line. Every proposal they put forward are going to be proposals that will make it harder to do business in America, that will make it harder to create jobs in America.

Single parents are already struggling across this country to provide for their families. Maybe a billionaire here in California can afford an increase in their utility rates, but a working family in Tampa, Florida, or anywhere across this country cannot afford it.

So we are not going to destroy our economy. We are not going to make America a harder place to create jobs in order to pursue policies that will do absolutely nothing, nothing to change our climate, to change our weather, because America is a lot of things, the greatest country in the world, absolutely.

But America is not a planet. And we are not even the largest carbon producer anymore, China is. And they’re drilling a hole and digging anywhere in the world that they can get a hold of.

So the bottom line is, I am not in favor of any policies that make America a harder place for people to live, or to work, or to raise their families.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Marco Rubio in the second Republican debate:

Well, I mean obviously I disagree with virtually everything he said, but I can at least appreciate the honesty of a response that says, in essence, "fvck it, too hard" as opposed to one that amounts to inserting head in sand.

 

[Cackalacky]

For the sake of argument, let's say I concede every one of your points. I'll go all in and say climate change is real and man-made. None of that changes the fact that the specific proposals put forth by the United Nations, the European Union, or the Democrat Party would do absolutely nothing to combat it. Their goals are twofold; a domestic carbon tax to launder money through "green" Democrat donor fronts (i.e. Solyndra), and global wealth redistribution from the United States to international entities. Fighting climate change through a carbon tax is like fighting terrorism through gun contr... oh, wait. But that's the problem with progressives. They take a presumably noble goal and use it as a shield to mask their agenda. Then, when you call them out on their masked agenda, they accuse you of being anti-the-noble-goal. Think racial quotas are destructive? You must hate black people. Think people should be given the option to manage their own Social Security? You must want to kill grandparents. Think a carbon tax would crush economic growth and do nothing to save the planet? You must love dirty air and dirty water.

OH LOOK ITS WIZARDS WHO I HAVE PROVIDED THIS LINK TO SEVERAL TIMES AND CLEARLY STILL HAS NOT READ THROUGH IT YET...No one says any of those proposals are the solution, merely a step forward to curb our addiction to fossil fuels. Nothing will change until we move completely away for net positive carbon emissions and into tech that is more net negative or at least net neutral. Any proposals that do not decrease demand on fossil fuels and reverse the trend of emissions will accomplish nothing. So keep on with your pot shots and passive agressive posts which only further underscore your misunderstanding of the entire situation...

 

[RDU Irish]

Being right is rarely enough, Cack. You really think Americans are going to put down the Big Macs, McMansions and F-850 trucks to go live in tiny houses running on solar panels? It is completely unrealistic to think you will be able to regulate people out of their modern conveniences until WELL AFTER the negative climate effects have advanced beyond a significant pain point for everyone.

Meanwhile the other 95% of the global population expand their economies and consume fossil fuels to surpass the good ol' US of A.... Why don't we make Tom Brady throw with his left hand or make Labron play with ten pound shoes? Seems to me everyone but Tom and Labron would be for that.

Besides - if you are so damn sure about the whole thing I hope you rent in Charleston and own a bunker in the mountains. And make your "End is Near" sandwich board out of material that is buoyant.

 

[Cackalacky]

Being right is rarely enough, Cack. You really think Americans are going to put down the Big Macs, McMansions and F-850 trucks to go live in tiny houses running on solar panels? It is completely unrealistic to think you will be able to regulate people out of their modern conveniences until WELL AFTER the negative climate effects have advanced beyond a significant pain point for everyone.

Meanwhile the other 95% of the global population expand their economies and consume fossil fuels to surpass the good ol' US of A.... Why don't we make Tom Brady throw with his left hand or make Labron play with ten pound shoes? Seems to me everyone but Tom and Labron would be for that.

Besides - if you are so damn sure about the whole thing I hope you rent in Charleston and own a bunker in the mountains. And make your "End is Near" sandwich board out of material that is buoyant.

1. You are right. Facts are stubborn things but entrenched opinions, standard operating procedures, politics and money are far more stubborn.

2. Or we could create a whole new economy sector and put our able bodied tech savy population back to work and dominate the hell out of those savages?

3. I am soooo damn sure about it much like the military and space agencies of all the developed countries. I am enjoying it while I can and luckily I have property elsewhere, though I do not have a job lined up there yet.

