General Primary Discussion Thread

Started by Time-Immemorial212 pages

The republicans and democrats better start waking the hell up, that people are sick and tired of status quo.

To hell with all these politicians.

Bush said there is no way he's losing SC. But he has literally no support.

Trump is 42%
Cruz a distant second at 20%

You should hope that Jeb does well enough in SC to stick it out to Super Tuesday. If Cruz, Bush, Rubio and Kasich are all still in the running by then, Trump is going to dominate.

I'm not saying bush is dropping out. I'm saying that "bush firewall" doesn't exist.

Yeah, and I was saying that it is beneficial to Trump if Bush is in the race.

Fun fairly pointless factoid- The reason no-one is polling in Nevada is because last time the Caucus had a turnout of around 10,000 people. In the state.

It makes it... very hard to get a clear picture, and pretty annoying for predictions. That's why everyone is paying attention to South Carolina instead.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The republicans and democrats better start waking the hell up, that people are sick and tired of status quo.

To hell with all these politicians.

Do you know what would really shake-up the status quo? Voting for people who didn't want to block everything, and wanted to work with others, including their opponents, instead.

Well it's been confirmed.

Hilary prefers women lovers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427366/He-frilly-nightie-danced-playing-sax-Former-Miss-Arkansas-says-Bill-Clinton-bed-confided-Hillary-sex-women-fears-Hillary-vendetta-sleeps-loaded-semi-automatic.html

How's that "confirmed", it's one person and she happens to be selling a book. Hmmm.

So wait, Hilary can take money from special interests groups and run for president, but people can't sell a book?

Well on one hand it is possible she is lying just to sell more copies of her book. On the other hand it doesn't necessarily translate into it being an automatic fact she is lying in order to sell more copies.

It's the daily mail aka the daily fail. It's a British tabloid known to make stuff up sometimes or exaggerating details something that happened to sell more copies (The list of things the Daily Mail has said will give you cancer. Include 'being a man,' 'being a woman,' 'babies,' 'bagels,' artificial light, candle light, tv, money...).

In general, if you see a Daily Mail Article... well, it could be real, but you should double check other sources/take it with a huge grain of salt.

Biggest South Carolina ad spenders:
Team Bush $12.8M
Team Rubio $11.1M
Team Cruz $8.1M
Team Trump $1.3M
Team Sanders $878K
Team Clinton $712K

Bush, Rubio, and Cruz are really pouring it on (Trump is obviously holding back because, well, he doesn't need to, he's going to win and his opponents are shooting at each other a ton).

Meanwhile, Sanders is outspending Clinton on the D side, which is unexpected.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Well it's been confirmed.

Hilary prefers women lovers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427366/He-frilly-nightie-danced-playing-sax-Former-Miss-Arkansas-says-Bill-Clinton-bed-confided-Hillary-sex-women-fears-Hillary-vendetta-sleeps-loaded-semi-automatic.html

So does Bill. They have so much in common. What a strong marriage they must have...

😂😂

Originally posted by Q99
It's the daily mail aka the daily fail. It's a British tabloid known to make stuff up sometimes or exaggerating details something that happened to sell more copies (The list of things the Daily Mail has said will give you cancer. Include 'being a man,' 'being a woman,' 'babies,' 'bagels,' artificial light, candle light, tv, money...).

In general, if you see a Daily Mail Article... well, it could be real, but you should double check other sources/take it with a huge grain of salt.

Biggest South Carolina ad spenders:
Team Bush $12.8M
Team Rubio $11.1M
Team Cruz $8.1M
Team Trump $1.3M
Team Sanders $878K
Team Clinton $712K

Bush, Rubio, and Cruz are really pouring it on (Trump is obviously holding back because, well, he doesn't need to, he's going to win and his opponents are shooting at each other a ton).

Meanwhile, Sanders is outspending Clinton on the D side, which is unexpected.

the bush and rubio numbers just scream establishment

Originally posted by Raisen
the bush and rubio numbers just scream establishment

They more scream 'trying to catch up/gain control of their lane.'

I mean, remember, Trump *can* outspend everyone if he wants to (both parties combined even), but he's the lowest of the four Republicans on the list.

Sanders could spend that much if *he* wanted to, he's got enough for it, but he knows he needs a longer race to win so using up his money now is bad, while Rubio and Bush are fighting to gain legitimacy as candidate which they need to do ASAP, and then once they've done rely on future fundraising. Bernie wants to do well in South Carolina, he's just not as in desperate straights. If he was in a position where he needed to try and money-hammer in SC, then he's not in a good position anyway.

Well Hilary Dog really came out..

She literally has started to bark like a dog.

YouTube video

I just find all these sexist feminists who are telling women they need to vote for Hilary just because she is a woman disgusting. Any American citizen who has ever voted for a candidate based solely on gender or race should be permanently banned from voting in any elections again.

Okay, the second thing is ridiculous. But the first I agree with generally, if these people say that women should vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman that's stupid. And things like what Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem said are sexist, particular aimed at younger women. However, considering race and gender as one of the factors makes sense, because the race and gender of a candidate alone has consequences, and factoring that in does make sense.

I disagree, if you're voting based solely on race or gender you don't deserve to vote, you don't help the country that way, you hurt it. Either be part of the solution or remove yourself from the equation all together and let the real grown ups vote.

Those are lame voting credentials, but voting for whomever you want for which ever reason is your right as a citizen.

Is it any less lame to vote for a candidate because that's who your spouse voted for? Who your parents voted for? Which from what I understand, is rather common.

Originally posted by Surtur
I disagree, if you're voting based solely on race or gender you don't deserve to vote, you don't help the country that way, you hurt it. Either be part of the solution or remove yourself from the equation all together and let the real grown ups vote.

I'd argue your stance is more harmful to a country, so perhaps consider removing yourself from the equation by your own method.