/baw/ - General Discussion

//youtube.com/watch?v=NnaezrzQr70

>>404541

I don’t agree with a lot of the things Dawkins has said and done in the past few years, and even I’m not jumping up and down about him having a stroke. Th’fuck is wrong with you.

>>404546
It's an obvious troll post.

//youtube.com/watch?v=yO4nGExCFDc

//youtube.com/watch?v=gmFsf4AcFTY

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, SAM B IS EVEN MORE VICIOUS THAN OLIVER!

No accusations of being Hilary's pocket like Noah when you scream "FUCK OFF!" at her, holy shit.

>>404548

She should’ve been Jon Stewart’s replacement, goddammit.

>>404551
Considering her show draws a full million and a half more viewers than The new, toothless Daily Show? Comedy Central is kicking themselves for not doing just that.

>>404552
>>404551
>>404548
Wow. I heard she was killing it, but this is the first time I've sat down and watched clips. I feel like I actually need to start watching regularly after that.

>>404553
You can hear the bile she has for Hillary's "vote with your vagina for a vagina" politics, and she was the only one to call out Rubio's asinine "Delivery day abortions" AKA a Cesarean section.

I like Trevor Noah.

>>404555
So do I, but it's clear he can't get Hillary's tit out of his mouth due to company fuckery.

So Hillary pulls the Super Delegate game and Bernie gets it stolen from him. Whats the reaction given his support is Millennials?

>>404558
I strongly doubt it'll happen. Bernie winning is still a long shot, but if he clearly has the People's support, the Superdelegates aren't going to overrule that. If it's 51%/49%, they might, but they're going to switch sides if the tides have clearly turned in Bernie's favor.

>>404559
I hope but both establishments are doing all they can to make sure their bases don't run off. Personally I'd like both to fail at that and leave them in the wind all the way to the election.

//youtube.com/watch?v=whnvOdHkFNI

//youtube.com/watch?v=s5y70oKbAKY

My two favorite segments from last night.

>>404568
Also furthermore, Europe had a system for resettling Syrian migrants for the first year of the conflict, and it worked just fine.

It didn't stop working until retarded amounts of non-Syrians started applying on the same visa basis.

The Kosovo, Albania and Serbia sections are all actually Albanians. If it's put together you can see Albanians alone outnumber Syrians three times over, despite there being no fucking war in Albania since WWII.

>>404568
Oh you and your cute little charts

I'm mostly curious as to why he thinks the CIA wants to bring refugees in.

>>404571
The CIA are just a front organization for the lizard people, obviously.

>>404571
>refugees
Oh you and your cute not reading.

>>404570
Oh you and your cute pulling shit out of your ass and not supporting it with evidence.

>>404573
And your cute strawmen.

>>404574
Dude like, nobody buys what you're selling, I don't really understand what you even think you're achieving with this weird grandstanding.

>>404576
Dude like, uh, soooo valley!

>>404574
>Doesn't believe in the lizard man conspiracy despite all the evidence I've provided.

Bruh.

>>404579
Post more altered info graphics, he'll be convinced soon enough.

>>404580
>altered
Post the original, which you must have seen to make such an accusation.

>>404581
The original one about the lizard people you mean?

>>404583
Are you on drugs? Where's the original image for this >>404568 , which you claim to be modified.

So why do minority voters support Hillary? like what has she done in comparison to other candidates for them?

>>404589
Bernie's nice voting track record is great and all but you don't put a a soup kitchen attendant at the helm of a battleship and you don't put a socialist at the head of a global superpower.

>>404591

Maybe we shouldn't be a superpower any more.

>>404592
Man, that would be wonderful. We could cut our defense budget by like 75%, reduce spying operations, probably get a lot less terrorism, and maybe people in foreign countries would stop hating us so much.

>>404591
Wait what? what does that have to do with Hillary's minority majority?

>>404589
Hillary is spending a ridiculous amount on propaganda among minorities, and she's the favored candidate by the mainstream Democratic party, which is also putting out propaganda for her.
Most minorities are working class, they don't have time to absorb Bernie memes on twitter, they get their news from mainstream media sources like CNN. Which favored Hillary for most of the programming.

>>404591
>don't put a a soup kitchen attendant at the helm of a battleship
Exactly! We put an incompetent bitchy cat lady at the helm of a battleship. 'Murka!

>>404594
I think this guy is schizophrenic.
People write one thing in their posts but the voices in his head interpret it as something completely different.

Hillary's "minority majority" mostly comes from the fact that--whether or not it's true--Bill Clinton is still seen as having done a lot to make the lives of minorities better, and people tend to associate a Hillary Clinton presidency with a second Bill Clinton presidency. Also, she's seen as being Obama's chosen heir. Add in to that all the stuff that makes her popular in general, like name recognition and recent national executive experience and it makes a big difference.

I still personally believe a lot of this has to do with Bernie not being well known enough, and the increased exposure he's getting form his win in New Hampshire (and hopefully his performance in Nevada on Saturday) will get more people aware of him, and of his history in the civil rights movement.

But Bernie's got another problem as far as making inroads with minorities goes--he sees a lot of issues of civil rights as being built on a foundation of economic oppression, and therefore feels that implementing his economic agenda will do more to combat systemic racism and the like than Hilary's policies. Personally, I agree (economic oppression is a HUGE catalyst for all other forms of oppression), but it isn't always inherently obvious to the public that giving people increased control over their lives in the form of economic opportunity will reduce the power of oppressors to bully minorities. And this makes him less popular than he could be because it comes off as tone deaf if he argues economic solutions to things that are perceived as purely social problems.

>>404596
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.

>>404596

>But Bernie's got another problem as far as making inroads with minorities goes--he sees a lot of issues of civil rights as being built on a foundation of economic oppression, and therefore feels that implementing his economic agenda will do more to combat systemic racism and the like than Hilary's policies. Personally, I agree (economic oppression is a HUGE catalyst for all other forms of oppression), but it isn't always inherently obvious to the public that giving people increased control over their lives in the form of economic opportunity will reduce the power of oppressors to bully minorities. And this makes him less popular than he could be because it comes off as tone deaf if he argues economic solutions to things that are perceived as purely social problems.

