What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

And then there was one.

Round and round the mulberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel, the monkey thought it was a joke...... crucify Rience Priebus.

 
So, besides seeing Trump Quote National Enquirer stories, quote/re-tweet things from White Supremely groups and others, we also get the luxury of getting quotes like the following for the next 6 months:

But I think one of my strengths is going — one of my really great strengths will be the military, will be getting us out and winning and getting us out of the mess we’re in, in the Middle East.”
Click to expand...
Going to be a VERY long 6 months :X

 
squistion said:
RedStateVerified account ‏@RedState 5h5 hours ago

Republicans Should Confirm Merrick Garland ASAP.
Click to expand...
:lol: been waiting for that.. They can either confirm someone most on the right supported a couple years back..

Or wait for Hillary, who has already said she wants a more "liberal" judge on the court, to nominate her candidate. :mellow:

 
The Commish said:
It's absurd that they haven't already...though, I doubt Hillary is capable of going much more "liberal" than Garland.
Click to expand...
Why? 

I thought the reason he got the nomination is that he was pretty middle-of-the-road and would be nearly impossible to deny, no?

 
The Commish said:
It's absurd that they haven't already...though, I doubt Hillary is capable of going much more "liberal" than Garland.
Click to expand...
The Red State rationale was partially that she could go more liberal but also younger, which seemed to be the bigger concern. Someone liberal who would be on the court for 20-30 years vs. 10-15. 

We are definitely through the looking glass though. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buzzbait said:
As far as I'm concerned it's been a heaping pile of s**t sandwiches for 12 years now from both parties.
Click to expand...
While that's true, there's a big difference between disappointing politicians, and people that have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the job they are running for.

Sarah Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court ruling.

Donald Trump had no idea what the Nuclear Triad was.

This is what he was referring to. The nomination of someone wildly unqualified for the job they are trying to get.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Bill Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer.  I don't think Hillary is to the right of Bill.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

While she certainly won't want to upset her own apple cart in any way at all, I kind of doubt she cares all that much about potentially closing off the trough for the next generations coming down the pipeline.
Click to expand...
You guys make good points.  Hadn't thought about them.  I guess time will tell.  I'll be shocked if her first nomination is close to actual liberal though....maybe her 2nd or 3rd try?

 
Been saying from the very beginning that if you take away the hawkish immigration stance that Trump was left of Hillary and Obama.  Did any of you believe me, doubt it.  

Chickens coming home to roost here folks.

 
As long as there's a gun lobby I don't see Garland getting nominated.  He is so overwhelmingly anti-gun that the Democrat media is circling the wagons writing stories about how disappointed they are that Obama nominated such a moderate.

I especially get a kick out of the articles that purport that his liberal positions are "myths".  There are actual cases that can be pointed to that highlight how far to the left he is (especially with regards to the second amendment.)

Our 9th justice should probably be a big roulette wheel with "for" or "against" tabs.  Let fate decide, baby.

 
Statorama said:
As long as there's a gun lobby I don't see Garland getting nominated.  He is so overwhelmingly anti-gun that the Democrat media is circling the wagons writing stories about how disappointed they are that Obama nominated such a moderate.

I especially get a kick out of the articles that purport that his liberal positions are "myths".  There are actual cases that can be pointed to that highlight how far to the left he is (especially with regards to the second amendment.)

Our 9th justice should probably be a big roulette wheel with "for" or "against" tabs.  Let fate decide, baby.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the gun cases you're talking about were pre-Heller and he was just following the law as it existed at the time. :shrug:

 
Really hoping the rumors of the GOP putting together a viable 3rd party candidate comes true... sure it will pretty well guarantee a Hillary presidency but, depending on who they choose, many of us will actually have someone to vote for in the presidency race other than "none of the above".. :popcorn:

 
snogger said:
Really hoping the rumors of the GOP putting together a viable 3rd party candidate comes true... sure it will pretty well guarantee a Hillary presidency but, depending on who they choose, many of us will actually have someone to vote for in the presidency race other than "none of the above".. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
This doesn't make sense to me. Just vote Hilary. Same outcome, better drama. 

 
avoiding injuries said:
This doesn't make sense to me. Just vote Hilary. Same outcome, better drama. 
Click to expand...
I refuse to vote for either of the idiots the two parties are putting forth.  At this point, if a legitimate 3rd party candidate doesn't present themselves, I may just write in "none of the above"... :mellow:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
snogger said:
I refuse to vote for either of the idiots the two parties are putting forth.  At this point, if a legitimate 3rd party candidate doesn't present themselves, I may just write in "none of the above"... :mellow:
Click to expand...
there is a legitimate 3rd party candidate

 
snogger said:
Really hoping the rumors of the GOP putting together a viable 3rd party candidate comes true... sure it will pretty well guarantee a Hillary presidency but, depending on who they choose, many of us will actually have someone to vote for in the presidency race other than "none of the above".. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
The GOP would rather lose than win?  All they have to do is fully support Trump and they destroy Hilary.  So dumb of them IMO 

 
Hillary is winning regardless. I think the Republicans might be able to do better down-ballot if there is a more traditional conservative option on the ballot along with Trump. I'm sure that's what most of the discussion going on right now is about. 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Hillary is winning regardless. I think the Republicans might be able to do better down-ballot if there is a more traditional conservative option on the ballot along with Trump. I'm sure that's what most of the discussion going on right now is about. 
Click to expand...
I don't know understand how anyone can actually believe this.  Sure, she has a chance of winning.  But to act as if it's a done deal?  I don't think she has the ability to beat Trump.  She can't even put away Bernie Sanders.  She's closing in on the end of the primary season and she's still losing states.  He's dispatched 16 people and is gaining momentum despite have little support from the out-of-touch GOP.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
I don't know understand how anyone can actually believe this.  Sure, she has a chance of winning.  But to act as if it's a done deal?  I don't think she has the ability to beat Trump.  She can't even put away Bernie Sanders.  She's closing in on the end of the primary season and she's still losing states.  He's dispatched 16 people and is gaining momentum despite have little support from the out-of-touch GOP.  
Click to expand...
It's more about Trump than Hillary really. Any Republican was going to face long odds because of the way the electoral and demographic make-up of the country is changing. To overcome that, a Republican candidate was going to need to make serious inroads with women and minorities, two groups Romney lost badly to Obama. 

