U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[gooeyhole]

 

It's a smart ad, albeit a bit too political.

lol what

 

>ad for presidential campaign

>'too political'

 

seriously what

He's taking the medias manipulated message, and not outright denying it, but clarifying it, if you get me, lol.

It's almost like the media never really needed to twist nor manipulate Trump's 'message'. I mean, you don't need to dissect a piece of sh*t to know it stinks.

 

His entire appeal is that he's not a politician.

 

>makes an average political campaign ad

 

Come on, family.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Canadian Badass

[Fonz]

Well, it's average in the sense that it's a toned down version of his usual ultra-right jingoist bullsh*t.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Damn, I was hoping it was going to be one of these gems:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tchuck]

"And take their oil". Oh man. That ad is gold.

 

Deep down I still hope he's just taking the piss and trolling everybody to show how the republicans have gone full retard.

[Clem Fandango]

It's a smart ad, albeit a bit too political. He's taking the medias manipulated message, and not outright denying it, but clarifying it, if you get me, lol. Maybe it'll reach the undecided voter. I hope it does! Even if, or when, Trump loses, he will have brought together a group of alternative right wing voters who don't identify with the GOP.

I don't really see how in terms of policy Trump is an 'alternative' to the GOP. The only thing exceptional about him is his vague cultural familiarity (again, I spent most of my life thinking he was a villain in a sitcom or something). Hence he acts like an outsider who doesn't use teleprompters or whatever despite being an established business leader, he's not looked at as an authority figure but as a celebrity. Think Reagan.

 

He represents the right-wing of the Republican party, along with Mike 'I'll use the national guard to stop abortion' Huckabee and those Bundy guys who took over that bird sanctuary for some reason. If you're with that I don't really know what to say, except that your views are already represented by the Republican party in congress and that they will never be represented in the country where you live.

[gooeyhole]

 

It's a smart ad, albeit a bit too political. He's taking the medias manipulated message, and not outright denying it, but clarifying it, if you get me, lol. Maybe it'll reach the undecided voter. I hope it does! Even if, or when, Trump loses, he will have brought together a group of alternative right wing voters who don't identify with the GOP.

I don't really see how in terms of policy Trump is an 'alternative' to the GOP. The only thing exceptional about him is his vague cultural familiarity (again, I spent most of my life thinking he was a villain in a sitcom or something). Hence he acts like an outsider who doesn't use teleprompters or whatever despite being an established business leader, he's not looked at as an authority figure but as a celebrity. Think Reagan.

 

He represents the right-wing of the Republican party, along with Mike 'I'll use the national guard to stop abortion' Huckabee and those Bundy guys who took over that bird sanctuary for some reason. If you're with that I don't really know what to say, except that your views are already represented by the Republican party in congress and that they will never be represented in the country where you live.

Trump doesn't have my views. If a politican had my views they'd be shunned from the spotlight, lol. I support him because I don't see anybody else who comes close to my views, besides Rand Paul or Jim Webb, but those two are dead in the water. I'm also very aware that the progressive conservatives in my country are moderate compared to the GOP.

[jatiger13]

Honestly, I hope Dr. Ben Carson wins. Any of you who haven't been following him, go to the Internet immediately and educate yourself. He's probably the best possible candidate for the Republicans.

If he's the best they have, then they should just forfeit right now. He's a confirmed idiot.

[gooeyhole]

Only on an Internet forum will a guy who separated conjoined twins at the head be called a confirmed idiot. Not saying he's right about evolution or the grain silo thing...but you have to see how it's odd calling a neurosurgeon an idiot.

[jatiger13]

Only on an Internet forum will a guy who separated conjoined twins at the head be called a confirmed idiot. Not saying he's right about evolution or the grain silo thing...but you have to see how it's odd calling a neurosurgeon an idiot.

Not odd at all.

In terms of a Presidential election, which is what's being discussed here after all, he's a confirmed idiot.

Nobody is supporting him or voting for him based on what he has done as a surgeon. That would be asinine.

That's also why I separate the two subjects, instead of keeping them conjoined. So yes, he's a confirmed idiot.

Him being a skilled surgeon has f*ck all to do with the subject at hand in this topic.

Edited January 6, 2016 by jatiger13

[gooeyhole]

Fair enough.

[Tampa]

 

Only on an Internet forum will a guy who separated conjoined twins at the head be called a confirmed idiot. Not saying he's right about evolution or the grain silo thing...but you have to see how it's odd calling a neurosurgeon an idiot.