It goes to more than tone. Race is arguably an economic sub-class. A poor white person in the U.S. doesn't suffer the economic and social disadvantages an equally poor black person does; a rich black man is still subject to racism. While serious social democracy (free healthcare and education, living wage, and more radical measures like guaranteed housing and income) would alleviate many ills that spring from or are exacerbated by race, without a plan of racial justice he's at best addressing symptoms. Not that Hillary would be any better, but she has the "cool by association" from Bill thing you mentioned.

That and Bernie's support of Israel, U.S. bombing of Yugoslavia, and (despite voting against them initially) financing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq undermine his credibility with opponents of imperialism. (Of course, Hillary is worse in that regard.)

>>404599
>A poor white person in the U.S. doesn't suffer the economic and social disadvantages an equally poor black person does
Oh, I agree, but increasing the economic independence of more black people means more black people empowered to acquire positions of political sway. Increased economic power for black people means more of them can afford to be politicians, or to pursue the arts and thereby directly influence culture. Social stuff is important too, but personally I think that trying to litigate social issues is not an effective way to deal with them, whereas slower, more subtle shifts of culture (which can be brought about through granting economic incentives and independence) will do more to fix those social issues than telling pig-headed people to stop being pig-headed.

Like a lot of white people are nervous when approached by black people in the street. That's not something that can be litigated away, but if black people are everywhere in our culture, and not relegated to the bottom due to economic oppression, they become less "other" and that increases acceptance even by people who might otherwise be racists. A lot of racism happening in 2016 isn't racism that comes from people who *think* of themselves as seeing one race as superior to another, but from people who unconsciously give in to cultural conditioning and expect "normalcy" to be equated with whiteness, due in large part to economic factors placing whites at the top of most companies' chains of command and in the forefront of most media.

Just giving black people in poor communities money would never fly in the current cultural climate, but making poverty less of a barrier to success accomplishes much the same thing--black people coming from poor inner-city communities are then much more easily able to pursue higher education and have more paths out of desperate home environments than just rap and sports. It doesn't solve 100% of the problem, and I would never suggest it's the only thing that needs to be addressed to solve our problems with racism, but I think it's a much bigger influence on systemic racism than mere intuition would suggest.

>>404594
>Exactly! We put an incompetent bitchy cat lady at the helm of a battleship. 'Murka!
Ah, angry, misogynistic Bernie Sanders supporters. I assumed they were a joke cause, yeah, but apparently...

>>404592
It doesn't work that way and you goddamn know it you Communist fuck.

>>404600


>slower, more subtle shifts of culture

The counter argument I would levy is that justice delayed is justice denied, and we've had more than four hundred years of delayed justice in this nation. Incremental change ignores the severity of the evil this nation has continuously committed.

>>404601

Britannia no longer rules the waves. South Africa no longer has nukes. We don't have to rule half the world. Of course, if we stopped another country would fill the void as long as the current global dynamic persists. But we might enjoy a couple of generations of pleasant social democracy and no war until we fall under the next superpower's sway or some disaster like global warming destroys civilization as we know it.

>>404602
>The counter argument I would levy is that justice delayed is justice denied, and we've had more than four hundred years of delayed justice in this nation. Incremental change ignores the severity of the evil this nation has continuously committed.

I'm not saying "delay making changes." I'm saying that rapid change doesn't, as a rule, happen, and even when it does, it doesn't have the effect you want it to. Making slow but steady progress, over time, has much larger--and much longer lasting--effect than attempting to force a revolution that people will fight back against. And that you're not going to succeed *at all* in the rapid changes you want to make, because people are naturally resistant to change, especially when the majority will see no benefit from it.

Slow changes and hard work might not be fun, but they have the advantage over other methods in that they actually work.

>>404602
>Britannia no longer rules the waves. South Africa no longer has nukes. We don't have to rule half the world. Of course, if we stopped another country would fill the void as long as the current global dynamic persists. But we might enjoy a couple of generations of pleasant social democracy and no war until we fall under the next superpower's sway or some disaster like global warming destroys civilization as we know it.
A single polar world isn't possible, stability is only possible with multiple major powers working in concert (if not truly cooperating). I don't want us to continue being the overwhelming bulk of force for the Allies in all conflicts because it lets (for example) the French kick back essentially on our time, but by nature of being the largest and most productive we will always be at least a First Among Equals kind of deal in the Western Bloc.

>>404604
Meh. Let China do it. Or India. They're bigger and more productive than us anyway.

>>404604
>A single polar world isn't possible, stability is only possible with multiple major powers working in concert

Putin knows that and has tried for years to get Obama to play ball and he won't.

>>404606
Not to it's not an unbelievable stupid concept but they absolutely exist.

Cause ya know, that Bernie, HE'LL put those women back in their place.

>>404607
China and India are not part of the Western Allies?

I mean India KIND OF is but not in the sense that, to use other Pacific examples, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, or Japan are. China is straight up the enemy.

>>404604
>A single polar world isn't possible, stability is only possible with multiple major powers working in concert
Which America has never wanted or had. America systematically destroyed the military development infrastructure of allied countries so those allied countries would depend on America for supplies. This isn't the action of someone "working in concert".

Look at Canada, in WWI they had the second largest fleet in the world, and their fighter jet manufacturing was superior to America until it was crushed by CIA. Now the most advanced thing Canada produces is an armored vehicle with a school bus engine, and a copy of an American gun.

Besides, peace since WWII was guaranteed by a mexican standoff of apocalyptic proportions, not "working in concert".

>>404611
Which makes one rogue dictator with a nuke very dangerous.

It's really, really bizarre to me when people are just fine with the current wealth distribution in the US.

Just two days ago i saw a homeless pregnant woman napping against a newspaper dispenser, yet there are people who live in the exact same city who can literally buy islands--people who are richer than entire countries.

And people will argue that that is how it should be. It's awful.