You know who isn't going to win any votes from women and minorities? Trump. I think he also counters the primary weakness of Hillary, which was the possibility of voter apathy among Democrats.  

Stuff can happen, of course. Maybe Clinton is indicted because of the e-mail stuff, or some other scandal pops up. But there's a reason even with all that risk factored in that Clinton is still an overwhelming favorite.

 
shader said:
I don't know understand how anyone can actually believe this.  Sure, she has a chance of winning.  But to act as if it's a done deal?  I don't think she has the ability to beat Trump.  She can't even put away Bernie Sanders.  She's closing in on the end of the primary season and she's still losing states.  He's dispatched 16 people and is gaining momentum despite have little support from the out-of-touch GOP.  
Click to expand...
It's all about the EC... Short of her getting indicated, Trump has to basically do a clean sweep of Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and a couple other "toss up" States. Just don't see it with his low ratings with women, latino's and African Americans. :shrug:

 
trump can win without florida but he needs to sweep PA, OH, IA, MN, and CO.  Trump either leads hillary in the polls or trails by about 3 in each of those except PA where he trails by 7.  Maybe Trump can drive union voters in PA to vote for him and turn it but very unlikely.

 
kasich has a huge lead over clinton in PA so maybe you pick him as veep and turn PA red.  or try to because i doubt it would work.  cant think of anything else.

 
Riversco said:
trump can win without florida but he needs to sweep PA, OH, IA, MN, and CO.  Trump either leads hillary in the polls or trails by about 3 in each of those except PA where he trails by 7.  Maybe Trump can drive union voters in PA to vote for him and turn it but very unlikely.
Click to expand...
Ed Rendell's Philly machine will deliver PA for Clinton at the end of the day. 

 
Riversco said:
trump can win without florida but he needs to sweep PA, OH, IA, MN, and CO.  Trump either leads hillary in the polls or trails by about 3 in each of those except PA where he trails by 7.  Maybe Trump can drive union voters in PA to vote for him and turn it but very unlikely.
Click to expand...
Suppose the polls were 50-50 in each of those states- that would be the mathematical equivalent of a coin flip, right? So even if that were the case, Trump's chances of winning the election would be the same as having to flip heads 5 times in a row- about 3%. 

So basically it's almost impossible without Florida. 

 
Riversco said:
trump can win without florida but he needs to sweep PA, OH, IA, MN, and CO.  Trump either leads hillary in the polls or trails by about 3 in each of those except PA where he trails by 7.  Maybe Trump can drive union voters in PA to vote for him and turn it but very unlikely.
Click to expand...
Dead even in PA.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/10/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-quinnipiac-poll-florida-ohio-pennsylvania/84173448/

The Trump train is rolling.

 
timschochet said:
Suppose the polls were 50-50 in each of those states- that would be the mathematical equivalent of a coin flip, right? So even if that were the case, Trump's chances of winning the election would be the same as having to flip heads 5 times in a row- about 3%. 

So basically it's almost impossible without Florida. 
Click to expand...
huh?

 
timschochet said:
Suppose the polls were 50-50 in each of those states- that would be the mathematical equivalent of a coin flip, right? So even if that were the case, Trump's chances of winning the election would be the same as having to flip heads 5 times in a row- about 3%. 

So basically it's almost impossible without Florida. 
Click to expand...
You ever play roulette betting black only to watch red hit 7 then 8 then 9 times in a row?  I have, more than once. 

 
timschochet said:
Suppose the polls were 50-50 in each of those states- that would be the mathematical equivalent of a coin flip, right? So even if that were the case, Trump's chances of winning the election would be the same as having to flip heads 5 times in a row- about 3%. 

So basically it's almost impossible without Florida. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
timschochet said:
Suppose the polls were 50-50 in each of those states- that would be the mathematical equivalent of a coin flip, right? So even if that were the case, Trump's chances of winning the election would be the same as having to flip heads 5 times in a row- about 3%. 

So basically it's almost impossible without Florida. 
Click to expand...
The polls are unlikely to be static.  Odds are they will all move the same direction, one way or the other.  He has to have Florida, assuming he loses Virginia.  Basically the old Republican map only worked with all 3 of Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.  If you lose any, you have to replace it somewhere else.  Pennsylvania could offset Virginia but if you also lose Florida you'd need to add Michigan and Wisconsin.  Very difficult path, but again the polls likely all move in the same direction.  If it's accurate that states are that tight, it's almost a package deal, just as Obama pulled in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure why what I wrote is so controversial. Who was the last Republican President to lose Florida? I can't recall. It's really, really hard to win without Florida. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lombardi
The Next POTUS - Here are the odds, who is the best bet?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
5K
Good Posting Judge
Good Posting Judge
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
1K
The General
The General
Chadstroma
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
Replies
32
Views
2K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top