Cruz Drops Out -- Trump to Win Nomination

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
51 replies · 8K views
Physics news on Phys.org
I know that a few mentors here had said to allow the one or two members that backed Trump to allow them to post in favor of him even though it was not something that seemed mainstream and acceptable, I don't know what to think at this point.

I am terrified, that's all I will say at this point.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CalcNerd and 1oldman2
russ_watters said:
Can you reach readable articles by just typing-in www.usatoday.com? How about accessing that article from the google link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi82bK-98HMAhXJWxoKHXVoBiYQFggdMAA&url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/04/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll/83929258/&usg=AFQjCNE5B3P66YkJAtz0AgQtrhrhcIpEKg&sig2=TtOzsf-5Q7Iz8gwwBJFhpg
When I click on the www.usatoday.com link at the start of the sentence I get the same thing as yesterday. When I click on the long link I get the article.

FYI, this is what I get when I type "www.usatoday.com" into my address bar:
.
When I CLICK on that as a link I get the same thing I showed you yesterday. When I type it into the browser, I get the site.
 
Why do people seem to think presidents matter? This country is $19T in debt. The CFR is voluminous in regulations. We did not get to this state over night. We got here with Republican Congress and a Republican administration, Democratic Congress and Democratic administrations, and any combination of the two. Politically, the Republican party is more liberal now, than the Democratic party was in the sixties. This country moves in the direction the top 0.1% want the country to go, regardless of who occupies the White House, or Congress.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1oldman2
Kevin McHugh said:
Why do people seem to think presidents matter? This country is $19T in debt...
Getting the right President clearly matters if debt is the principal concern. Sen. Paul submitted any number of detailed budgets that would have quickly zeroed the deficit, and demonstrated he was immune to breaking that discipline for either more military spending or more entitlement spending. He might have been overridden by an all Democratic congress, but I doubt by a Republican congress. Sen. Sanders on the other hand proposes spending at least 13 trillion more over 10 years, with a fraction of that covered by new taxes.
http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/10/13/the-bernie-sanders-budget-math/
 
SteamKing said:
Your recounting of history is a little off here.

In 1880, James Garfield (R) ran against W.S. Hancock (D) for the presidency. Earlier, James Blaine had been a candidate for the GOP nomination, but withdrew in favor of Garfield, and Blaine later served briefly in the Garfield administration as secretary of state. Blaine resigned after Garfield died in the fall of 1881 from his assassin's bullet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield

In 1884, Blaine was nominated by the GOP for the presidency after a convention fight with Pres. Arthur. In the general election, Blaine's opponent was Democrat Grover Cleveland, who was reported to be supporting a child out of wedlock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Blaine

In any event, the election of 1884 was decided by one of the thinnest of margins, about 0.25% of the popular vole, in favor of Cleveland (the vote in the Electoral College was 219-182).

Oops. Cleveland, not Garfield.

Cleveland WAS supporting a child out of wedlock. The only question was whether or not he was actually the father.
 
mheslep said:
Getting the right President clearly matters if debt is the principal concern. Sen. Paul submitted any number of detailed budgets that would have quickly zeroed the deficit, and demonstrated he was immune to breaking that discipline for either more military spending or more entitlement spending. He might have been overridden by an all Democratic congress, but I doubt by a Republican congress.
Is this the Ryan plan to which one is referring?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity
https://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy15_blueprint.pdf
 
mheslep said:
Getting the right President clearly matters if debt is the principal concern. Sen. Paul submitted any number of detailed budgets that would have quickly zeroed the deficit, and demonstrated he was immune to breaking that discipline for either more military spending or more entitlement spending. He might have been overridden by an all Democratic congress, but I doubt by a Republican congress. Sen. Sanders on the other hand proposes spending at least 13 trillion more over 10 years, with a fraction of that covered by new taxes.
http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/10/13/the-bernie-sanders-budget-math/

Yeah, but you can't get the right president as long as the 0.1% have their say. Every election cycle the Hobson's choice gets worse and worse.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hornbein
It's baffling that people are still so shocked about this. It's been happening for months and months, years if you trace it back to the Tea Party. I get accused of being inflammatory for asking, but what's so shocking about all of this? You'd have to be living in a bubble to not realize the anger and increasing distrust of all things government on the part of conservatives (the "establishment Republicans " are now finally victims of their own plan) over the past decade at least, so it was only a matter of time.

I've still yet to see an explanation for Trump's success besides the most obvious one. What have they been so far? That he's running as a joke? What does it say about our country, or our Republicans to be specific, if someone can run as a joke and get the Republican nomination? Is it gerrymandering or an unfortunate result of our election system? If so, same question about what that says about our democracy. Or is it that real Republicans don't like him and only the bad ones---and probably actually Democrats if you really think about it---support him? Just about every explanation has been offered except the obvious one that Trump is a good representative of current Republican values. I know that in this case, anecdotal evidence is acceptable on this site if someone's 5 out of 6 Republican friends don't like him, but we need to stop denying a blatantly obvious fact. Now that he's literally been chosen to represent Republicans, it's looking more and more ridiculous and desperate to do so.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: billy_joule
If Trump is going to make this nomination work and get to the presidency, he's going to need a VP who is massively qualified and will quell the concerns of the doubters on both sides of the aisle.

