REMINDER: 12hrs til penultimate GOP Debate before Iowa. Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Carson/Christie/Bush/Kasich

(I have no idea where to put this thread, and figured this would be my best bet. Apologies if it's out of place)

Trump takes a 16 point lead (nationally) into this debate. Trump and Cruz less than a point apart in Iowa, while Trump holds a massive 17 point lead in New Hampshire. Just yesterday, Trump became the unofficial favourite to gain the Republican nomination, according to aggregate scores from experts. Trump and Cruz will fight it out in Iowa, while Rubio/Christie/Bush and Kasich have their hats hung on New Hampshire. Without a surge there, it'll be a Trump v Cruz battle to see who'll fight the eventual Democratic nominee.

However, the very last Democratic debate (before voting begins) takes place on Sunday night. Bernie Sanders is rocketing in both the early states and nationally. Only 9 points behind Clinton across the U.S.. In the early states, Clinton is ahead 4 points in Iowa, while Bernie has a 6 point lead in New Hampshire. Unless another poll is released from Iowa today showing a small rise in the polls, O'Malley will be dropped, leaving Clinton and Sanders to duke it out for the nomination.

You can watch the live-stream at 2am UTC, 9pm EST and 6pm PST. Just google 'Fox News Debate'.

Should be entertaining. This is a last-stand for 4 of these candidates, so we should expect to see a lot of personal attacks, especially involving Trump. Lookin' forward to it!

 

lel, watching it on Youtube now. Such stupidity lol. I prefer this quote from Ben Carson: "Imagine a scenario where we get EMP'd, dirty bombed and cyber attacked at the same time"

 

Cruz scares me with his twisted misleading information. After his comments regarding climate change saying that there has been no warming in 18 years (18 years ago was a very abnormally warm year. He purposefully picked a warm year to mislead facts.), I decided that I'd rather have an honest racist than another liar. Besides, I don't think Trump would ever win a general election. Cruz on the other hand would pose a bigger threat-- not only to the election but to our country as a whole.

Hillary is a liar on many levels. She has a lot of experience and knows how to play the political game. She's been in the public eye for 20 years, but I feel like I still don't know anything about her actual personality. That's disconcerting... Granted, I'd rather have her than Trump or Cruz, but the only candidate I actually like is Bernie.

 

Your post is internally inconsistent.

 

*clap clap clap* Do you want a cookie?

 

I'm gathering that his statements were true at a very superficial level. I.e. If there's not much between 2 candidates... honest racist > anti-science pathological liar.

However, I understand that in the context of his post, he isn't backing a candidate solely on his basis. If he was, you're right. There's a hell of a double-standard here. But he isn't. While Hillary is a f**king shill, she's still preferred to Trump because of the other factors in play. Those that should be so obvious, they don't warrant a mention.

I mean, do you really think that he's picking candidates solely/primarily on 'trust'? Or do you think he's picking it on policies, their campaigns, their debate performances etc?

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 24, 2016 ---

I no fan of Ranger. Anyone that sees us interact on more than 1 occasion will see that. But don't do this bro. Just ignore and move on.

 

Yes. Damn it, you made me hungry .

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 24, 2016 ---

He's making a blanket statement,that he would rather have a racist than a liar, and then contradicting that by saying he'd rather have a liar than a racist. I mean, there was no point in saying that if it doesn't carry any meaning, right?

And I should hope he actually looks at their policies; he does strongly support a candidate after all. Although I would point out that policies don't mean anything if they lie about everything (Politicians, *sigh*).

 

It was not meant to be taken too literally. I'll just echo what TheDebatheist said. You really don't have to dig so deep to try to make this kind of argument because it really makes no difference whether or not I literally mean trust is the only thing I care about in a candidate.

 

Then you're missing any nuance in argument.

"Men are taller than women"

"Kids are less intelligent than Adults"

"I'd rather have an honest racist in office, over a pathological liar"

They're blankets statements. But anyone with a modicum of critical thinking realises that they are generalisations, and only that. You're creating something out of nothing here, and I don't think it reflects well on you when you nitpick on a blanket statement, rather than tackling the substance. He's clarified. I've clarified. He's agreed. Move on.

But he took the isidewithquiz and came out as a solid Bernie Sanders supporter. Given the top 10 or so candidates left, Bernie is by far the most authentic. He is anything but a populist. Which gives his support for Bernie even more credit, given his statements about liars etc.

 

#FEELTHEBERN

 

Send Bernie your vacuum pennies!

 

May want to see a doctor for that bern. Why not Ben Carson?