 

[wizards8507]

OH LOOK ITS WIZARDS WHO I HAVE PROVIDED THIS LINK TO SEVERAL TIMES AND CLEARLY STILL HAS NOT READ THROUGH IT YET.

I read it probably a year ago when you posted it the first time.

No one says any of those proposals are the solution, merely a step forward to curb our addiction to fossil fuels. Nothing will change until we move completely away for net positive carbon emissions and into tech that is more net negative or at least net neutral. Any proposals that do not decrease demand on fossil fuels and reverse the trend of emissions will accomplish nothing. So keep on with your pot shots and passive agressive posts which only further underscore your misunderstanding of the entire situation...

Nothing will change regardless of whether we move to net neutral carbon processes. We could produce ZERO carbon next year and it won't do jack shit to reverse jack shit because China, India, and the Middle East are going to do whatever the hell they want. In the meantime, poor and working Americans are going to take it up the ass when their utility bills quadruple and their jobs are moved to China because we added another reason why America is the most expensive place in the world to do business.

 

[IrishinSyria]

1. You are right. Facts are stubborn things but entrenched opinions, standard operating procedures, politics and money are far more stubborn.

2. Or we could create a whole new economy sector and put our able bodied tech savy population back to work and dominate the hell out of those savages?

3. I am soooo damn sure about it much like the military and space agencies of all the developed countries. I am enjoying it while I can and luckily I have property elsewhere, though I do not have a job lined up there yet.

Buy property in Canada now. There's a reason they lead the world in carbon emissions per capita. (followed by the US and Russia... 3/5 countries with territory in the arctic circle. Coincidence?)

 

[Cackalacky]

I read it probably a year ago when you posted it the first time.


Nothing will change regardless of whether we move to net neutral carbon processes. We could produce ZERO carbon next year and it won't do jack shit to reverse jack shit because China, India, and the Middle East are going to do whatever the hell they want. In the meantime, poor and working Americans are going to take it up the ass when their utility bills quadruple and their jobs are moved to China because we added another reason why America is the most expensive place in the world to do business.

I would be shocked if you did because you keep posting the same talking points that have been thoroughly debunked time and again.
China and India are well aware of the damage it is doing to its population because f its pollution. Both are investing heavily in alternative forms of energy and they will beat us to that as well because we lack desire, will power, and the understanding to do so because of the thought processes and justifications bandied about and displayed by you and RDU just in the last two posts alone.

Imagine if we applied our cold war era politics and economic thinking to this problem.

 

[GoIrish41]

Marco Rubio in the second Republican debate:

There is a tremendous amount of opportunity in renewable energy. We, as a nation, have an opportunity to remake our crumbing electrical grid to support wind and solar power. Think of the millions of jobs that would create while fixing a truly vexing problem for this country. We can rebuild our manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs building wind turbines, solar panels, and conduits to carry the clean energy to where it needs to be. There would be numerous support industries that would grow up around that kind of investment and commitment.

We have an opportunity to be the world leader in electric car manufacturing that runs on this new sustainable energy capacity. I can envision a day when service stations are either fast charging battery operations or places to swap out spent batteries for freshly charged replacements. And speaking of that, whomever makes a truly efficient, safe and high performing battery with large storage capability has the ability to become insanely wealthy while fundamentally transforming the world.

Discussions at the Environmental Summit in Paris last week focused heavily on building third world infrastructure that skips the dirty phase of fossil fuel-based industrial development and leapfrogs directly to green energy. That is billions of dollars of development potential that is on the table around the world. Why not forcefully push ourselves into the position of world leader in renewable energy and seize that opportunity.

Carbon taxes are meant to discourage the use of fossil fuels, which is a market-based step in the right direction, but in the long term we have to stop using fossil fuels because they are destroying the planet. Rubio's comments at the debate demonstrate a lack of long term vision. His position lacks nuance and ignores the urgency of the long term problem for a short term status quo arrangement that keeps making that problem worse.

What we need is a leader who will push us toward a great national goal. The next president will have the opportunity to have a JFK moment when he proclaimed that we would put a man on the moon and set the government and the nation on course to meet that lofty goal. So, in short, Rubio is dead wrong. He views pushing away from the fossil fuels that are destroying the planet as an attack on our economy and fails to see the expansive opportunity that lies in front of us. His position appeals to people who are motivated by greed and/or partisan ideology.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

Being right is rarely enough, Cack. You really think Americans are going to put down the Big Macs, McMansions and F-850 trucks to go live in tiny houses running on solar panels? It is completely unrealistic to think you will be able to regulate people out of their modern conveniences until WELL AFTER the negative climate effects have advanced beyond a significant pain point for everyone.