>>404611
>Which America has never wanted or had. America systematically destroyed the military development infrastructure of allied countries so those allied countries would depend on America for supplies. This isn't the action of someone "working in concert".
American allies are not military major powers, they are part of the allied bloc. The only other real military contributors are Japan (do not be fooled by the name, the SDF is armed to the teeth), South Korea, Signapore, France, and Britain, all of whom are really just regional powers.

The other major blocs militarily are the Russian bloc, which is made of rusted tech and shitty conscripts, and China, which isn't terrible but has no real projection because their military is more for internal policing than anything else.

"From the start, they said, Bush appeared to misjudge the mood of the Republican base. In December 2014, for instance, Bush gathered his senior aides and a small group of national political operatives for a meeting in Miami to talk about his coming candidacy. A survey to gauge the national mood of the party was dismissed by Bush and his aides as unnecessary. Such polling, a participant said, would have made clear to Bush the rebellious sentiment of the conservative base of the party."

Of all of Jeb's mistakes, gonna take a wild swing that he regrets this one the most.

>>404628
Don't you just wanna pinch his cheeks folks?

>>404631
Posts like this are getting pretty old

>>404635
I guess you'll have to stop reading the thread then.

What a shame.

Also not a great sign for Bush, most of his staffers are floating their resumes around.

>>404638
Soon

https://twitter.com/dannyodwyer/status/699711068805791744

>>404636
Or maybe you can fuck off and stop shitposting.

Trump wins, followed by Cruz and Rubio, Jeb couldn't even get 3rd.

Bush fell behind Kasich! FUCKING KASICH! Stick a fork in Jeb, he's done.

>>404640
the /pol/fuck cannot complain of shitposting, for he is, by nature, a living shitpost

>>404645
I have literally never even visited /pol/, closest i came was looking at screenshots of the meltdown after Obama beat Mittens.

>>404644
Yea he's suspended his Campaign

>>404644
Just goes to show, you can buy party loyalty and media coverage, but you can't buy likeability.

Inb4 he pays media to say dumb shit like "well it just wasn't time for another bush".

No.

That's not the reason Jeb failed.

He failed because he's a fucking idiot with zero personality.

>>404648
I wouldn't call him an idiot but zero personality nails it.

But his real killer? Trump nailing him with the cold hard truth.

Low Energy
o
w

E
n
e
r
g
y

>>404647
God, even his obituaries are embarrassing.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/jeb-bush-dropping-out-set-up-to-fail-213662

As if Michigan wasn’t already in the news for all the wrong reasons: someone in Kalamazoo drove around the city and shot nine people, six of whom have died, at three separate locations. He was apprehended alive by police, so I’ll give you three guesses as to the guy’s race.

>>404649
why would you speak positively about the clown? kill yourself.

>>404654
How was I speaking positively about Trump? I hate the man, but I do not underestimate him, that's what cost Bush a 140 million dollar failure, Trump correctly tore into Jeb's Achilles heel while he was trying to ignore him and no matter how many millions Jeb spent he couldn't heal from it and the infection Trump started in his campaign was ultimately fatal.

>>404656
I am a Sanders supporter actually.

That doesn't mean that you aren't transparently against her for the entirely wrong reasons.

>>404657
The list of reasons someone could be against her for are a mile long, why the fuck would you straight assume it's because he's "sexist"?

Stop assuming everyone is bigoted, it makes you sound like a fucking bigot yourself to be thinking about that 24/7.

>>404658
referring to her as a "dried up vagina" may not have helped his case

>>404657
>I am a Sanders supporter actually.
So you were calling yourself a misogynist? lol transparent bullshit.

>wrong reasons
List the wrong reasons you psykered out of my head.

>>404659
I'm not calling Hillary a vagina. I've never seen a Hillary voter put forward a reason for support that isn't her vagina, ergo they aren't voting for Hillary as a person, they are voting for a body part she happens to have. And I'm pointing that out.

>dried up
I can't very well call it a fertile, pink, virginal, innie lips vagina.

//youtube.com/watch?v=uf7MR0f4XDI

>>404663
>So you were calling yourself a misogynist? lol transparent bullshit.
No, I was saying that there are misogynists, such as yourself, who support him simply because Hillary is a woman.

>>404665
If I was an actual misogynist I'd vote republican you fucking retard.

Do you honestly think Bernie is going to go around suppressing women?

>>404669
Obviously not, which I was mocking the very notion of "Bernie bros" to begin with.

And no, not necessarily, since the Republicans quite clearly lack appeal to the general public. They don't have a prayer of getting in.

>>404669
Bernie Sanders would probably do more good for women than Hillary would. But that doesn't change the fact that many of Bernie's supporters *are* misogynists, who are against Hillary primarily because she's a woman, or whose issues with her are gendered--like calling her "ugly" or complaining about her not being able to keep Bill in line or things like that. Not all of them by a long shot--there are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary even without bringing her gender into it.

There's no reason to bring up Hillary's looks or "bitchiness" or to ever mention Monica Lewinsky in relation to a Hillary Clinton presidency, other than misogyny. There are many Bernie Bros who do bring those things up constantly. Luckily, the Sanders constituency is getting better about self-policing and calling those people out when they do that sort of shit, but for a while there they were turning a blind eye toward it that reflected badly on the Sanders campaign.

>>404673
>many of Bernie's supporters *are* misogynists
You are fucking insane.

>>404674
Their accusations are fleshed out and even mirrored in this very thread (likely by you yourself but it could merely be another of your ilk) so by what basis do you make a claim of insanity regarding them?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35625595

>>404676


Christ it's scary where the US and Europe are heading.

>>404678

If Trump actually becomes President, we’re fucked.

>>404679
Luckily the internet has already given me a proper contingency plan in that unlikely situation:
http://cbiftrumpwins.com/#intro

You could call Navada right now for Trump, he has a near 50% while his nearest rivals are Trump and Cruz are at roughly 20%, rather than disperse back to the party almost all of Jeb's support was devoured by Trump.

The frustrating thing about Trump is his continued treatment as a joke has allowed him to get within striking distance of the GOP nomination with double the delegates of his remaining challengers AND STILL people are calling him shit like clown.

TRUMP. IS. NO. JOKE.

