It's possible that Trump could pivot back towards the middle should he win the nomination, but he's got a long way to go after putting himself so far outside of mainstream thought.
Perhaps, but that would be my biggest fear. Assuming Trump gets the nomination (still a big assumption), he will have shown that he can beat the Republican establishment, so why not the Democratic establishment too. As I heard someone else say this week, Trump vs Clinton would no longer be Republican vs Democrat, it would be the establishment choice vs the people's choice. There would undoubtedly be some number of independents who would move to Trump especially considering he's not a real social conservative, and as you mentioned he would almost certainly pivot more towards the middle. People are not as enthusiastic about voting for Hillary as they would be for Trump or Sanders, so you'd be relying on people to go out and vote against Trump. All that said, I still don't think he wins, but I'm not comfortable enough to think it could never happen.
On the other hand, in a theoretical Sanders vs Trump matchup, I honestly think Sanders would win handily for largely the same reasons.
tldr:
- They guesstimate his current chances of winning at around 15%. For comparison, they've been pegging Trump's chances of winning the Republican nomination at about 5%.
- Clinton has the backing of the establishment and minority voters. It will be very tough for Sanders to win unless he can pickup a greater share of minorities voters.
- He has the money, grassroots supports, and ground game to be competitive in a long race. If he wins Iowa (currently neck and neck) and New Hampshire (currently he's winning), then who knows.
I honestly don't see what the issue is. She describes herself as "open to any gender" but so far in her life (she's only 14) she has only actually been attracted to boys. With celebrity sexuality being such a big deal these days in the tabloids I understand her not wanting to be labelled and having to live with other people looking to her to set an example and live a certain way because of it. I read a similar thing earlier this week about Bowie describing himself as a "closet heterosexual", and I can see that as someone in the public eye there could be a lot of pressure to conform to certain expectations.
I talked with several Trump supporters and considering one of them risked his life to save a Native American women who was getting attacked by four people and was so severely attacked she had to be hospitalized I just don't think they are anything like the KKK and what not.
Well some definitely are since the actual KKK and American Freedom Party (White supremacists) support Trump. As for the rest of the Trump supporters, as the man himself would say "Some, I assume, are good people".
Soooo any new polls this week? Oh just Sanders leading in Iowa now as well as in New Hampshire, and another showing Hillary's lead nationally cut to just +4 points. An NBC poll this week also suggests that Sanders is now outperforming Clinton in general election match-ups against the GOP. That Democratic debate this Sunday night is looking like it could be an interesting one after all.
edit: Also while it's definitely not an "endorsement", it's noteworthy that Joe Biden came out and said a few things that were supportive of Sanders and pretty tepid towards Hillary.
The 1% specifically, three of fours times as much in my opinion.
If you're talking income tax, that works out to 118.8 or 158.4 percent of their income.
I foresee issues with this policy proposal.
That's the listed rate, but not the effective rate isn't it? I think when most people talk about raising income tax they mean the effective rate. You wouldn't even have to technically raise rates to do so, just remove some of the existing methods of paying less. CNN money says that in 2014 the top 1% paid an average of 23.5% income tax (in 2001 they paid an average rate of 27.6%), and Warren Buffet famously said that back in 2011 he only paid 17% income tax (of course, I'm not arguing that three or four times this amount actually makes sense).
I don't expect to see Trump's campaign fail from criticism from the Republicans. The man had always sparred, to put it lightly, with the Republican establishment and Fox (no one remembers him and Megyn Kelly?) Hell, a large part of his appeal to the truly right-wing IS that he fights against the Republican establishment.
Even when he went after Megyn Kelly, most personalities on Fox still supported him. The big difference is that doesn't appear to be true this time. Trump has done nothing but feast on media attention, that has been his entire campaign to this point. I would not underestimate how influential that media can be when it is united against someone, and right now both left and right wing media are going after Trump. If Fox News (and other right-wing media like Rush, etc) are really done with him, then he is finished.
