(04-19-2016 11:17 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 10:26 PM)CostinR Wrote:  More like 847, anyway we'll see the ultimate math.

I'd see him taking around 90 or so on April 26th, not counting any of the 50 unbound Pennsylvania delegates, don't discount them however supporting Trump. Might even get 100 who knows.

I actually definitely like Trump to get more than 100 next week. Here's my breakdown.

[snip]

So yeah, if Trump does a clean sweep next week in CT and MD then he should get 107 delegates. I'm sure there's a district or two that skews real church-y which Cruz could snag a win from, but I'm honestly feeling pretty confident now that we're riding Trumpmentum.

[snip]

Ugh...Trumpmentum is just too close to Marcomentum...I submit Trumpenkrieg as a more suitable replacement.

Leftist BBC admits Trump is becoming more Presidential and his opponents should be becoming concerned.

And Cruz: that is what a landslide looks like. Now back to your impression of a mummified vagina.

I got bored and decided to make an Excel sheet covering all of the primaries and caucuses up until now, seeing if there were any trends we could glean.

I've included New York since most of the votes are tallied, and excluded Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Kentucky, Maine, DC and Wyoming because:

1. No accurate Democrat totals were available;
2. Or, the Democrat primary hasn't been held yet.
   

Most importantly--though this is bound to get closer after the rest of New England and California votes--if you total up the votes cast in all primaries so far, turnout has favored Republicans over Democrats, 55.2% to 44.8%.

If you pool together all votes cast, the candidates with the highest percentage of the popular vote are:

1. Hildebeest, 25.39%
2. God-Emperor Trump, 21%;
3. Stalin, 18.72%;
4. And El Ratoncito Canadiano, 15.32%.
   

No, I didn't forget that the Republican race has and continues to be more divided, and Trump's totals would be much, much higher if it was a 2-person race. But it's still impressive that Hillary and Trump are so close despite the latter facing so much more competition.

Case in point, Florida. Trump and Hillary both had over a million votes, very close to each other. Yet Trump's opposition accounted for another 1.2 million votes, while Hillary's opposition accounted for less than 600k.

Other interesting notes...I know this isn't a totally accurate predictor for the general election, but let's look at states that voted Republican by turnout vs. those that went Democrat...

GOP

South Carolina, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Michigan, Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Arizona, Utah, Wisconsin.

Democrat

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Hawaii, Louisiana, Illinois, New York.

(04-19-2016 09:07 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  Tiffany doing interview on fox news with brothers Eric and Donald!!

(04-19-2016 11:08 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  Can't steal this sign bitches!!

You can also combine this with castle doctrine for a very effective deterent.

Not sure if this is Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada but relevant legalese:

Arizona:

Quote:A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13‑1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13‑1507 or 13‑1508, kidnapping under section 13‑1304, manslaughter under section 13‑1103, second or first degree murder under section 13‑1104 or 13‑1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13‑1405, sexual assault under section 13‑1406, child molestation under section 13‑1410, armed robbery under section 13‑1904, or aggravated assault under section 13‑1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

A person could possibly be acquitted in Arizona for capping someone climbing their cactus to grab their sign since a good lawyer could argue it's a flat roof top building they could access for burglary.

Nevada:

Quote:200.120.

1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.
2.  A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:
(a) Is not the original aggressor;
(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and
© Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

New Mexico

Quote:New Mexico - Limited Castle Doctrine for self-defense inside one's home established by court precedence in State v. Couch (1946). No civil immunity from potential lawsuits by the aggressor or surviving relatives. In 2011, two bills (House Bill 228 and Senate Bill 29) would have granted civil immunity to individuals who lawfully use lethal force in self-defense, both bills died in their respective chambers of the New Mexico Legislature.

Chicken shit version probably neutered by all the La Raza type groups in N.M.

Made 40% on Trump taking NYC with over 50% of vote. Got in at .62 at predict it.

https://www.predictit.org/Contract/2437/...-vote#data

There were 95 delegates up for grabs in the New York Republican primary. The New York Times and AP are reporting Trump took 89 and Kasich took three.

That leave three up for grabs. Wonder if they'll go to Trump?

USA Today said yesterday Trump would have to top 50 percent to grab the 14 available "at large" delegates. He did that and more, so I'm hoping those final three delegates will be his.