You wanna beat him? stop helping him by consistently being a pompous pretentious prick who continues to underestimate him. He's got secret service, he's got the most delegates, he has the most wins, he very clearly has the embittered hearts and minds of the GOP base. Super Tuesday is coming and it is as of right now CRUSHINGLY likely he will win.

>>404681
>TRUMP. IS. NO. JOKE.
He is, it's just getting more likely the joke is on America at this point. And he still has very little chance of ever being President even if he gets the Republican nomination.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/with-emotions-high-jeb-bushs-supporters-arent-flocking-to-rubio-but-they/2266262

Holy shit, these are the most out of touch and butthurt idiots, no wonder Jeb lost. some choice quotes:

"I don't understand our country any more," lamented St. Petersburg developer Mel Sembler, a board member for the super PAC that spent more than $100 million on Bush's behalf.

"The best man is now out. I can't vote for Trump or (Ted) Cruz. (Marco) Rubio is an opportunist who is not near ready," Lewis said in an email. "I will write in Jeb's name in November."

"I kept telling myself that won't happen, that can't happen.... I now fear it may happen," said former Ambassador Sembler, who now roots for Rubio but expects to devote most of his energy this year to fighting marijuana legalization ballot initiatives.

>>404682
People have been calling on his failure and underestimating him this whole time, hard to believe "little chance" when he's already beaten every thing they said he had no chance of beating.

>>404691
>People have been calling on his failure and underestimating him this whole time, hard to believe "little chance" when he's already beaten every thing they said he had no chance of beating.

And yet, he's managing only to get about a third of the Republican vote despite his "popularity." The only reason he's doing all right right now is because the field is still so large. Jeb dropping out is going to give Rubio's campaign a lot of benefit and it's going to give Trump little, because most Republicans don't like Trump and very few have him as their second choice.

Basically, Trump gets the nomination only if Cruz stays in the race for long enough to keep the rest of the party's votes away from Rubio. Even if that happens, Trump's even more unpopular with independents and democrats than he is with Republicans. So yes, he's done better than it would have ever seemed he could have, but that isn't some sign that he's suddenly become popular or that the things standing in his way stopped mattering or that his base is large enough to carry him to victory. His base consists pretty much solely of about a third of the Republican party. That is nowhere near enough to make him President, even if the rest of the Republicans vote for him under protest to keep a Democrat out of the office.

It's essentially impossible for Trump to win the White House. Even if he completely blew out the white vote to a level Republicans haven't managed in my lifetime, he would still, mathematically, need more than 40% of the latino vote. Which is never going to happen.

>>404693
He's been polling well among them and the numbers have shown he's done well aside from the supposed immigration boogeymen and he's got crossover appeal which aids him.

Don't see how Hillary could do any better since they arm twisting the unions to tighten her support is the only reason Sanders likely won't be able to get it. They'll probably get one of the Castro Brothers to be her Veep as they are relatively young (Early forties) and shore up that Hispanic vote.

>>404693
>He's been polling well among them and the numbers have shown he's done well aside from the supposed immigration boogeymen and he's got crossover appeal which aids him.

Can you show me these polls? Every poll I've seen shows Trump as DEEP in the negative numbers when it comes to approval from every demographic, including Republicans, who dislike him least.

>>404699
>>404700
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-optimists-and-trump-skeptics-are-about-to-go-to-war/
>What did the Trump skeptics find to like about South Carolina? Quite a lot, actually. They’d point out that Trump faded down the stretch run, getting 32 percent of the vote after initially polling at about 36 percent after New Hampshire, because of his continuing struggles with late-deciding voters. They’d note that Trump’s numbers worsened from New Hampshire to South Carolina despite several candidates having dropped out. They’d say that Rubio, who went from 11 percent in South Carolina polls before Iowa to 22 percent of the vote on Saturday night, had a pretty good night. They’d also say that Rubio will be helped by Jeb Bush dropping out, even if it had already become clear that Rubio was the preferred choice of Republican Party “elites.”

Try to stay away from the Trump Believers and people who don't pay attention to the numbers in favor of useless factoids like "He won three states!" This was not a good week for Donald Trump, unless you only look at short-sighted metrics and cherry pick polls that support what you already want to believe.

Kasich defunded planned parenthood in ohio, his state, hopeful it would give him a bump despite already being on top. Almost a day later he has fallen behind trump in his home state for the first time, probably regrets that after headlines reading "Kasich loves cancer."

>>404707
Also regrets saying women left their kitchens to vote for him.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/politics/democratic-debate-flint-details/

This seems tone deaf as fuck.

>>404709

Will they actually address what caused the problems (rerouting the water from a less secure source to "save money")

Or just play to the crowd that they are "angry" and will "see justice" and yadda yadda.

>>404710
>rerouting the water from a less secure source to "save money"
That wasn't even the problem was that fuck Snyder wouldn't pay the incredibly small price of 100$ a day for Anti-corrosion agents that would have prevented the water from eating the lead pipes.

>>404711

And now Michigan will likely end up having to pay millions upon millions of dollars to hundreds of families for the next few decades.

GOOD JOB, SNYDER.

>>404714
>And now Michigan will likely end up having to pay millions upon millions of dollars to hundreds of families for the next few decades.
That's the entire Republican platform. Save $100 today, pay $10000 tomorrow, and pray tomorrow never comes.

>>404699

This is the most delusional I've ever seen you.

Navada a CRUSHING victory for Trump, nearly 50% of the vote, so much for "high floor, low ceiling."

>>404725
>so much for "high floor, low ceiling."
Not....really? About 3-5% of the population voted (Nobody likes caucuses), in a State that has always been one of Trump's best (his name is literally up in giant flashing lights in Vegas) and late-deciding voters were just as hard on Trump as they've ever been. Plus it's one step closer to Cruz getting out of the race, which makes it Rubio vs. Trump, which Trump loses.

It was a big victory to be sure, and I'm not trying to take away from that, but this really says nothing about his ceiling.

>>404726
Yes, as I'm reading now his 15 point increase has a lot of caveats.

