The Ivytalk / Chizzang: Trump Takes the Gold thread

[Skjellyfetti]

The RNC can't prevent it.

The DNC can - that's what their superdelegate system was designed for. Sanders does not now nor has he ever had a chance.

Clinton would have won the nomination in 2008 if that was the case.

If no superdelegates switched to Obama as the primaries went on, he wouldn't have won.

Hillary Clinton is starting to lose her overwhelming lead in superdelegates, the Democratic party officials whose votes she is counting on to help her close the gap with Barack Obama. He has received a steady flow of backers in recent days while building a streak of 11 straight primary victories. After once leading Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio in the superdelegate chase, Clinton now has 241 to his 181, according to the latest Associated Press tally.

Most unnerving for Clinton is the trickle of superdelegates who have defected from her corner to Obama's. The shift comes as she failed to deliver a telling blow on him in their penultimate TV debate before the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/f ... arackobama

Obama didn't overtake her in superdelegates until May 2008.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... e-1.327503


Obama has wider appeal and was doing better in the primaries by this stage. But, if Bernie was racking up states and uncommitted delegates, the superdelegates would begin switching.

Bernie doesn't have a great chance, but it's not because of superdelegates.

[YoUDeeMan]

We?

JFC, Chris...don't we have some damned 'Merican ID needed to get onto this site?

Pretty soon CS.com will have bi-lingual headers.



Now, to address your actual post:

1) Do you support the way we've allowed +20MM illegal immigrants to come into this country in the past few decades?

If yes, then that pretty much ends any rational discussion.

If no, then we can go to question #2.

2) Do you believe we should monitor our borders to reduce the number of illegal immigrants coming into our country?

If no, then we can end the discussion.

If yes, then we can continue to question #3.

3) Do you believe that we should allow illegal immigrants to continue coming into our country through our open borders?

If yes, then we can end this discussion.

If no, then we can go to question #4.

4) Do you believe a wall would reduce the number of illegal immigrants coming into this country?

If yes, or no, then we can go to questions #5 and #6.

5 and 6) If a wall can reduce the number of immigrants, then why not build it? If it won't reduce the number of immigrants, then please explain why you believe it would not reduce the number of immigrants.

7) Why would Team Brown want to continue the unfettered flow of illegal immigrants over the Mexican border?

8) Would Team Brown support 20MM immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean that would reduce the power of Team Brown's political and economic power?

9) Would Team Brown support 20MM immigrants from Asia that would change similarly reduce Team Brown's clout?

10) Is Team Brown just another race based group that wants power?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You're around the bend, Cluck. You're probably fapping furiously to a picture of Ann Coulter right now.

Who is Ann Coulter?

And what are your answers to the questions above?

[YoUDeeMan]

Cluck,
While I would probably match all the answers to those questions with yours, the one thing you missed is:

Is illegal immigration a problem, and if so, how big of a problem?

In other words, you don't build an entirely new bridge just because the existing one has a little bit of rust on it.

I don't know the answer to that and would like SDHornet's take on that question. I have not been directly affected by illegal immigration. If I have been, maybe it was in a positive way in that my golf club dues were cheaper because the maintenance costs are lower, or maybe my burrito didn't cost as much as it would have if we had $15.00 minimum wages. I admit that, at most, I have been indirectly affected, but I'm not sure if it was positive or negative.

(Of course, when it comes to safety and security, that's a different animal. Illegal or not, we cannot live in a society where the government cannot identify it's citizens.)

No one wants to really talk about the impact of illegal immigrants...at least not honestly.

So, let's be honest in an intellectual way.

If unlimited immigration is good, then why do we bother to have an immigration system? Why not open up the borders entirely and let everyone in?

E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E.

If 20MM illegal immigrants isn't a problem, then when does it become a problem? If there is a tipping point, how do you limit the number of immigrants? Ask nicely...uh, we're full, can you come back later?

If unlimited immigration isn't a problem, then why not invite EVERYONE to come to 'Merica? Heck, we should build the largest ships possible to bring people in from every point on the globe.

As far as immigration not having an impact on you...you are incorrect. More people = higher land prices, more pollution, more need for resources for those people, more people that suck off benefits (medical, educational - don't get me started on the educational costs...it gets ridiculous...and the list doesn't stop there) who do not pay taxes. And yes, crime.

Heck, if illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, yet they can receive medical care, then why the hell should anyone have to pay taxes and health insurance?

Those who say walls won't work are simply lying. They will significantly reduce illegal immigration. Walls work. One simply needs the will to build a wall.

