The Next President of the United States

[RED-DOG]

He's pretty extreme for sure but I like the fact that he just says what he wants to say and sticks two fingers up to anyone that doesn't like it, fair play. Don't agree with a lot of what he says but good on him for sticking to his guns, would prefer that than some spineless jellyfish that caves in to PC wankers bitching because they have no backbone.

So when he says what he thinks he's sticking to his guns, but when someone else says what they think they are bitching spineless jellyfish wankers?

How does that work then?

Well, obviously your misinterpretation of Woodsey's post wouldn't work at all.

Mind you, Drumpf has changed his views more often than <insert your example here>.

Well I have to admit I am prone to misinterpret, so if you can explain where I went wrong I would genuinely appreciate it.

[MintTrav]

He's pretty extreme for sure but I like the fact that he just says what he wants to say and sticks two fingers up to anyone that doesn't like it, fair play. Don't agree with a lot of what he says but good on him for sticking to his guns, would prefer that than some spineless jellyfish that caves in to PC wankers bitching because they have no backbone.

So when he says what he thinks he's sticking to his guns, but when someone else says what they think they are bitching spineless jellyfish wankers?

How does that work then?

Well, obviously your misinterpretation of Woodsey's post wouldn't work at all.

Mind you, Drumpf has changed his views more often than <insert your example here>.

Well I have to admit I am prone to misinterpret, so if you can explain where I went wrong I would genuinely appreciate it.

Bitching wankers and spineless jellyfish are two separate groups, but you have merged them into one.

Bitching wankers split from bleeding-heart liberals some time ago and stand on their own now. Spineless jellyfish are considering a merger with dithering idiots.

[RED-DOG]

He's pretty extreme for sure but I like the fact that he just says what he wants to say and sticks two fingers up to anyone that doesn't like it, fair play. Don't agree with a lot of what he says but good on him for sticking to his guns, would prefer that than some spineless jellyfish that caves in to PC wankers bitching because they have no backbone.

So when he says what he thinks he's sticking to his guns, but when someone else says what they think they are bitching spineless jellyfish wankers?

How does that work then?

Well, obviously your misinterpretation of Woodsey's post wouldn't work at all.

Mind you, Drumpf has changed his views more often than <insert your example here>.

Well I have to admit I am prone to misinterpret, so if you can explain where I went wrong I would genuinely appreciate it.

Bitching wankers and spineless jellyfish are two separate groups, but you have merged them into one.

Bitching wankers split from bleeding-heart liberals some time ago and stand on their own now. Spineless jellyfish are considering a merger with dithering idiots.

Ahh, thank you. So would I be correct in saying that according to Woodsey, you are either sticking to your guns or you are a PC wanker?

If I am correct then it begs the question why can't a PC wanker also be said to be "Sticking to his guns, and why can't he be admired for doing so?

Are there no occasions when the politically correct thing is also simply the correct thing?

[nirvana]

No, I don't think you are correct - I think Woodsey would somewhat respect a PC wanker who was always, thoughtfully, make no mistake about it, a PC wanker. So a PC wanker can stick to his guns too

[kukushkin88]

He's pretty extreme for sure but I like the fact that he just says what he wants to say and sticks two fingers up to anyone that doesn't like it, fair play. Don't agree with a lot of what he says but good on him for sticking to his guns, would prefer that than some spineless jellyfish that caves in to PC wankers bitching because they have no backbone.

So when he says what he thinks he's sticking to his guns, but when someone else says what they think they are bitching spineless jellyfish wankers?

How does that work then?

Well, obviously your misinterpretation of Woodsey's post wouldn't work at all.

Mind you, Drumpf has changed his views more often than <insert your example here>.

Well I have to admit I am prone to misinterpret, so if you can explain where I went wrong I would genuinely appreciate it.

Bitching wankers and spineless jellyfish are two separate groups, but you have merged them into one.

Bitching wankers split from bleeding-heart liberals some time ago and stand on their own now. Spineless jellyfish are considering a merger with dithering idiots.