Sorry no links to my info, but what's the point in linking to Big Media anymore. Last I saw, they were playing up a story that Trump made a slip-of-the-tongue and called 9/11 7-Eleven, as if this mistake was somehow disqualifying.

Tiffany is definitely sexier than Ivanka but there's something about her teeth. I think they may be veneers.

It's a shame.

She has those dick sucking lips but those dick injuring teeth.

Sad!

Another YUUUUGE victory for the Donald. Now the question becomes if the GOP establishment finally starts falling in line behind him or continues the shenanigans. My guess is that they fight him even beyond the point he secures the delegates just because they're so fucking stupid- they'll keep looking for obscure "rules" to try to make it so his delegate total is somehow insufficient.

That's to be expected though. More interesting, I wonder who he picks for VP.

(04-20-2016 03:50 AM)Fisto Wrote:  Tiffany is definitely sexier than Ivanka

Eh?

Greetings from Prague and as I touch down in Rome. Celebrating a Trump NY victory! My goal is a picture of me with a Trump button in front of the Vatican wall.

   

(04-20-2016 01:08 AM)Patriarch Wrote:  I got bored and decided to make an Excel sheet covering all of the primaries and caucuses up until now, seeing if there were any trends we could glean.

I've included New York since most of the votes are tallied, and excluded Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Kentucky, Maine, DC and Wyoming because:

1. No accurate Democrat totals were available;
2. Or, the Democrat primary hasn't been held yet.
   

Most importantly--though this is bound to get closer after the rest of New England and California votes--if you total up the votes cast in all primaries so far, turnout has favored Republicans over Democrats, 55.2% to 44.8%.

If you pool together all votes cast, the candidates with the highest percentage of the popular vote are:

1. Hildebeest, 25.39%
2. God-Emperor Trump, 21%;
3. Stalin, 18.72%;
4. And El Ratoncito Canadiano, 15.32%.
   

No, I didn't forget that the Republican race has and continues to be more divided, and Trump's totals would be much, much higher if it was a 2-person race. But it's still impressive that Hillary and Trump are so close despite the latter facing so much more competition.

Case in point, Florida. Trump and Hillary both had over a million votes, very close to each other. Yet Trump's opposition accounted for another 1.2 million votes, while Hillary's opposition accounted for less than 600k.

Other interesting notes...I know this isn't a totally accurate predictor for the general election, but let's look at states that voted Republican by turnout vs. those that went Democrat...

GOP

South Carolina, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Michigan, Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Arizona, Utah, Wisconsin.

Democrat

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Hawaii, Louisiana, Illinois, New York.

Good analysis, but there's even more.

Turnout among blacks, Hillary Clinton's strongest voting block, is down by close to 50% compared to when Obama ran, notably in crucial states like Florida and Ohio. Furthermore, I think Trump's support with blacks is being underreported.

If Trump either gets some more black support than Republicans have traditionally gotten, or if they don't turn out to vote Democrat in the numbers that turned out for Obama (or both), and Trump can just keep what Romney got (not even counting all the new people he could potentially bring out), he has a strong chance of winning.

Ted Cruz got mathematically eliminated in New York - and he lost not to Donald Trump there but to Ben Carson.

You fucking suck Rafael!

As for Trump's chances in New York in the general, I had this to say elsewhere:

Quote:http://nypost.com/2016/02/28/hillary-cou...-new-york/

This is big. YUGE, actually.

First post here, but I was pulled here from another forum distinctly pro-Trump.

For some background, I've done some work in New York political circles over a number of years. I've been to some events, on the steps of City Hall, in meetings with council members, met Mayor Koch a few times before he died, etc. One New York luminary from administrations-past is a valued mentor of mine.

You could say I run in circles with old school liberals, even though I'm right wing myself.

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Upstate New York has been absolutely devastated by the trade deals we've made for the past 30 years. It's one of the reasons why Governor Cuomo is devoting so much time and PR energy into rebuilding upstate New York, because people are leaving it in droves. Ever see those ads on Yankees games about StartUp NY?

New York state is actually a good cross-section of the country at large. You have one very large majority-minority urban center (New York City) and very largely white suburban and rural areas surrounding it. In this respect, it's a good preview of the general election.