Furthermore, the whole republican field is:
Trump - 35
Cruz - 18
Rubio - 12
Kasich - 11
Carson - 6
Bush - 4

If Bush quits, 19% go to Rubio, 12% go to Cruz, 11% go to Trump, 9% to Carson, 16% to Kasich, rest wouldn't vote for anyone else. This makes the standing
Trump - 35.44
Cruz - 18.48
Rubio - 12.76
Kasich - 11.64
Carson - 6.36

If Carson quits, 24% go to Cruz, 22% to Trump, 16% to Rubio, 7 to Kasich.
Trump - 36.84
Cruz - 19.02
Rubio - 13.78
Kasich - 12.08

If Kasich quits, 24% go to Rubio, 16% to Trump, 10% to Cruz.
Trump - 38.77
Cruz - 20.22
Rubio - 16.66

And finally as you say, if Cruz quits, 26% of his supporters go to Trump, 33% to Rubio. This makes the standing:
Trump - 44.03
Rubio - 23.33

There's just no way Rubio wins.

If Rubio quits, Cruz has a better shot because 31% of Rubios supporters go to him, and 17% to Trump. That makes the standing at:
Trump - 41.6
Cruz-25.38

But even though Cruz has the BEST CHANCE OF ALL to topple Trump, his chances are still basically nothing.

Barring some serious change like a major illness, Trump is practically assured as the Republican candidate.

>>404731
>Barring some serious change like a major illness, Trump is practically assured as the Republican candidate.

It's going to be so hilarious watching everyone who actually bought the media hype about Trump try to explain it when he loses the nomination.

>>404734
To whom? The Canadian "annointed by God" allied with barking mad "Blind Prophet" Glenn Beck or Marco "quickly becoming a pileup and tire fire" Rubio?

One of the biggest long running arguments against Trump has been "well they'll come back to us when they see he's not electable." But seeing how everyone else is coming off the rails (Cruz lost the evangelical vote in SC and Rubio is stagnate) he's going to be the last man standing.

Only chance the Dems will have is to get Sanders in to shore up the youth vote or if saddled with Hillary get her a forty or younger Veep that doesn't look like they'll drop dead of a stray breeze.

I feel like a lot of people are in real denial about Trump's extreme likeliness to be the GOP.
That said, I don't think it's at all possible he's going to be prez. He apparently said he could shoot someone in public and not lose any voters, but I think the opposite of that is true as well. No one is really lukewarm on Trump, they either ARE voting for him, or they AREN'T, there's no "well I might under [x] condition," so being that he doesn't even have the full Republican party's support, and the panicked frenzy that a potential TrumPOTUS would stir up in Democratic voters who may not have voted otherwise, I think his chances of actually securing the position is nil.

>>404749
Not if Sanders misses the boat.

>>404749

we elected Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and W twice. We elected Obama twice. Put nothing past the America. People, 'Poke.

>It’s probably worth re-emphasizing how few Hispanics have actually voted for Donald Trump so far. In Nevada, 8 percent of the turnout was Hispanic, according to the entrance polling, and 45 percent of those Hispanics voted for Trump. Based on a caucus turnout of about 75,000 Nevadans, that works out to about 2,700 Hispanics in a state that has around 800,000 of them.

The Houston primary was great, no wonder Rubio didn't say anything to challenge Trump, he was literally studying the man's entire history to catch him unaware.

>>404754
>45 percent of those Hispanics voted for Trump
>almost half of hispanics that voted
>voted for trump
>this is very little
>because we're going to assume the hispanics that didnt have the time to vote at all, hate trump
P A T H E T H I C
A
T
H
E
T
I
C

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jersey-gov-christie-endorses-former-republican-rival-trump-180143229.html

Did you have enough hatred for Chris Christie? Because MAN FUCK THAT FAT SHIT

>>404761
It's not "assuming" anything. It's stating the simple fact that less than 0.3% of a population is not a representative sample one way or the other. That is not a controversial statement other than to people who really want to believe that bad science that supports their point is automatically good science.

>>404775
>Just pretend to know shit, and hope no one is educated enough to call you on it?
It seems to me, /pol/-kun, that you should not criticize your own methods.

>>404776
What made you faggots think /pol/-kun was ever an insult in a politics thread anyway?

>>404779
They're calling him a bigot.

>>404781
Way to show off why they call you /pol/-kun.

>>404782
Huh?

>>404784
Feigning a lack of awareness does nothing.

I love how you refuse to get a name or trip (because you aren't actually from plus4 and don't get that it's fine here), but it's still super clear that it's you from all your stupid images and links you put in every post.

>>404785
Lol Im the guy you called pol-kun last time and he isn't even me. At this point, pol-kun is more of an idea than a person.

Maybe we should give you a nickname.

>>404785
Also, it's not fine. Tripfagging is only fine for artists or people who are useful or fun to troll.

>>404788
Tripfagging is an art.

>>404787
>Lol Im the guy you called pol-kun last time
I haven't called anyone /pol/-kun, sorry.
>>404788
>Also, it's not fine. Tripfagging is only fine for artists or people who are useful or fun to troll.
hello welcome to plus4, please leave

>>404779
From an outsider's perspective, one who happened to notice those last bit of this exchange of posts on the front page, that nickname doesn't look like an insult attempt. Even the part about the methods doesn't, more like criticism with a hint of mordacity.

>>404792
>that nickname doesn't look like an insult attempt
No it totally is.

>>404794
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but over the years I've seen the "-kun" affix used numerous times and I can't remember a single one where it was meant as an insult. Examples include "anon-kun", "drawfag-kun" etc. As far as I know, it comes from either anime or manga and just indicates that the person the speaker is referring to is male.

>>404795
The insult lies in the "/pol/" part.

>>404796
You mean just suggesting someone is a frequenter of a 4chan's board is an insult?

>>404797
>You mean just suggesting someone is a frequenter of a 4chan's board is an insult?
stop being fucking dumb

So Clinton Dynasty still has the connections to keep things at bay for the moment and push Sanders aside while the Republicans are basically a sinking ship in the face of the Trump Behemoth.

Rubio is falling apart just scrambling to hold it together and Cruz is just fading. I think the Beltway elite plan of trying to go against him in the General Election will damage them severally.