Finally, *Finally*, we are seeing the crash and burn of Trump's campaign. The Republican party and (finally!) Fox News have turned on him and are eating him alive over his latest comments, which to be fair are so bat***** insane even Fox News can't pretend it might be reasonable.
Question now is does he run as an independent and how many of his supporters stick with him if he does? Without the support of Fox News and/or the Republican party he's bound to lose most of his support, but he still might get 5%, which could be enough to make a difference in the election.
Second question is who becomes the new front-runner. If we're finally through with clowns like Trump and Carson, who takes over the lead? Cruz seems like a good bet though he's not much better than Trump in many ways and is way more religious fundamentalist.
Does graduating from college mean that you're more educated than not going to college?
Well, by definition getting more education makes you more educated, college is education, making the simplest answer "yes". What would be your argument/reasoning for this not being the case?
they're really only sending one message: White people cannot touch black people, no matter what, and white policemen specifically aren't allowed to hold black people accountable to the law.
This is such a misrepresentation it's sick. If they would actually hold them accountable to the law then BLM would have fulfilled it's purpose, "holding them accountable to the law" would be a massive improvement to straight up murder by cops.
That is the official dogma, but it's inconsistent with the actions and protests of Black Lives Matter. They didn't give one whit about Dillon Taylor, killed by a black officer two days after Michael Brown was killed. Oh, and Taylor was not committing any crimes, and never tried to take the officer's gun.
Seriously? Their focus is to get cops to stop murdering black citizens at such a high rate. That doesn't mean they think it's perfectly ok for non-blacks to get murdered by cops. They're trying to shed light on an obvious problem of systemic racism in the way the justice system treats people of color. There is at the same time the separate problem of cops killing people and being overly trigger happy. Both are problems but just because they choose to focus on one issue doesn't make them hypocrites or racist.
At several of the rallies on college campuses, the protesters have demanded that more black faculty be hired at the university.
Isn't hiring an individual solely on the basis of their skin color racism, just as much as not hiring that individual?
Which school(s) are you referring to specifically? Presumably they would not be hired solely on the basis of their skin color, but they would also be qualified for the job.
isn't focusing on blacks ignoring the problems of other minorities (sexual, religious, ethnic). I understand protesting an all WASP staff, but would BLM support hiring mexican or lesbian or buddhist faculty?
I can only assume they would support the hiring of faculty that are both qualified, diverse, and roughly represent the students they are charged with teaching.
they're really only sending one message: White people cannot touch black people, no matter what, and white policemen specifically aren't allowed to hold black people accountable to the law.
This is such a misrepresentation it's sick. If they would actually hold them accountable to the law then BLM would have fulfilled it's purpose, "holding them accountable to the law" would be a massive improvement to straight up murder by cops.
I am not asking about whether or not you care about country, I'm asking about whether or not you care about the little girl caught in the crossfire, the family that is ripped apart because the parents are killed, or the thousands more that will be lost when the worst does happen and we are forced to take more drastic actions like war. You would pay all of those lives too? Who are you to say they deserve to die to fulfill your bloated sense of self-worth? Why should they die so you can raise your hand and say, "Look how good of a person I am, I let the terrorists in because I'm understanding."
Yeah because they just want to let in refugees to feel superior? Not to save lives or anything. But keep spouting some guilt-trip about a little girl who might die because an imaginary terrorist gets let in, while ignoring the hundreds of little girls who certainly will die by turning them away. Those people who would choose to help are the real monsters amiright?
Sou you would trade the innocent life of an American citizen for the potential innocent life of a refugee?
What a ridiculous spin to put on it. The average Syrian citizen is no more or less "innocent" (whatever you understand that to mean) than the average American citizen.
Perhaps, but that would be my biggest fear. Assuming Trump gets the nomination (still a big assumption), he will have shown that he can beat the Republican establishment, so why not the Democratic establishment too. As I heard someone else say this week, Trump vs Clinton would no longer be Republican vs Democrat, it would be the establishment choice vs the people's choice. There would undoubtedly be some number of independents who would move to Trump especially considering he's not a real social conservative, and as you mentioned he would almost certainly pivot more towards the middle. People are not as enthusiastic about voting for Hillary as they would be for Trump or Sanders, so you'd be relying on people to go out and vote against Trump. All that said, I still don't think he wins, but I'm not comfortable enough to think it could never happen.