I suggest Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator for many terms who works well across the aisle, and who served two years as Obama's Secretary of Defense.
 
Last edited:
Tobias Funke said:
That he's running as a joke? What does it say about our country, or our Republicans to be specific, if someone can run as a joke and get the Republican nomination?

Haiti recently elected a clown as President. I saw a video of the to-be President dryhumping some guy on a stage.

Haiti's government is a joke, completely dominated by the USA, which invades Haiti whenever it is displeased. So why not? The vote expressed how the voters felt about their country.

For decades the Rs have been telling their voters that giving big business everything it wanted would create good jobs. The result was the opposite. Eventually the voters caught on.

The GOP couldn't get enough votes from normal people so they mobilized fanatics. Now the fanatics are a majority. The demon has escaped the pentagram.
 
Hornbein said:
The GOP couldn't get enough votes from normal people so they mobilized fanatics. Now the fanatics are a majority. The demon has escaped the pentagram.

I basically agree but this makes it sound like there were sleeper cells of fanatics just lying in wait to hijack the Republican party. (People strangely use that very word, even though he was given the nomination with no use of force.) Normal people don't just become fanatics within a year; that has been happening for some time.
 
Tobias Funke said:
I basically agree but this makes it sound like there were sleeper cells of fanatics just lying in wait to hijack the Republican party. (People strangely use that very word, even though he was given the nomination with no use of force.) Normal people don't just become fanatics within a year; that has been happening for some time.

Yep. It was easy to see this coming long ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-last-throes-of-the-republican-party.312550/#post-2189709
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tobias Funke
Hornbein said:
Haiti recently elected a clown as President. I saw a video of the to-be President dryhumping some guy on a stage.

Haiti's government is a joke, completely dominated by the USA, which invades Haiti whenever it is displeased. So why not? The vote expressed how the voters felt about their country.

For decades the Rs have been telling their voters that giving big business everything it wanted would create good jobs. The result was the opposite. Eventually the voters caught on.

The GOP couldn't get enough votes from normal people so they mobilized fanatics. Now the fanatics are a majority. The demon has escaped the pentagram.
Please, if you are going to make claims, please post sources.
 
Evo said:
Please, if you are going to make claims, please post sources.

Here's Michel Martelly, until recently president of Haiti. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmBnfWjCkIc.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01865/Video_purporting_t_1865763a.jpg
US-Haiti-Clinton_20_0_2651143522.JPEG-03fba-1024x660.jpg


The Atlantic said:
Martelly in large part owes his presidency to Hillary Clinton, who, as secretary of state, flew personally to Port-au-Prince after 2010’s first-round results showed him eliminated from the race, to demand he be put back in. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/02/haiti-michel-martelly/461991/

Haitian enthusiasm for the election was so great that fewer than 17% of eligible voters participated. The Atlantic declared the 2011 election a "farce."

Pre-presidential Martelly would sometimes perform naked.
 
Dotini said:
If Trump is going to make this nomination work and get to the presidency, he's going to need a VP who is massively qualified and will quell the concerns of the doubters on both sides of the aisle.

I suggest Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator for many terms who works well across the aisle, and who served two years as Obama's Secretary of Defense.

I have a difficult time believing that Chuck Hagel, with his independent streak combined with his having served 2 years as Secretary of Defense under the Obama administration, would ever consider accepting the offer of VP under a Trump presidential candidacy.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Yep. It was easy to see this coming long ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-last-throes-of-the-republican-party.312550/#post-2189709

The extremism has become so normalized that even Republicans who claim that Trump "only" mobilized fanatics still can't bring themselves to vote for Clinton. Trump's most odious supporters seem to intuitively understand that so-called moderate Republicans will succumb to years of fear-mongering and eventually side with them. Maybe they hit on the right word to describe them with "cucks."*

For anyone who doesn't know, yes, that has actually become a somewhat common insult among hardcore Trump fans. And he's the Republican nominee. Let that sink in.

*Edit: To be clear, I don't really think they hit on the right word. I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous they are.

Also, I didn't mention the other options moderates have: vote third party or don't vote at all. Even then, too many of them seem wary of doing either, lest Hillary get elected. It will be interesting to see how they decide between a Republican extremist that they don't like or a Democrat, who is almost by definition an extremist that they don't like.
 
Last edited:
Hornbein said:
...the USA, which invades Haiti whenever it is displeased...
Am I missing something, or would that be one US invasion in the last hundred years, in 1994 when Bill Clinton invaded to stop the military coup in Haiti that overthrew the elected Aristede, and left two years later? Do you think the US should not have invaded in 1994?
 
mheslep said:
Am I missing something, or would that be one US invasion in the last hundred years, in 1994 when Bill Clinton invaded to stop the military coup in Haiti that overthrew the elected Aristede, and left two years later? Do you think the US should not have invaded in 1994?

Haiti was occupied by the US from 1915 to 1934, committing many atrocious acts. United States Marines invaded Santo Domingo in 1965.
 
Hornbein said:
...United States Marines invaded Santo Domingo in 1965.

So, not Haiti.