If Trump can communicate and give cover to enough officials to launch a full indictment of Hillary going into the General, its game over.

>>404799
>If Trump can communicate and give cover to enough officials to launch a full indictment of Hillary going into the General, its game over.
there is quite literally nothing that Trump could say about Hillary that would make the public at large think less of her than they do of him but ok

>>404799
The Republicans have made Hillary pretty much untouchable. They have gone after her so incessantly, over such minor things, for so many years now, that people just roll their eyes any time a new scandal erupts. There is genuine shit to be concerned about over this email thing but no one gives a shit because they assume it's just another Benghazi situation.

I prefer Bernie Sanders, but one thing Hillary has that he doesn't is nigh-immunity to scandal. A gift granted to her by the Republicans.

>>404802
>I prefer Bernie Sanders, but one thing Hillary has that he doesn't is nigh-immunity to scandal.
he does, insofar as he has nothing scandalous to bring to the table

>>404803
There's that "rape letter" or whatever from the 70's. Which is a bit of a stretch, but never doubt rival politicians' abilities to be petty. Of course Trump really needs to not bring up anything to do with rape, if he gets the nomination, since it's just going to bring a lot of attention to that time between he and Ivanna that he doesn't need the media to start covering. But Rubio or Cruz might very well be able to get some mileage out of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html

It's getting bleak, they've brought in Karl Rove, which is hilarious because he's the mastermind behind everything bad the republicans have become.

>>404805
They've tried to spearhead SuperPACs to Run Negative ads (Its one of the reasons Kasich is still in the race as they've used his for that purpose)

And McConnell has declared that the Legislative Republicans will run negative adds aginst Trump in the General election.

Some reason the Beltway wants to Desperately defeat Trump regardless to anything else. I kinda want him to win just to see why.

>>404798
Dumb? So you can't even explain why assuming someone is a regular of a 4chan's board is supposed to be an insult? I guess if that's how /pol/'s regulars roll, then that was, indeed, an insult. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

>>404806
>McConnell has declared that the Legislative Republicans will run negative adds against Trump in the General election.

That is the dictionary definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Wow, Citizens United really fucked American elections beyond recognition.

>>404787
>Maybe we should give you a nickname.
We can call him J'Accuse.

>>404807
You are such a transparent piece of shit but fine, I will play ball

"/pol/-kun" is an insult because /pol/ is infamous for being a nesting ground of racism, misogyny, and every kind of backwards attitude you can possibly find on the internet, it's Imageboard Stormfront.

Now fuck off back to it.

>>404811
>"/pol/-kun" is an insult because /pol/ is infamous for being a nesting ground of racism, misogyny, and every kind of backwards attitude you can possibly find on the internet, it's Imageboard Stormfront.
See, you can communicate like an intelligent human being, after all! You do seem to lose your composure rather quickly in an inconsequential exchange of brief messages on a message board, just a friendly note.

>Now fuck off back to it.
I'd have to be a "/pol/ack", or whatever it is they call themselves now, to go back. As far as I'm concerned, /pol/ was a mistake.

>>404812
Everyone knows you played dumb there.

>>404808
>That is the dictionary definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

In this case, not really. Many people on both sides of the aisle believe that Trump winning the nomination, or even winning the Presidency, is the worst thing that could happen to the Republican party. Worse than losing the election entirely with someone respectable.

>>404815
>Many people
Significantly less than you seem to desperately need to believe.

Every conservative out there would rather burn the party down than let the GOP keep serving the interests of people who aren't their constituency.

People finally attacking Trump now but because the Republicans are so splintered they are literally tripping over each other and thus instead of "devastating controversies" they are just making noise.

And that Mussolini retweet shit is literally why people don't trust media, when you construct a bot specifically to trick Donald Trump into retweeting out of context Mussolini quotes all you are accomplishing is looking like an asshole and giving credence to Trump's rallying cry of a dishonest media.

>>404818
I actually agree that the Mussolini quote was a really lame "gotcha" that won't change any minds, but in the same 24-hour period we got:
>Hey uh I didn't get the three questions about disavowing David Duke and the KKK because my earpiece was of loser quality.

Which is such a lame lie you think Young Marco made it. Trump could just have said "It was a long, stressful day, I don't really care about paying attention when I'm with mainstream morons like Tapper, and I've already condemned DD in August 2015 and back in 2000 so shush."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/trump-clinton-dominant-as-super-tuesday-looms/index.html

Getting awful close to a lot of crow needing to be eaten in this thread.

>>404819
But see even that seems off because we have two separate occasions of him disavowing the guy, once in 2005 and before that in 2001, what they should be focused on is how Trump could somehow not know what white supremacy is.

John Oliver did a great comprehensive take down on him but I'd honestly say it will have no effect, why would someone voting for Trump ever listen to Oliver?

//youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

What's even more awful is that the extremism of the others is just swallowed whole.

Rubio and Cruz wants to force raped women to make their rapists fathers, even if they want an abortion within, say, 10 weeks instead of 20? Carson says getting healthcare is not a right? Kasich defunds Planned Parenthood in Ohio completely just because it performs abortions (again, without receiving any tax money for abortions)? Naw man, Trump said something cartoony and crude so that's the gold standard of "Beyond the pale". Let's have our talking heads chattering about that like a bunch of basic, repetitive troglodytes.

I don't think republicans understand that lefties hate mainstream media just as much as they do.

>>404821
Trump is kinda great in only this context because he beats them at their own game, like Cruz went "Yes, I will torture people with waterboarding."

to which Donald Trump responds he will bring back WORSE torture, he just uses empty words to reflect their madness back at them and the electorate eats it up.

>>404822

Yeah, all the other candidates had to throw out the carefully-crafted dogwhistles and say the shit they meant just so they’d have even a chance of getting a fraction of the media attention given to Trump. But Trump outdoes them every time, and his bombastic personality makes hearing/watching him fling insults and advocate for war crimes an entertaining time (in some perverse sense of the word “entertaining”, natch).