Meanwhile the other 95% of the global population expand their economies and consume fossil fuels to surpass the good ol' US of A.... Why don't we make Tom Brady throw with his left hand or make Labron play with ten pound shoes? Seems to me everyone but Tom and Labron would be for that.

Besides - if you are so damn sure about the whole thing I hope you rent in Charleston and own a bunker in the mountains. And make your "End is Near" sandwich board out of material that is buoyant.

Labron? C'mon son

 

[wizards8507]

There is a tremendous amount of opportunity in renewable energy. We, as a nation, have an opportunity to remake our crumbing electrical grid to support wind and solar power. Think of the millions of jobs that would create while fixing a truly vexing problem for this country. We can rebuild our manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs building wind turbines, solar panels, and conduits to carry the clean energy to where it needs to be. There would be numerous support industries that would grow up around that kind of investment and commitment.

We have an opportunity to be the world leader in electric car manufacturing that runs on this new sustainable energy capacity. I can envision a day when service stations are either fast charging battery operations or places to swap out spent batteries for freshly charged replacements. And speaking of that, whomever makes a truly efficient, safe and high performing battery with large storage capability has the ability to become insanely wealthy while fundamentally transforming the world.

Discussions at the Environmental Summit in Paris last week focused heavily on building third world infrastructure that skips the dirty phase of fossil fuel-based industrial development and leapfrogs directly to green energy. That is billions of dollars of development potential that is on the table around the world. Why not forcefully push ourselves into the position of world leader in renewable energy and seize that opportunity.

Carbon taxes are meant to discourage the use of fossil fuels, which is a market-based step in the right direction, but in the long term we have to stop using fossil fuels because they are destroying the planet. Rubio's comments at the debate demonstrate a lack of vision and urgency. In the short run, perhaps he has a valid point, but his position lacks nuance and ignores the urgency of the long term problem for a short term status quo arrangement that keeps making that problem worse.

What we need is a leader who will push us toward a great national goal. The next president will have the opportunity to have a JFK moment when he proclaimed that we would put a man on the moon and set the government and the nation on course to meet that lofty goal. So, in short, Rubio is dead wrong. He views pushing away from the fossil fuels that are destroying the planet as an attack on our economy and fails to see the expansive opportunity that lies in front of us. His position lacks nuance and appeals to people who are motivated by greed and/or partisan ideology.

All fine points, but none of those have a damn thing to do with the federal government. If there's money to be made with electric cars or wind turbines or LED bulbs, then Ford and GE and Cree are going to explore them, risk their own capital, create a bunch of jobs, and reap huge profits. I have no problem with green tech. I do have a problem with taxpayer-funded green tech. If something needs government subsidies to stay afloat, it is unsustainable by definition. If green tech can be profitable and affordable, then I'm all for it. The market will ensure that it succeeds.

 

[Cackalacky]

All fine points, but none of those have a damn thing to do with the federal government. If there's money to be made with electric cars or wind turbines or LED bulbs, then Ford and GE and Cree are going to explore them, risk their own capital, create a bunch of jobs, and reap huge profits. I have no problem with green tech. I do have a problem with taxpayer-funded green tech. If something needs government subsidies to stay afloat, it is unsustainable by definition. If green tech can be profitable and affordable, then I'm all for it. The market will ensure that it succeeds.

Interesting point... so we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels all together, yes? Immediately? We don't want anything UNSUSTAINABLE to continue even though we are addicted to it like crack whores?

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF | Environment | The Guardian

US taxpayers subsidising world's biggest fossil fuel companies | Environment | The Guardian

Fossil fuel subsidies work against international efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels in order to control global warming.[12]

According to the OECD, subsidies supporting fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, represent greater threats to the environment than subsidies to renewable energy. Subsidies to nuclear power contribute to unique environmental and safety issues, related mostly to the risk of high-level environmental damage, although nuclear power contributes positively to the environment in the areas of air pollution and climate change. Subsidies to renewable energy are generally considered more environmentally beneficial, although the full range of environmental effects should to be taken into account.[13]

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.[14]

In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions.[15]