On the one hand, those suburban and rural areas have been totally devastated by the so-called free trade deals, on the other, the urban center is itself under strain by skyrocketing living costs, educated young professionals having difficulty finding work and meeting ends meet, minorities on welfare, all the while the cream in Manhattan gets far richer off of skyrocketing asset prices. Fortunately, I've largely benefited from the latter, but I have also had some problems with the former, and upstate is far worse.

I also know that many of those old school liberals, including my mentor, are very worried about the rise of the social justice warriors and how these lunatics are totally running left wing politics off the rails. Some of the issues I mentioned which should be natural Democratic strongholds have instead been surrendered in favor of batshit identity politics victimization and grievance mongering, and Hillary Clinton is doing all she can to pander to that (which is one reason why Sanders has consistently polled better against Trump than her).

In short, natural demographic groups that could have supported the Democratic candidate and would have under normal circumstances are being driven out by their own crazies, while Trump is directly addressing the heretofore unaddressable problems of globalization that have totally gutted upstate New York, and if the primaries are any indication, you can expect white voters, even normally Democratic ones, to turn out in droves up there. Add Hillary's own questionable character, which Trump is going to hammer for months, and you have an almost perfect storm. If Trump can pivot a bit to black voters to either keep them home or turn a bit more out to vote for him than usual in Republican politics (very possible given his iconic status in hop hop culture), this thing could very well be one of the biggest coups of all time.

Look at New York and you see the same thing with other states like Pennsylvania, etc. Good cross-section of the country at large.

We might be in for one of the biggest surprises in history, a true realigning election. Good time to be alive.

It's a long shot, and I would likely bet against it, but it just might be possible to bring out new voters in droves outside the NYC (excluding Staten Island) and their immediate outskirts that Trump could possibly, possibly, by a freak incident, manage to pull it off. Unlikely, but just maybe in a dream possible. What is certain is that no one else in the GOP could even think about doing it. Trump is the only one that can possibly put states like New York in play.

(04-20-2016 02:05 AM)Gustavus Adolphus Wrote:  

10:00

*to Tiffany* "What about your brothers, do they treat you well?"
Trump Jr.: "It's more the boyfriends that have to worry."

^^

Next juicy bet is on Indiana:

https://www.predictit.org/Market/2006/Wh...an-primary

No polls are out on this place, so people are very skittish on placing bets. I threw down a small bet on Trump but I'm still waiting for polling info before buying more.

CNN this morning pointed out that Democrat turnout for the NY primaries were down 0.4 %. Republican turnout for the NY primaries were UP 33% !!

And there were/are a lot of independents pissed off that they couldn't vote in the primaries (besides the reporting, I'm seeing the complaining all over my FB feed).

Is it feasible that Trump could take NY in the general election ?

(04-20-2016 10:05 AM)George is King Wrote:  CNN this morning pointed out that Democrat turnout for the NY primaries were down 0.4 %. Republican turnout for the NY primaries were UP 33% !!

And there were/are a lot of independents pissed off that they couldn't vote in the primaries (besides the reporting, I'm seeing the complaining all over my FB feed).

Is it feasible that Trump could take NY in the general election ?

I think it's far more possible than most realize. The odds are probably only 55% in Hillary's favor.

Regarding the tranny bathroom issue, he responded exactly as I would expect him to. Remember that first and foremost, he is a business man. Every issue he's taken a hardline stance on, so far, has had business at the core. Trade, immigration, NATO - his stances all revolve around these things as a business (and to some extent, safety, but even that returns to business). Notice he often scoffs when pressed on social issues. Why? Most of them don't concern him. And that's one the main reasons that I support him. I don't care to play into the delusions of trannies either, but realistically, they're going to use whatever bathroom fits their delusion in the moment, regardless of the law. They're likely going to take issue with what he said anyway. In 2016, being "phobic" about something really means "not sufficiently excited by".

So what will come of this issue? A few more Bernie fans will jump ship to Trump when Bernie inevitably prostrates to Hillary, trannies will find a reason to continue hating him, and everyone else will resume their lives.

Maybe the most important lesson from this candidacy is:

Donald Trump has found the most effective way to challenge the entire global power establishment without naming names.

What is he doing in his debates and his speeches? He is talking about our incompetent politicians and how their misguided policies have failed again and again. Instead of calling them malevolent he calls them stupid. He doesn't talk about an organized effort to destroy our civilization and loot the people; he talks about idiots that are being screwed over by our enemies.

Why is this revolutionary?