Ahh, thank you. So would I be correct in saying that according to Woodsey, you are either sticking to your guns or you are a PC wanker?

If I am correct then it begs the question why can't a PC wanker also be said to be "Sticking to his guns, and why can't he be admired for doing so?

Are there no occasions when the politically correct thing is also simply the correct thing?

I wouldn't spend too much time on it, I doubt a great deal of thought, if any, went in to it. He'll probably try and tell us there's a link between being "PC" and having left wing politics next, we shouldn't spend too much time thinking about that either.

My observation would be that I've noticed a clear correlation between intelligence and the ability to change one's mind. New information comes to light, it, to some degree, changes your mind. I'm reasonably sure that's how it's supposed to work.

[DungBeetle]

He's pretty extreme for sure but I like the fact that he just says what he wants to say and sticks two fingers up to anyone that doesn't like it, fair play. Don't agree with a lot of what he says but good on him for sticking to his guns, would prefer that than some spineless jellyfish that caves in to PC wankers bitching because they have no backbone.

So when he says what he thinks he's sticking to his guns, but when someone else says what they think they are bitching spineless jellyfish wankers?

How does that work then?

Well, obviously your misinterpretation of Woodsey's post wouldn't work at all.

Mind you, Drumpf has changed his views more often than <insert your example here>.

Well I have to admit I am prone to misinterpret, so if you can explain where I went wrong I would genuinely appreciate it.

Bitching wankers and spineless jellyfish are two separate groups, but you have merged them into one.

Bitching wankers split from bleeding-heart liberals some time ago and stand on their own now. Spineless jellyfish are considering a merger with dithering idiots.

Ahh, thank you. So would I be correct in saying that according to Woodsey, you are either sticking to your guns or you are a PC wanker?

If I am correct then it begs the question why can't a PC wanker also be said to be "Sticking to his guns, and why can't he be admired for doing so?

Are there no occasions when the politically correct thing is also simply the correct thing?

I assume Woodsey's point is that the "stick by guns" man will just say what he thinks, whereas the "pc wanker" will say what he thinks and also demand that "guns" doesn't say what he thinks.  "Jellyfish" will appease "PC" by agreeing not to air his view so that "PC" no longer needs to take offense on behalf of others.

Unrelated, but I agree that the PC thing is often also the correct thing.  However you can have a "PC" view without being a "PC wanker" (see above).

[RED-DOG]

He's pretty extreme for sure but I like the fact that he just says what he wants to say and sticks two fingers up to anyone that doesn't like it, fair play. Don't agree with a lot of what he says but good on him for sticking to his guns, would prefer that than some spineless jellyfish that caves in to PC wankers bitching because they have no backbone.

So when he says what he thinks he's sticking to his guns, but when someone else says what they think they are bitching spineless jellyfish wankers?

How does that work then?

Well, obviously your misinterpretation of Woodsey's post wouldn't work at all.

Mind you, Drumpf has changed his views more often than <insert your example here>.

Well I have to admit I am prone to misinterpret, so if you can explain where I went wrong I would genuinely appreciate it.

Bitching wankers and spineless jellyfish are two separate groups, but you have merged them into one.

Bitching wankers split from bleeding-heart liberals some time ago and stand on their own now. Spineless jellyfish are considering a merger with dithering idiots.

Ahh, thank you. So would I be correct in saying that according to Woodsey, you are either sticking to your guns or you are a PC wanker?

If I am correct then it begs the question why can't a PC wanker also be said to be "Sticking to his guns, and why can't he be admired for doing so?

Are there no occasions when the politically correct thing is also simply the correct thing?

I assume Woodsey's point is that the "stick by guns" man will just say what he thinks, whereas the "pc wanker" will say what he thinks and also demand that "guns" doesn't say what he thinks.  "Jellyfish" will appease "PC" by agreeing not to air his view so that "PC" no longer needs to take offense on behalf of others.