[CID1990]

The RNC can't prevent it.

The DNC can - that's what their superdelegate system was designed for. Sanders does not now nor has he ever had a chance.

Clinton would have won the nomination in 2008 if that was the case.

If no superdelegates switched to Obama as the primaries went on, he wouldn't have won.

Hillary Clinton is starting to lose her overwhelming lead in superdelegates, the Democratic party officials whose votes she is counting on to help her close the gap with Barack Obama. He has received a steady flow of backers in recent days while building a streak of 11 straight primary victories. After once leading Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio in the superdelegate chase, Clinton now has 241 to his 181, according to the latest Associated Press tally.

Most unnerving for Clinton is the trickle of superdelegates who have defected from her corner to Obama's. The shift comes as she failed to deliver a telling blow on him in their penultimate TV debate before the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/f ... arackobama

Obama didn't overtake her in superdelegates until May 2008.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... e-1.327503


Obama has wider appeal and was doing better in the primaries by this stage. But, if Bernie was racking up states and uncommitted delegates, the superdelegates would begin switching.

Bernie doesn't have a great chance, but it's not because of superdelegates.

Yes, SK you have said this before - right around the same time you claimed Obama wasn't a mainstream Dem candidate

The superdelegate system exists solely to prevent a Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination over someone like Clinton who can supposedly out perform him in the general

superdelegates will not move away from Hillary in this primary because Sanders is unelectable - Obama was not

[BDKJMU]

The RNC can't prevent it.

The DNC can - that's what their superdelegate system was designed for. Sanders does not now nor has he ever had a chance.

Clinton would have won the nomination in 2008 if that was the case.

If no superdelegates switched to Obama as the primaries went on, he wouldn't have won.

Hillary Clinton is starting to lose her overwhelming lead in superdelegates, the Democratic party officials whose votes she is counting on to help her close the gap with Barack Obama. He has received a steady flow of backers in recent days while building a streak of 11 straight primary victories. After once leading Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio in the superdelegate chase, Clinton now has 241 to his 181, according to the latest Associated Press tally.

Most unnerving for Clinton is the trickle of superdelegates who have defected from her corner to Obama's. The shift comes as she failed to deliver a telling blow on him in their penultimate TV debate before the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/f ... arackobama

Obama didn't overtake her in superdelegates until May 2008.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... e-1.327503


Obama has wider appeal and was doing better in the primaries by this stage. But, if Bernie was racking up states and uncommitted delegates, the superdelegates would begin switching.

Bernie doesn't have a great chance, but it's not because of superdelegates.

Bottom line is in 2008 Obama still won more pledged (state caucus & primary delegates) than Clinton. The super delegates didn't change the outcome of the election..

[BDKJMU]

GD double post....

[Skjellyfetti]

Bottom line is in 2008 Obama still won more pledged (state caucus & primary delegates) than Clinton. The super delegates didn't change the outcome of the election..

Exactly. That is my point.

If the superdelegates stayed with Clinton... she would have won. As Obama built a lead with pledged delegates, they switched to Obama.

Yes, SK you have said this before - right around the same time you claimed Obama wasn't a mainstream Dem candidate

I said he wasn't the establishment candidate. See Clinton's early delegate lead and support of the party structure in 2008 again if you're doubting that. Or should I repost it for you yet again?

superdelegates will not move away from Hillary in this primary because Sanders is unelectable - Obama was not

Exactly. Bernie will likely lose because he can't win enough states and get enough pledged delegates. NOT because of some "superdelegate" lead. If he could win more pledged delegates than Clinton, the superdelegates would follow. The superdelegates will have 0 effect on his losing.

The superdelegate system exists solely to prevent a Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination over someone like Clinton who can supposedly out perform him in the general

Superdelegates are there for another reason... that a lot of people are missing. Say, for example, Hillary is indicted (and, the emails released by the State Department make it pretty clear that she should be).

[CID1990]

Bottom line is in 2008 Obama still won more pledged (state caucus & primary delegates) than Clinton. The super delegates didn't change the outcome of the election..

Exactly. That is my point.

If the superdelegates stayed with Clinton... she would have won. As Obama built a lead with pledged delegates, they switched to Obama.

Yes, SK you have said this before - right around the same time you claimed Obama wasn't a mainstream Dem candidate

I said he wasn't the establishment candidate. See Clinton's early delegate lead and support of the party structure in 2008 again if you're doubting that. Or should I repost it for you yet again?

superdelegates will not move away from Hillary in this primary because Sanders is unelectable - Obama was not

Exactly. Bernie will likely lose because he can't win enough states and get enough pledged delegates. NOT because of some "superdelegate" lead. If he could win more pledged delegates than Clinton, the superdelegates would follow. The superdelegates will have 0 effect on his losing.