Other people learn about who really wields power in this world and sees the giant conspiracy of the elites happening in real time and wants to yell it from the rooftops. While many of these people might be absolutely right, they are easy to neutralize by calling them lunatics. That's what we see. "Do you really think a group of old men is gathering in a secret room and plans to enslave humanity?" Very easy to mock.

Trump is not dumb. He doesn't think most of the elites are oblivious. He knows incompetent politicians are not really the ones making the choices. But by framing the argument as their stupidity causing our problems, his opponents can only choose between agreeing they are stupid or admitting they are in fact organized and meeting their actual instead of stated goals. That's why we don't see them attacking his policies but his persona and tone.

Very smart angle.

(04-21-2016 08:49 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  I think that Trump's comments on the tranny issue were canny and well-calculated and are part of his pivot to a general election mode.

It's really not about the issue itself; it's true that most normal people have no special love for trannies, and more than anything, just don't care one way or the other. But these comments were a calculated bait for Cruz to attack Trump from the right on social issues; and it's bait that Cruz absolutely has to take because Indiana is a must-win for him. By becoming the target of this kind of attack from Cruz, Trump is creating a vague and general impression in people's minds that he is really a centrist, pragmatic, reasonable guy who cares about bottom line issues, getting jobs back, making great trade deals, rebuilding our infrastructure etc -- and, of course, security -- and is not going to get distracted by culture war nonsense. Creating and deepening such an impression is Trump's ONLY chance of winning the general election, and it cannot start a moment too soon.

Guys who want to maximize Trump's odds of winning what will be an uphill battle against the HAG should welcome this kind of strategic thinking and not let their emotions about the bathroom heroics of select Durham and Greensboro trannies get the better of their sound judgment. Trump has been making smart moves for the past couple of weeks now and one can only hope that this continues. He'll need all his wiles, as well as a good measure of luck, to pull out what would be a spectacular and unlikely victory. Always keep your eyes on the prize.

Lizard, as usual, hits the nail on the head.

Trump's basically backed away from what he said yesterday and said it should be left to the states, which it honestly should, much as we might detest that it's even an "issue" at all. This sort of backtracking leaves a bad taste in your mouth and Cruz did respond exactly as Lizard predicted, but keep your eyes on the strategic goal. Don't let tactics dictate strategy.

The issue that stands peaks apart from all others is immigration. If Trump passes his immigration reforms I'll fucking let trannies go into bathrooms with 6 year olds, much as every fiber of my being detests such insanity.

Everything is a trade off. There is no perfection.

(04-22-2016 03:05 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 07:07 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  It's estimated that trannies make up only 0.3% of the United States population. Is it really worth it to get governmental bodies together to spend the time, effort, and money drafting bills where the outcome will only affect 0.3% of the population?

That's literally what North Carolina did. The population of that state is 9.944 million people. Assuming the distribution of transgenders in North Carolina is uniform with the rest of the country, that means there are less than 30,000 people that bill affects in the state.

No man, it's a lot less prevalent at about 0.013% for men and women combined with the former being more common (1 in 10,000 for assigned men versus 1 in 30,000 for assigned women in a comprehensive Dutch study). In the USA, a reported 0.0043% of people get surgery. We overestimate because we're exposed to them on television so much.

Trump said the right thing and it doesn't matter that much because it was so mild.

To the people who are adamant about people using public bathrooms that correspond to the sex assigned at their birth: The following person was born as a female, so should she be allowed or actually forced to use the same bathroom as your daughter?

Fortunately the problem is not a big problem and definitely something that is relevant to these elections, besides the fact the under a Clinton presidency women will start looking more and more like the picture above.

I had to delete that picture.

I agree Trump gave a satisfactory answer considering his position and the large number of battles he has to fight, but all these people need to go back in the closet. Powerful nations and societies are created by exemplifying exceptional behavior in public and pushing all degeneracy back into the shadows.

There is only so much you can do in regards to who uses what bathroom, but it is the public support for this behavior that leads to a nation's downward spiral.

If that thing you linked to used a men's room, would anybody know?

Probably not, and that's the whole point. If trannies can pass well enough to use the other sex's bathroom, then most people won't care overmuch, since they're not being being a public nuisance IF they pass.

However, most trannies cannot pass, and are just looking to create a public disturbance to satisfy their own mental instabilities and fetishes, and this is easier when they get support from a downward spiraling society.