On the other hand, in a theoretical Sanders vs Trump matchup, I honestly think Sanders would win handily for largely the same reasons.
tldr:
- They guesstimate his current chances of winning at around 15%. For comparison, they've been pegging Trump's chances of winning the Republican nomination at about 5%.
- Clinton has the backing of the establishment and minority voters. It will be very tough for Sanders to win unless he can pickup a greater share of minorities voters.
- He has the money, grassroots supports, and ground game to be competitive in a long race. If he wins Iowa (currently neck and neck) and New Hampshire (currently he's winning), then who knows.
Well some definitely are since the actual KKK and American Freedom Party (White supremacists) support Trump. As for the rest of the Trump supporters, as the man himself would say "Some, I assume, are good people".
Is this sarcasm? Do you know who Farrakhan is? Because a lot of people would say "Yes, yes he is. Very much so".
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
edit: Also while it's definitely not an "endorsement", it's noteworthy that Joe Biden came out and said a few things that were supportive of Sanders and pretty tepid towards Hillary.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-income-inequality/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/lindsey-graham-2016-campaign-drops-out/
That's the listed rate, but not the effective rate isn't it? I think when most people talk about raising income tax they mean the effective rate. You wouldn't even have to technically raise rates to do so, just remove some of the existing methods of paying less. CNN money says that in 2014 the top 1% paid an average of 23.5% income tax (in 2001 they paid an average rate of 27.6%), and Warren Buffet famously said that back in 2011 he only paid 17% income tax (of course, I'm not arguing that three or four times this amount actually makes sense).
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/
Even when he went after Megyn Kelly, most personalities on Fox still supported him. The big difference is that doesn't appear to be true this time. Trump has done nothing but feast on media attention, that has been his entire campaign to this point. I would not underestimate how influential that media can be when it is united against someone, and right now both left and right wing media are going after Trump. If Fox News (and other right-wing media like Rush, etc) are really done with him, then he is finished.
Question now is does he run as an independent and how many of his supporters stick with him if he does? Without the support of Fox News and/or the Republican party he's bound to lose most of his support, but he still might get 5%, which could be enough to make a difference in the election.
Second question is who becomes the new front-runner. If we're finally through with clowns like Trump and Carson, who takes over the lead? Cruz seems like a good bet though he's not much better than Trump in many ways and is way more religious fundamentalist.
Well, by definition getting more education makes you more educated, college is education, making the simplest answer "yes". What would be your argument/reasoning for this not being the case?
Seriously? Their focus is to get cops to stop murdering black citizens at such a high rate. That doesn't mean they think it's perfectly ok for non-blacks to get murdered by cops. They're trying to shed light on an obvious problem of systemic racism in the way the justice system treats people of color. There is at the same time the separate problem of cops killing people and being overly trigger happy. Both are problems but just because they choose to focus on one issue doesn't make them hypocrites or racist.
Which school(s) are you referring to specifically? Presumably they would not be hired solely on the basis of their skin color, but they would also be qualified for the job.
I can only assume they would support the hiring of faculty that are both qualified, diverse, and roughly represent the students they are charged with teaching.
This is such a misrepresentation it's sick. If they would actually hold them accountable to the law then BLM would have fulfilled it's purpose, "holding them accountable to the law" would be a massive improvement to straight up murder by cops.
Yeah because they just want to let in refugees to feel superior? Not to save lives or anything. But keep spouting some guilt-trip about a little girl who might die because an imaginary terrorist gets let in, while ignoring the hundreds of little girls who certainly will die by turning them away. Those people who would choose to help are the real monsters amiright?
What a ridiculous spin to put on it. The average Syrian citizen is no more or less "innocent" (whatever you understand that to mean) than the average American citizen.