The superdelegate system exists solely to prevent a Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination over someone like Clinton who can supposedly out perform him in the general

Superdelegates are there for another reason... that a lot of people are missing. Say, for example, Hillary is indicted (and, the emails released by the State Department make it pretty clear that she should be).

You're obviously sensitive about this subject - so much as to suggest that the superdelegate system also has the purpose of bailing out the DNC just in case that their candidate meets with legal trouble?

And you're splitting hairs between the words mainstream and establishment when they mean the same thing in the context I was speaking on?

I think you might want to sit down, get a cool moist towel and fan yourself

The superdelegates are specifically to
prevent a fringe candidate like Bernie Sanders from getting elected. You can obfuscate about it all you want, but the bottom line is that at least in this one aspect, the DNC is less democratic than the RNC.

[Ivytalk]

You're around the bend, Cluck. You're probably fapping furiously to a picture of Ann Coulter right now.

Who is Ann Coulter?

And what are your answers to the questions above?

Don't be disingenuous: you know exactly who Coulter is. You've swallowed her Kool-Aid that illegal immigration is the most pressing issue facing this country. It isn't: a stagnant economy is.

[CAA Flagship]

Who is Ann Coulter?

And what are your answers to the questions above?

Don't be disingenuous: you know exactly who Coulter is. You've swallowed her Kool-Aid that illegal immigration is the most pressing issue facing this country. It isn't: a stagnant economy is.

Economy and Security should always be the top 2 issues of this country. And #3 ain't even close.

[kalm]

Don't be disingenuous: you know exactly who Coulter is. You've swallowed her Kool-Aid that illegal immigration is the most pressing issue facing this country. It isn't: a stagnant economy is.

Economy and Security should always be the top 2 issues of this country. And #3 ain't even close.

True, but isn't immigration a rather important part of both?

[CAA Flagship]

Economy and Security should always be the top 2 issues of this country. And #3 ain't even close.

True, but isn't immigration a rather important part of both?

"Part" is the key word. Meaning it is less than 100%.
"Important"? Not sure how much. But not as important as regulation, taxation, trade, etc.

[Ibanez]

Who is Ann Coulter?

And what are your answers to the questions above?

Don't be disingenuous: you know exactly who Coulter is. You've swallowed her Kool-Aid that illegal immigration is the most pressing issue facing this country. It isn't: a stagnant economy is.

Boom!

[Ibanez]

I'm watching Trump in Huntsville and he is a showman. Struts in with Sweet Home Alabama playing, says he'll cut govt programs but not NASA, etc... He's something to watch, it's interesting.

[Ibanez]

Now he has Sen. Sessions speaking for him. That's an endorsement (does it have any weight?)

[Ibanez]

Now it appears the Black Lives Matter are trying to interrupt them. He simply says, "All Lives Matter."

Says 32-35k people in attendance. Holy shit. Can anyone verify that number?

[Ibanez]

30 mintutes into his speech and I still have no idea about his platform. Just that his opponents are weak and he buys 1000s of TVs.

[SDHornet]

Huh?

Clearly you didn't see Arraras shatter (and pretty much say verbatim what I pointed out to you and duncedog about that poll) that misnomer during the debate last night.

Knew it all the time. Just wanted to hear it from a real latino...

So you buy into the same philosophy that Rump employs, and that is the "if I say it enough times, it must be true" narrative.

[SDHornet]

The wall?
That ain't getting built, and even if it did we would just tunnel under it...hell we already tunnel under it.

Trump tries to take credit for bringing immigration into the forefront of the election, problem is it is always brought to the forefront of the election every 4 years...and just as always nothing will be done about immigration because both sides need it, and a business guy like Trump especially understands why he needs it.

I do like your hopey changey thingey you think Trump will bring. It's kinda cute. The GOP imploded long ago, conks just don't know it or don't want to recognize it. And yes, the donk establishment needs to get blown up, but they kinda already got out in front of that issue with the whole super delegate structure. Carry on...

We?

JFC, Chris...don't we have some damned 'Merican ID needed to get onto this site?

Pretty soon CS.com will have bi-lingual headers.



Now, to address your actual post:

1) Do you support the way we've allowed +20MM illegal immigrants to come into this country in the past few decades?

If yes, then that pretty much ends any rational discussion.

If no, then we can go to question #2.

2) Do you believe we should monitor our borders to reduce the number of illegal immigrants coming into our country?