In February 2011 and January 2012 the UK Energy Fair group, supported by other organisations and environmentalists, lodged formal complaints with the European Union's Directorate General for Competition, alleging that the Government was providing unlawful State aid in the form of subsidies for nuclear power industry, in breach of European Union competition law.[16][17]

One of the largest subsidies is the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents which the nuclear power industry has negotiated with governments. “Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,” said Gerry Wolff, coordinator of the Energy Fair group. The group calculates that, "if nuclear operators were fully insured against the cost of nuclear disasters like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the price of nuclear electricity would rise by at least €0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as €2.36, depending on assumptions made".[18]

 

[GoIrish41]

All fine points, but none of those have a damn thing to do with the federal government. If there's money to be made with electric cars or wind turbines or LED bulbs, then Ford and GE and Cree are going to explore them, risk their own capital, create a bunch of jobs, and reap huge profits. I have no problem with green tech. I do have a problem with taxpayer-funded green tech. If something needs government subsidies to stay afloat, it is unsustainable by definition. If green tech can be profitable and affordable, then I'm all for it. The market will ensure that it succeeds.

Perhaps you haven't heard ... the earth being destroyed by fossil fuels. The narrow view about market based solutions ignores the urgency of the situation. Every decision we make cannot be based on greed. Massive government investment -- like in the U.S. space program in the 1960s -- is the only way to push the culture to an expansion of green tech that will save the planet for humanity. And that investment needs to be made by all of the most powerful and wealthy countries in the world. You are worried that your taxes will go up while people who live on the East Coast are wondering how long until their towns are swallowed by the Atlantic Ocean You are worried about profitability while the prospect of droughts and famine will cause starvation for millions of people around the world. We either get out in front of this, or the world changes dramatically for the worse. This isn't a political debate, it is the reality of what we are facing as the human race. I'm not sure you understand the nature of the problem. Your post above suggests you do not.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I am all for carbon limits so long as it is equal footing in all countries around the world.

Many people in the country bemoan the fact that corporations are taking manufacturing jobs and moving them abroad. Manufacturing is shrinking in this country, and while some natural churn is positive for the long-term economy, the presence of a reliable and stable manufacturing footprint is important on multiple levels. Acting unilaterally or even jointly with the EU or other developed nations will only make energy costs another hurdle to overcome. We simply cannot compete with the deck stacked against us.

You want to fight inequality, both domestically and internationally? Create a level playing field on energy. You want to fight climate change? Create a level playing field on energy.

This isn't a US problem to solve, it's a worldwide problem. Sure, we can steps to lead the effort. But unless those developing countries take bigger steps than we do, all we are doing is giving companies one more reason to look beyond our shores for production.

 

[wizards8507]

Interesting point... so we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels all together, yes? Immediately?

Absolutely.

 

[GoIrish41]

Lets not let Mr. Trump's latest bigoted blowhardery go unmentioned ...

Donald Trump Calls For 'Complete Shutdown' Of Muslims Entering U.S.

 

[wizards8507]

Lets not let Mr. Trump's latest bigoted blowhardery go unmentioned ...

Donald Trump Calls For 'Complete Shutdown' Of Muslims Entering U.S.

I think he's doing it on purpose at this point. He can't possibly actually want to be President.

ETA: But I think he's inadvertently teaching Republican candidates a lesson. You don't have to be a coward to the media and political correctness to be successful.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think he's doing it on purpose at this point. He can't possibly actually want to be President.

When he made these comments, he said them to rousing cheers. A week ago, people were defending Trump when Kasich's ad appeared to compare him to Hitler, and this week, he demonstrates that the comparison was dead on ... and he did so to thunderous applause.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again ... It is not Trump that bothers me so much as the voters who are supporting him. He's just one outspoken idiot who has no shot at being president (but he could well be the Republican nominee). What are all of his supporters going to do with their anger and bigotry when he gets beat in a landslide? My guess is that they become angrier and more bigoted. All of this will happen as the "Black Lives Matter" campaign continues to gain steam, and equally hateful rhetoric from radical jihadists continues to fill our consciousness. Trump is an obscene human being who is whipping up some really ignorant people into a frenzy. They aren't just going to shrug their shoulders and walk away when Trump loses. I fear something bad is going to happen in this country.