The GOP has to worry about Trump because he’s all but destroyed any sense of decorum and “respectable” politics on the Republican side of the aisle. His campaign is the logical endgame of a Republican strategy of obstructionism, partisanship, and coded bigotry; he has let loose what the GOP has kept safely hidden behind a thin veneer of “respectability”, and it can’t put the genie back in the bottle. The Democrats, on the other hand, have to worry about Trump because there is an actual chance, however small some people think it is, that he can win the election and become President—and if Trump’s victory means anything, it means a GOP-controlled executive branch, the possibility of the GOP holding both houses of Congress, and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. All of that sounds fucking awful if you’re…well, if you’re anyone but a wealthy GOP donor, really.

>>404818
>rallying cry of a dishonest media.
Media is dishonest though, even Bernie has felt this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-endorsement/

Jesus the sneers of that crowd.

>>404823
Don't forget the secret ingredient, runaway election spending, in that shit GOP stew.

>>404824
Goddamn yes it is.

Chief legal counsel Mike Gadola quickly responded, telling chief of staff Dennis Muchmore and others that using Flint River water was "downright scary" and noting that his mother lived in the city. "Nice to know she's drinking water with elevated chlorine levels and fecal coliform," he said, adding, "They should try to get back on the Detroit system as a stopgap ASAP before this thing gets too far out of control."

And they basically told this man and his mother to go fuck themselves. That whole top layer of government needs to be pulled off because god bless these angels who fought their damnedest to be heard.

>>404816
>Every conservative out there would rather burn the party down than let the GOP keep serving the interests of people who aren't their constituency.

The only way to serve the best interests of the GOP's constituency is to ignore their votes.

>>404827
Maybe they shouldn't have conspired to incite extremism in the part voter base.

>>404828
I would ask the media how bad their arm hurts from stretching so hard.

>>404829
Tiki do not validate /pol/-kun with responses

>>404830
>>404831
>>404832
In this specific instance he's not exactly wrong, the desperate attacks on Trump are servicing his martyrdom, the last twenty-four hours of desperate noise and controversy has simply given Trump better numbers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/12178326/Super-Tuesday-Donald-Trump-looks-stronger-than-ever-as-opponents-launch-toxic-attacks.html

>>404833
Not really a surprise. Trump supporters would love him even more if he wore his KKK robes on stage.

Just a reminder to all you Trump fans that he's a terrible businessman and his only actual skill is Real Estate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/

>>404835
And a bullshit artist, who the media are presently helping in a bumblefuck attempt to connect him to the KKK. as I've made plain I hate the man, I consider him dangerous beyond measure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/28/in-1927-donald-trumps-father-was-arrested-after-a-klan-riot-in-queens/

BUT THIS SHIT? CAN YOU SMELL THAT DESPERATION? Congrats Post, now you've embarrassed yourselves and expanded Trump's appeal, now he's a shoe in for the racist vote and the martyrdom vote where it appears all the racial accusations are media slander.

>>404834
>J'Accuse with more baseless attacks
Thank you for contributing to Trumps rise.

>>404842
Not baseless at all. Polls show pretty unquestionably that Trump voters, while diverse on most political opinions, are united in two major ways--they have a strong tendency toward Authoritarianism, and they have a tendency toward racism and xenophobia.

I am...livid.

I'm in college now, and I registered to vote back home, which is 3 hours away. So I think, "No big deal, I'm still a resident of Tennessee, I can still vote up here, right? RIGHT?" No. After going back and forth between two churches, having a bunch of 90yrold ladies be confused at my situation, making phone calls and having me fill out 2 forms, they tell me I can't vote today.

Because despite the fact that we live in the year 2016, the state of Tennessee requires that in order to vote, you need to be registered to vote in the specific county that you vote in. Nobody told me this before I tried to vote today. Nobody told me that voting in Tennessee didn't work like most other FUCKING states in the county, where it doesn't FUCKING matter where you are, as long as you are a registered voter of Tennessee and live in that state, you can fucking vote.

So now I'm literally the only person in this entire county that didn't vote, and I have to live with that knowledge for the next year.

>>404845
>So now I'm literally the only person in this entire county that didn't vote
Not at all. The GOP has been putting in as many laws to make college students, the poor, and black people unable to vote as they can get by. You're in great company.

>>404844
>claim trump is a member of the kkk
>get called on it
>shift goalposts to claiming his voters are racist
>but also include the xenophobe weasel word
Very nice.

>>404847
>weasel word
I don't think you know what that word means. Either that or you don't know what xenophobe means.

>>404847
I am going to laugh when the Dems win and you die of a heart attack

>>404848
What xenophobe actually means
>one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.

What it means when you use it
>one fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.

With such a broad brush it's possible to paint 99% of the planet, so yeah, it's a weasel word.

>>404849
I'm not even American lol, the fuck do I care who wins.

>>404850
So then your argument is that it's a "weasel word" because you disagree about where the line of "unduly" lies. But xenophobes would never consider their fear to be undue.

>>404851
And you would always consider it to be undue. Therefore, weaselword.

>>404853
no, therefore fuck off, you xenophobe

>>404850
>I'm not even American lol, the fuck do I care who wins.
Apparently quite a bit if you feel the need to troll for trump.

Even if you weren't American, which is a claim suspect to being a hastily erected lie to shield yourself, you should still care since, ya know, American politics affects the entire planet.

>>404850
>What it means when you use it
>one fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.

Actually if that poster is what I think it is, their definition for Xenophobe is closer to: "having anything but the most positive emotions about anything foreign, and especially of people of foreign origin."

If you think parts of foreign cultures aren't fucking awesome, you're a Xenophobe. If you're neutral, you're a Xenophobe.

>>404856
Or, most pertinently to our conversation, if you're a xenophobe, you're a xenophobe.

>>404855
>American politics affect the whole planet
I (difffag) agree.
>it affects new South Park and Family Guy episodes
>it affects the fresh new political memes
>it affects who will shake hands with my prime minister next summit
That's about it.

>>404858
It also affects whatever countries he decides to take military actions against pretty well.

>>404863

Not to mention countries that negotiate deals like trade agreements and foreign aid packages and such with the US.