Unrelated, but I agree that the PC thing is often also the correct thing.  However you can have a "PC" view without being a "PC wanker" (see above).

I think this nails it.

I don't mind being PC, but I do worry about adding to my already considerable wankerishness.

[Ironside]

98% of PC men are wankers 1% are liars  and the other 1% cant get it up without viagra

unless you know different

[4KSuited]

Admittedly, I've only read p20, but I wasn't expecting a discourse on political focus-group groupings (?)

Then again, it's been far more entertaining & far less depressing than reading about expectations of what the world will be like with Drumpf or Hillary Clit in charge of the nuclear button.

[MintTrav]

So, the Republican leadership has adopted Cruz as its standard-bearer. His supporters now include former candidates, Jeb! Bush, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham and Scott Walker, as well as Mitt Romney, Nikki Haley and several from the Republican National Committee. It's incredible. The all hate him, but now they are backing him. Why?

Firstly, and most importantly, they reckon that the Presidency is already lost, but Trump will lead them to a disastrous defeat, with big losses in the Senate, the House and all the other less publicised, but still very important, offices that are up for election. Trump has record unfavourable ratings in almost all categories. Cruz' ratings are also bad, but nowhere near Trump's, so he might lead them to a 'normal' defeat, where they could hold on to some power, especially the House of Representatives (the Senate is probably lost either way).

Secondly, although Cruz is detestable, he is a conservative and believes in most of the same values as them, whereas Trump is a liberal and doesn't. If the GOP won the White House by some fluke, they would find themselves in agreement with most of President Cruz' policies, but opposed to most of President Trump's.

They really are in a terrible position. Cruz was the one they thought they would be uniting against. He is their sixteenth favourite of the seventeen candidates who took part, with a huge gap to fifteenth. Unfortunately, the race-leader is the only one they like less. They don't know whether they should try to push Trump out at the Convention, possibly leading to him running as a third-party candidate, splitting their support and handing the Presidency to the Democrats, or not. It could be seen as undemocratic to deprive the person with the most delegates of the nomination. On the other hand, if you add the delegates won by Rubio, etc to Cruz, it would exceed Trump's total, so it could be argued that it is legitimate to do so. Under 2012 rules, only Trump and Cruz will be eligible for the nomination, but they will probably change the rules. But who would they replace him with? Cruz? Kasich, who lost everywhere except his home State? Romney, who failed badly the last time? Bring back Rubio or Walker? The only Republicans who would have a chance of beating Clinton would probably be Kasich, Paul Ryan or Nikki Haley. Add into the mess the curveball that Trump's supporters have shown violent tendencies at times, which the candidate has done little to discourage; quite the opposite, in fact.

The RNC added a page to its website this week with the convention rules, causing one commentator to ask "Was TotalF*ckingTrainWreck.com already taken?”

[Tal]

What's the percentage smart play here? Kasich as a middle of the road, slightly boring Republican whose campaign will be I am not Hillary Clinton?

Trump will win the far right votes as an independent but would plenty of Democrats vote for a seemingly normal republican over the divisive Hillary?

There's a danger, isn't there, for both teams of a Thatcher or Blair Effect, where the legacy of a big personality is felt after they have gone and the voters get put off the party?

[david3103]

As I understand it there are too many states which have a 'sore loser' law which would prevent Drumpf standing as an independent if he loses out on the Republican nomination.


PS
Only in America could he be described as a liberal

[MintTrav]

As I understand it there are too many states which have a 'sore loser' law which would prevent Drumpf standing as an independent if he loses out on the Republican nomination.


PS
Only in America could he be described as a liberal

Many States have 'sore loser' laws, but most have been successfully challenged over the years with regard to their application to Presidential elections, so now they only apply in Texas and South Dakota, with some doubt about Ohio. Trump could have avoided the problem by not running in the Primaries of those States, but the law could still be challenged, as challenges have always been successful elsewhere.