If no, then we can end the discussion.

If yes, then we can continue to question #3.

3) Do you believe that we should allow illegal immigrants to continue coming into our country through our open borders?

If yes, then we can end this discussion.

If no, then we can go to question #4.

4) Do you believe a wall would reduce the number of illegal immigrants coming into this country?

If yes, or no, then we can go to questions #5 and #6.

5 and 6) If a wall can reduce the number of immigrants, then why not build it? If it won't reduce the number of immigrants, then please explain why you believe it would not reduce the number of immigrants.

7) Why would Team Brown want to continue the unfettered flow of illegal immigrants over the Mexican border?

8) Would Team Brown support 20MM immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean that would reduce the power of Team Brown's political and economic power?

9) Would Team Brown support 20MM immigrants from Asia that would change similarly reduce Team Brown's clout?

10) Is Team Brown just another race based group that wants power?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I've been pretty clear on my stance on illegal immigration over the years on this board. So I'll chalk questions 1 thru 9 as being stupid questions.

Actually question 10 is stupid as well. That answer is yes, mainly because the political system (on both sides) is set up to pander to us WRT the illegal immigration issue. Again, notice how nothing is done to fix immigration by either side regardless of who controls Congress. Immigration is only important once every 4 years to muster up excitement within the Brown vote.

With that in mind, maybe you can understand why I am not the least bit worried about a wall getting built. Hell an easier solution to the illegal immigration issue is to just fine and jail employers that hire them...but conks and donks would never push towards such a simple and common sense solution because...wait for it..both conks and donk need the issue of illegal immigration to be a relevant issue among the Brown voting base.

[SDHornet]

You're around the bend, Cluck. You're probably fapping furiously to a picture of Ann Coulter right now.

The cuck just doesn't seem able to wrap his head around the fact that illegals are here because the powers that be want them here. Keeps wages down.

Fine and jail employers that use illegal labor and illegal immigration is reduced to a trickle shortly thereafter.

[SDHornet]

I support Trump over all. Because I want the current system to be exposed as a complete fabrication. And Trump vs Sanders accomplishes this, which is why the RNC and DNC are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it.

The RNC can't prevent it.

The DNC can - that's what their superdelegate system was designed for. Sanders does not now nor has he ever had a chance.

[BDKJMU]

The RNC can't prevent it.

The DNC can - that's what their superdelegate system was designed for. Sanders does not now nor has he ever had a chance.

No, if Sanders was going to win a majority of the pledged (state caucus & primary) delegates he would be the nominee. Like I've said several times before, the DNC wouldn't let the Super delegates commit political suicide by overturning that & enraging a plurality of their base to the point that a large chunk of them would refuse to turn out on election day.. But its a moot point, because Bernie isn't going to win a majority of the pledged delegates. IF he sticks in it all the way he might get 40%.

Barring an election year May-Aug indictment or sudden major health care issue, whoever wins the most pledged delegates will always win the nomination at the late summer convention, regardless of the Superdelegates.

[SDHornet]

No, if Sanders was going to win a majority of the pledged (state caucus & primary) delegates he would be the nominee. Like I've said several times before, the DNC wouldn't let the Super delegates commit political suicide by overturning that & enraging a plurality of their base to the point that a large chunk of them would refuse to turn out on election day.. But its a moot point, because Bernie isn't going to win a majority of the pledged delegates. IF he sticks in it all the way he might get 40%.

Barring an election year May-Aug indictment or sudden major health care issue, whoever wins the most pledged delegates will always win the nomination at the late summer convention, regardless of the Superdelegates.

Yes I read it the first time, however I agree with Cid. The DNC will absolutely not allow Sanders to be the nominee, and they have such a system set up where they built themselves an easy out.

Besides, bernie ain't gonna beat hilldog anyways. If the rest of Team Black votes like SC just did, bernie is going to get completely pwned. Amazing they are turning down the guy who is offering even more free shit. This election cycle truly is amazing.

[houndawg]

The cuck just doesn't seem able to wrap his head around the fact that illegals are here because the powers that be want them here. Keeps wages down.

Fine and jail employers that use illegal labor and illegal immigration is reduced to a trickle shortly thereafter.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm watching Trump in Huntsville and he is a showman. Struts in with Sweet Home Alabama playing, says he'll cut govt programs but not NASA, etc... He's something to watch, it's interesting.

Oooo another thing he won't cut!

So, 9.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts.

Won't touch social security. Won't touch Social Security. Won't touch Medicare.

And, also promises to increase military spending.

Whew!