Not odd at all.

In terms of a Presidential election, which is what's being discussed here after all, he's a confirmed idiot.

Nobody is supporting him or voting for him based on what he has done as a surgeon. That would be asinine.

That's also why I separate the two subjects, instead of keeping them conjoined. So yes, he's a confirmed idiot.

Him being a skilled surgeon has f*ck all to do with the subject at hand in this topic.

You can't deny the fact that he is "book" smart. You are calling him an idiot, just because you don't agree with his beliefs? Please enlighten me.

[El Dildo]

book smarts and being able to graduate medical school does not = intelligence.

there's a huge difference between being a good student, being good at studying, being a good professional and actually being intelligent.

 

I know plenty of people who are fantastic at school and memorization and recall.

they're great at what they do for a living.

 

and they're dumb as a f/cking bag of hammers.

common sense, insight, empathy, and intellect have nothing to do with book smarts. Ben Carson might be great with a knife but he sucks at understanding basic economic and social issues.

Edited January 6, 2016 by El Diablo

[Tchuck]

I didn't know being a neurosurgeon or *insert high skill job title here* immediately exempted you from criticism regarding your intelligence.

 

When you go off spouting garbage about things that completely contradict the evidence and general scientific consensus, it means you are an idiot. Which looks even worse because people expect more of you.

 

Pyramids as being grain storage? Really? I mean, not even the stupidest kid at school would think something like that. And even worse, to stand by that statement in face of all evidence.

 

Then there's all the religious garbage that should not be used in policy making, but that's another story.

 

So yeah, probably a brilliant surgeon, but an idiot when it comes to anything else.

[Abel.]

book smarts and being able to graduate medical school does not = intelligence.

there's a huge difference between being a good student, being good at studying, being a good professional and actually being intelligent.

 

I know plenty of people who are fantastic at school and memorization and recall.

they're great at what they do for a living.

 

and they're dumb as a f/cking bag of hammers.

common sense, insight, empathy, and intellect have nothing to do with book smarts. Ben Carson might be great with a knife but he sucks at understanding basic economic and social issues.

 

To be fair, I would argue that being able to pass highly difficult exams and perform surgery indicates intelligence. I mean if someone has a deep, genuine understanding of modern mathematics (say) I have to concede that they have intelligence as that stuff is beyond painful to learn.

 

However, that doesn't indicate political acumen, leadership ability or intelligence in other areas. It could even be argued that high intelligence in one area can make you so self-assured that you can convince yourself of utter nonsense and remain steadfast in your convictions even under severe scrutiny. I mean I really don't want to lump Cantor in with Carson here, but Cantor spent years of his life trying to prove that Sir Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays whilst creating some of the most profound, creative and widely-applied mathematics in history.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Failure

[El Dildo]

I mean if someone has a deep, genuine understanding of modern mathematics (say) I have to concede that they have intelligence as that stuff is beyond painful to learn.

ah.

but see, by your very example, I am compelled to disagree.

 

people with natural talent are equally not intelligent.

someone who has a deep, genuine understanding of mathematics was almost always born that way. no child is sitting down having FUN with math and numbers unless they're one of those people whose brains are wired that way. we all know these people.

 

some are great at numbers.

some are great at speaking.

some are great at guitar.

 

none of it makes you intelligent.

it certainly makes you smart. there are many types of smart. you can be an expert with something and still possess zero common sense. you can be a virtuoso and still have zero empathy. there are many types of smart and only a few types of intellect.

 

intellect isn't about being super good at any one thing.

it's the broad comprehension and common sense to apply a balanced and empathetic viewpoint to a range of issues across a variety of contexts. intellect is more about being the jack of all trades and the master of none. someone who is too good at any one thing is usually lacking development in other aspects of their knowledge. intellect is much more about wisdom than expertise.

[make total destroy]

You can be technically intelligent and still a stupid f*cking dolt with sh*t-tier views. see: Richard Dawkins and a sh*tload of other academics. Slicing through brains for a living doesn't make your political views anymore valuable or correct than the guy mopping up the floor.

[Abel.]

 

I mean if someone has a deep, genuine understanding of modern mathematics (say) I have to concede that they have intelligence as that stuff is beyond painful to learn.

ah.

but see, by your very example, I am compelled to disagree.