A bigger problem is that filing dates will have passed in some States by the time of the GOP Convention (see reply 266 on p18). If I was Trump, I would start collecting signatures and filing where necessary in advance of the Convention as a threat to prevent them dumping me and as insurance in case they do.

Another idea being floated is for the Republican leadership to run an Independent candidate if Trump gets the nod. One of the likely consequences of a Trump candidacy is that a lot of their supporters wouldn't show up. People who vote for the headline candidate usually vote for the same party in all the other State votes held the same day, so many candidates in marginal State races would lose out. The theory is that running a conservative Independent or third-party candidate would give voters a reason to turn up and then vote down the line. It's unlikely to happen.

[MintTrav]

What's the percentage smart play here? Kasich as a middle of the road, slightly boring Republican whose campaign will be I am not Hillary Clinton?

Trump will win the far right votes as an independent but would plenty of Democrats vote for a seemingly normal republican over the divisive Hillary?

There's a danger, isn't there, for both teams of a Thatcher or Blair Effect, where the legacy of a big personality is felt after they have gone and the voters get put off the party?

Trump and Cruz have support within certain groups in the Republican Party, but not many people like them outside the party (in the general population, Cruz has an unfavourable rating of 51% and Trump is 63% (73% with women). Kasich's unfavourability is just 32%.

Kasich has a decent shot against Hillary. He is the only one of the three remaining GOP candidates to beat her in head-to-head polling, which he has done nine times recently, 100% of all polls.

One research unit said recently that the Republicans' best candidate would be Condoleezza Rice. Although she has some baggage from the Bush years, I think she would be a super candidate. Being a black female could almost be an advantage at this stage. Not sure that the US is ready for a female President who brings her own First Lady, though, which was supposedly also the reason that McCain was eventually persuaded not to have her as his VP running mate.

I think the GOP's most imaginative option would be Nikki Haley. The youngest Governor in the country (though in that job since 2011), she was brought up as a Sikh (single name Nimrata Nikki Randhawa), but is now a Christian. She is still popular in her State, South Carolina, being re-elected with a large majority, and has been mentioned many times for VP. If they are stuck, they could do worse.

[MintTrav]

This week could be the beginning of the end for Trump.  Well, last week actually, but the effects might first be seen this week. Trump has been known as a flip-flopper for years and has done it in the campaign. Usually, though there have been substantial periods between the flip and the flop. Last week, though, he reversed his stated position within hours on not one, but two, important issues, namely abortion and nuclear.

You have probably heard that he said that, if the law is changed and abortions become illegal, women who have them should be punished. He was attacked by both sides for this, realised it was a screw-up, and quickly reversed to say that the doctors should be punished, but not the women. 

To be fair, he was suckered into the original position by the interviewer. The problem is that he doesn't know how to avoid traps and doesn't have advisors who can teach him.

He also said in one interview that Japan and South Korea should develop nuclear weapons and then, in another interview, said that his greatest fear is the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
 
Further, he recanted his promise to support the Republican nominee.

On top of all that, he stood by his campaign manager, who assaulted a reporter, instead of sacking him, and he got into a ridiculous wife-off with Cruz,  which seems to have damaged him (Trump) mainly.

The Wisconsin Primary is tomorrow. The most recent poll has Cruz ahead 43-37-18, so a Cruz win is very likely. Cruz' superior ground campaign could leverage that lead to a bigger win than expected and, if he could maintain that strength through the upcoming States, he would have all the momentum heading into the Convention. Cruz has also been mounting a delegate war in many States to get his supporters selected, with a view to the second ballot. He has also been targeting delegates won by candidates who have dropped out, who are now free agents. It is feasible to imagine Trump staggering to the Convention with a beaten campaign that no-one wants to see continue, despite having the most delegates on the first  ballot.

New York is next though, where Trump is far ahead (52-21-20), so that timing might steady the ship for him. The strategy for Cruz (and Kasich) is to peel away as many delegates as they can in Trump-strong NY and Cali, and try to nab the (for them) more friendly winner-take-all States.
 

Click to see full-size image.