 

[wizards8507]

When he made these comments, he said them to rousing cheers. A week ago, people were defending Trump when Kasich's ad appeared to compare him to Hitler, and this week, he demonstrates that the comparison was dead on ... and he did so to thunderous applause.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again ... It is not Trump that bothers me so much as the voters who are supporting him. He's just one outspoken idiot who has no shot at being president (but he could well be the Republican nominee). What are all of his supporters going to do with their anger and bigotry when he gets beat in a landslide? My guess is that they become angrier and more bigoted. All of this will happen as the "Black Lives Matter" campaign continues to gain steam, and equally hateful rhetoric from radical jihadists continues to fill our consciousness. Trump is an obscene human being who is whipping up some really ignorant people into a frenzy. They aren't just going to shrug their shoulders and walk away when Trump loses. I fear something bad is going to happen in this country.

Holy shit man, read a history book. FDR, Democrat and progressive hero, refused Jewish refugees during World War 2. The Obama administration isn't allowing Christian refugees from Syria TODAY.

No room in America for Christian refugees | TheHill

 

[pkt77242]

Holy shit man, read a history book. FDR, Democrat and progressive hero, refused Jewish refugees during World War 2. The Obama administration isn't allowing Christian refugees from Syria TODAY.

No room in America for Christian refugees | TheHill

Not really accurate.

Facts about the Syrian Refugees

 

[GoIrish41]

Holy shit man, read a history book. FDR, Democrat and progressive hero, refused Jewish refugees during World War 2. The Obama administration isn't allowing Christian refugees from Syria TODAY.

No room in America for Christian refugees | TheHill

Refusing Jewish refugees is an acknowledged and terrible blemish on FDR's record and American history. It's a mistake that we learned from -- or at least should have learned from. What Trump is advocating is something completely different and much worse -- denying any Muslim, based on their religious beliefs, access into the county, even if they are citizens traveling abroad. That is the sort of treatment that the Jews got in 1930s Germany before syphilis ravaged Hitler's brain and he went completely off the rails of humanity. What is it you expect me to read in a history book that refutes that what Trump is proposing is going down a very dark path, just like some evil motherf*ckers before him?

 

[wizards8507]

Refusing Jewish refugees is an acknowledged and terrible blemish on FDR's record and American history. It's a mistake that we learned from -- or at least should have learned from. What Trump is advocating is something completely different and much worse -- denying any Muslim, based on their religious beliefs, access into the county, even if they are citizens traveling abroad. That is the sort of treatment that the Jews got in 1930s Germany before syphilis ravaged Hitler's brain and he went completely off the rails of humanity. What is it you expect me to read in a history book that refutes that what Trump is proposing is going down a very dark path, just like some evil motherf*ckers before him?

I said the same thing when I attacked the Kaich ad. I think Trump is an idiot, but that doesn't mean we start throwing "Nazi" around.

 

[GoIrish41]

I said the same thing when I attacked the Kaich ad. I think Trump is an idiot, but that doesn't mean we start throwing "Nazi" around.

It's pretty difficult for him or anyone to be offended by the Nazi characterization when, within a week, he plucks a page out of the Hitler playbook. I didn't like the Kasich ad either, but his rhetoric is giving the concept credibility.

 

[wizards8507]

It's pretty difficult for him or anyone to be offended by the Nazi characterization when, within a week, he plucks a page out of the Hitler playbook. I didn't like the Kasich ad either, but his rhetoric is giving the concept credibility.

Except that Jews weren't waging a global jihad against the western world. Minor difference.

 

[FearTheBeard]

When he made these comments, he said them to rousing cheers. A week ago, people were defending Trump when Kasich's ad appeared to compare him to Hitler, and this week, he demonstrates that the comparison was dead on ... and he did so to thunderous applause.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again ... It is not Trump that bothers me so much as the voters who are supporting him. He's just one outspoken idiot who has no shot at being president (but he could well be the Republican nominee). What are all of his supporters going to do with their anger and bigotry when he gets beat in a landslide? My guess is that they become angrier and more bigoted. All of this will happen as the "Black Lives Matter" campaign continues to gain steam, and equally hateful rhetoric from radical jihadists continues to fill our consciousness. Trump is an obscene human being who is whipping up some really ignorant people into a frenzy. They aren't just going to shrug their shoulders and walk away when Trump loses. I fear something bad is going to happen in this country.

Its crazy to think about. I don't understand what Trump is doing, idk if he wants to be president or not but surely he knows he's not gonna be able to win the general election with the crazy shit he is saying. Part of me thinks he's bored and has nothing better to do than mess with the election and stir up a bunch of shit. He's got plenty of money, is he just being an attention whore now?