 

people with natural talent are equally not intelligent.

someone who has a deep, genuine understanding of mathematics was almost always born that way. no child is sitting down having FUN with math and numbers unless they're one of those people whose brains are wired that way. we all know these people.

 

 

 

 

Not true at all. If you interact with mathematicians you'll find that many of them weren't naturally disposed towards the subject but worked hard to apply their intelligence to it. Gauss was a genius (he had a hard time choosing between languages and mathematics actually) but also had an exemplary work ethic; Kroenecker was notoriously bad at arithmetic but became a solid number theorist; Feynman had an average IQ but worked through his summers in high school to become one of the 20th century's most important theoretical physicists. I'm really not defending Carson here, I'm basically echoing MTD's sentiments that technically intelligent people can possess ridiculous views, indeed becoming convinced that they're right due to the self-assuredness which academic success has brought them. Dawkins is another great example of this. He is technically intelligent but is also pompous, blind to the good side of faith and unable to deal diplomatically with others.

 

I don't buy this idea that people are born with "one type" of intelligence and are hopeless in other areas, that's all I was saying. I mean historically there were a lot of polymaths and education tended to be broader and more rigorous. It's totally peripheral to the discussion at hand but I bring it up because it's actually quite a dangerous view. Indeed, I don't like this notion of deciding kids are "bad at maths" as kids and giving up. In the UK this is an endemic issue.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Failure

[El Dildo]

Not true at all. If you interact with mathematicians you'll find that many of them weren't naturally disposed towards the subject but worked hard to apply their intelligence to it. Gauss was a genius (he had a hard time choosing between languages and mathematics actually) but also had an exemplary work ethic; Kroenecker was notoriously bad at arithmetic but became a solid number theorist; Feynman had an average IQ but worked through his summers in high school to become one of the 20th century's most important theoretical physicists.

look I'm certainly not going to argue that professional mathematicians worked very hard. but you're still making my point for me, you just said it; they worked hard "applying their intelligence to it." they were still born with the natural predisposition to numbers and data. virtually no one gets into that level of mathematics without having natural interest and talent with it. it's something they decided to apply themselves to knowing they had the intrinsic gift for it.

 

I don't buy this idea that people are born with "one type" of intelligence and are hopeless in other areas, that's all I was saying.

you don't have to buy it, I wasn't selling it.

 

I never said that there's only "one type."

and I never said that having one type makes other types "hopeless."

 

the point was simply that expertise doesn't = intellect.

Edited January 7, 2016 by El Diablo

[Abel.]

But to reach that level of expertise, you need intellect. Carson has intellect, he's just hugely ignorant. His denial of evolution is either due to this ignorance or is a cynical appeal to the Christian right to further his campaign.


Sorry for putting words in your mouth earlier, it's just that the UK seems to foster this dangerous idea that some kids just can't do maths so they give up with it at 16 and face worse career prospects (this is often the case with girls). Without maths young people are very limited in today's job market. I'm trying to say that mathematical thinking, at least basic mathematical thinking, can be taught. I see no reason why most kids can't take maths to A-Level. Here kids are broken down into "creative" and "mathematical", nevermind that maths demands creative solutions and that certain humanities subjects are fairly analytical.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Failure

[Hayduke]

The Unabomber was a genius mathematics professor, IQ in the 190s. Better trust his political views!

 

Though frankly they're much more sensible than Ben Carson.

[Abel.]

Exactly. His intelligence didn't preclude him from having crazy views and doing ridiculous things.

[Chewie]

I really hope Bernie Sanders wins. I wouldn't want to see Trump win. He's a racist and homophobic. We would probably go into WWIII if he wins.

 

He's like Hitler too.

 

He wants to ban Muslims from coming into the U.S. and deport Mexicans. He's insane.

[X S]

The Unabomber was a genius mathematics professor, IQ in the 190s. Better trust his political views!

 

I think this is more indicative of politics itself, that there are no universal or absolute truths; they are a product of relativism, not intelligence. You could say the same for economics, because beyond the basics of supply and demand, there are too many x-factors involved in forecasting. Some variables are given too much weight, others are not even considered. And what really drives economists at the end of the day? I would argue it's politics.

 

But that's ok, it's all a big joke anyway. Keep spinning that hamster wheel.

 

[Abel.]

I have to like that post for the use of Watchmen.