>>404858
Holy fucking shit

>>404863
After bernie, tump is the second most peaceful available candidate. Everyone else wants to bomb brown people and start a war with putin. Hillary actually started a cold war with russia.

The reality though is that no one cares about the american president.

No american allies care about the american president.

People doing business with america dont care about the american president.

Neutral countries dont care about the american president.

People being bombed by america don't care about the american president.

The congress doesnt seem to give a fuck what the president wants.

The president is getting insulted by people directly in his military chain of command.

Over 50% of americans dont even care about the american president.

The only people who care are the media who treat it like a reality show, and those few members of the public that consume that type of entertainment.

>>404866
that you are able to breathe astounds me

>>404866

I haven’t seen this level of ignorance since the last time I was given a link to /pol/.

>>404870
I wouldn't be welcome among your kind, I'll pass.

>>404871
You're right.

My kind are rational meritocratic egalitarian stoics, they wouldn't take kindly to an emotional entitled bigoted manbaby such as yourself.

>>404872
>rational meritocratic egalitarian stoics
Is that what you define /pol/ as in your fucked up little worldview?

It drives me fucking crazy how many people in this country keep using the word "win" when it comes to elections. The fact that we keep thinking about it in those terms means something needs to change.

>>404877
Yea, way to much focus on party vs party. Trump moved past that in his speech I've heard. While Cruz just kept taking swings at everyone else.

>>404872
>meritocratic egalitarian
These terms are mutually exclusive. Meritocracy is a form of oligarchy. It is inherently unegalitarian.

>>404873
Uh no? /pol/ are a bunch of nazis.

>>404879
Nope. Egalitarianism means all people have equal intrinsic worth and should be treated equally. Such a situation doesn't prevent them from improving themselves or achieving merit.

Your mistake stems from the flawed assumptions of amateur philosophers, who mistake egalitarianism for utter sameness among all individuals. Anyone who wants to live in that world should shoot themselves, it will be less painful.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

Well we are just all kinds of fucked.

>>404880
No, I'm sorry, but you aren't going to make any progress with that silly argument. You support oligarchy.

>>404878
It's not even that. It's the idea that the presidency is a contest or a sport that you "win".

>>404886
It is though

>>404885
Feel free to counter the silly argument if you are able.

If you can't counter an argument, which you yourself label as silly, I'm going to assume you're calling yourself retarded.

>>404888
>If you can't counter an argument, which you yourself label as silly, I'm going to assume you're calling yourself retarded.
Or he considers you not worth the time and effort

Let me give you a hint which it is

>>404888
I already have. You support giving more power to those who you deem most fit than those who you deem unfit. You would set yourself (or a representative of yourself) as arbiter of who is "meritorious" enough to deserve say over their political destiny and who deserves to be a serf.

You are an oligarch and a tyrant. You don't get to label that egalitarian no matter how you try to twist words around to say that "oh, no, it really is egalitarian because everyone has the opportunity to be more like methe meritorious!"

Meritocracy is just how nerds or crony capitalists try to word their desire to make it so people who disagree with them don't get any say in how the world is run, to make it seem noble. It is a desire to take power away from the weakest people and give it to yourself. We already have a better word for that. "Elitism." You pretentious fuck.

>>404890
>You support giving more power to those who you deem most fit than those who you deem unfit.
I don't have any power so I can't give it to anyone, nor is meritocracy about one person deciding who is fit or unfit.
Meritocracy is about people who are objectively (not subjectively, not according to me) good at a thing, getting to do that thing.
Such as someone who is good at administering a city, getting to administer that city.

This can happen in an egalitarian system, it is not exclusive of that.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/03/02/3756017/stupid-kentucky-matrimony-bill/

This is so fucking stupid that I can’t even get mad about how anti-gay it is.

>>404892
Amusing how this shows that there actually weren't ever too many laws using the word marriage for them to get ammended to also provide the same benefits to civil unions, state government just didn't want to do it.

>>404891
Oh, I see, you don't know what the word "meritocracy" means.

>>404892
How about we just stop giving special privileges to married people?

No marital tax deductions, or filing taxes jointly. File your own fucking taxes like everyone else.
No ability to transfer social security or retirement account benefits from one person to another.
No automatic legal decision making benefits, unless a paper was signed beforehand.
No automatic inheritance benefits, unless they're written into the goddamn inheritance.
No automatic insurance benefits, unless it's a package deal by the insurance company.
No automatic visitation benefits, again, unless they're on the list of approved visitors.

Marital benefits were invented in the goddamn 19th century to help boost population growth, and to ensure a stable family unit. This was back when marriage always meant kids, which isn't even close to the truth now.

>>404896
lol

>>404898
please don't agree with me, as I find you repulsive

>>404900
Not really, YOU clearly object to that argument as part of your disgusting /pol/tard conservatism, which is hilarious because he's just one of you trying to defend attacks on gay marriage.

>>404898

>the institution of marriage is still about raising kids

If that were even remotely true, we wouldn’t let couples marry unless they could prove they planned to raise children—or even be able to have kids in the first place.

>>404902
>Nah man, the institution of marriage is still about raising kids. That is intrinsically the purpose of such an arrangement, so two people know their obligations towards the raising of a child.

No, actually, the institution of marriage is and always has been about showing off prosperity. Weddings were traditionally only held by the nobility, as a means to showing off their wealth to other nobles and basically prove who was the best, in terms of who was capable of wasting the most money on dresses that would only ever be worn once and ridiculous parties. The middle classes later began mimicking them to try to impress their friends into thinking they were on the same level as nobles. The lower classes finally began doing the same to mimic the middle classes.

Even when the nobility *had* children (which they frequently did solely to produce an heir), they rarely actually *raised* their own children. That was the job of servants.

Marriage and kids have basically nothing to do with one another. People have always had and raised children, even together, without being married, and people have always entered into marriages without raising or having any intention of raising children. Marriage is for joining the economic and political assets of two noble families, or about the lower classes trying to imitate their superiors. Marriage is a strictly economic institution that people have tried to turn holy because the one thing people of any denomination *really* worship is money and looking better than their peers.