 

 

Kaczynski's ability in, and dedication to, mathematics (specifically complex analysis) doesn't tell you anything about his political views or abilities in other areas. At the end of the day, he murdered three people and injured over twenty others. He is a manic, despicable individual. As for his views, he is ostensbily an anarchist which, in and of itself, isn't criminal or that bad really, but he was still willing to murder in an attempt to...I don't know what...Protest? He's therefore nothing more than a criminal with zero credibility.

[El Dildo]

But to reach that level of expertise, you need intellect.

I guess I simply don't agree.

 

to reach Dr. Carson's level of expertise doesn't require intellect.

it requires good study habits, memory recall, the money to afford medical school, and the time/patience to physically put up with it.

[Spaghetti Cat]

I mean you guys want a C or D level graduate of Med School working on you right? Right?

 

I kid, I kid. This is why I rarely bring up the 'C' word anymore.

[Hayduke]

I really hope Bernie Sanders wins. I wouldn't want to see Trump win. He's a racist and homophobic. We would probably go into WWIII if he wins.

 

He's like Hitler too.

 

He wants to ban Muslims from coming into the U.S. and deport Mexicans. He's insane.

There are many reasons as to why the picture you posted is ridiculous, but the main one being the use of the word 'umpractical' Edited January 9, 2016 by Hayduke

[gooeyhole]

Is Hillary's health issues a potential problem for her now, or are they just a meme?

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/sudden-death-dr-drew-warns-of-coming-pulmonary-embolism-with-hillary-clintons-shoddy-health/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

I know, I know

 

>Breitbart

 

But still, I've heard this for years now.

[Svip]

I don't know how serious it is. I have heard about it before, but only in the form of an attack against Clinton. I therefore take the claims with a grain of salt. That being said; the possibility of her being affected by some health issue is certainly not out of the question, but before any real evidence present itself, I will leave it be.

 

Trust me, as the election season carries on, this will be one of the things candidates will usually be required to put forward; a full medical history. Buuuut... when it exactly that occurs varies from season to season, but usually around the time when each party has narrowed their field enough to have a presumptive nominee each.

 

This may happen early for the Democrats, but doesn't look like anything will be presumptive in the Republican camp any time soon. So the medical records will have to wait. And until then, I won't entertain claims of her health issues much. Beyond what I just did.

 

However, while we are on the subject of Clinton and possible attacks she could face, we could entertain that idea for a bit.

 

The 'scandals' that Republicans are quick to stir up about (say Benghazi and the emails) won't carry much weight in the Democratic camp. That is, it won't be fuel for her opponents in the Democratic primaries. What will, however, will possibly be her husband, Bill Clinton. I'm afraid he is more a liability than an asset. Although, you could argue, had it not been for him, she probably wouldn't be in this position. And should she win in November, then he would effectively have been a net asset.

 

But scandals (both known and new) about Bill Clinton are likely to crop up during the primaries. Not necessarily by her opponents directly, but by people who support her opponents, but have no official relationship with them. In my mind, it certainly wouldn't be in Sanders' interest to attack Clinton for something that low.

 

I also see Clinton's trustworthiness as a liability in the primaries. That gained new light with the emails of hers, but while the 'email scandal' has been written off by her supporters and most Democrats as a Republican smear campaigning blown out of proportions, it did light a sense of distrust towards Clinton in the Democratic ranks. While Clinton is leading in the polls from the Democratic nominee, she doesn't have a 'solid lead', i.e. voters who will stick with her through thick and thin (also known as 'loyal voters'). If the façade begins to crack, there might be several portions of her supporters moving onto Sanders. Might.

 

There are also the unforeseen events, and I fear Sanders' real chances lies in those.

 

Depending on the candidate they run against Clinton, the Republicans' ammunition will vary greatly and even if the same, its effect will depend on who they run. The Republicans are off to a bad start, barely unified and a lackluster array of candidates. They really need to turn this grim view around come November. And that's not going to be trivial.

 

But I am guessing Clinton's past conflicts with the Republicans will stir up again come Autumn. How effective that will be, again, depends on their candidate and how stable they are.

[Saggy]

Aparrently someone paid for a propaganda film about Berghazi to be made, what utterly coincidental timing.

 

I think the "scandal" surrounding Clinton won't persuade or dissuade liberal or democratic voters at all, who already see these as smear campaigns. Unfortunately Clinton isn't very popular among the neckbeard crowd due to her views on video games and feminism. So if it comes down to Clinton in the primary, watch for Republican to grasp for male voters in the 18-24 demographic. A demographic which is already closer to being won for the conservatives than it has been in previous years.