The idea that Trump will crush Hillary in a general election is delusional

lol. How can I be losing in a debate when you're not engaging in a debate?

You can't claim to be debating me if you simply say "herp derp not reading your posts" and "I have nothing more to say."

"I have nothing more to say"="I am no longer debating you." This is basic English.

If you can't even comprehend your own posts, then you probably made the right decision when you ran away tail between legs.

You sound confused and angry. We should have a spelling bee!

A spelling bee would be more your speed...maybe.

There you go with the insults again.

I know you were just talking about Bernie going to Trump, but as I said, that is just one part of the picture. The issue any candidate faces is getting the independent vote, since they outnumber registered Democrats and Republicans. A lot of Bernie's support comes from the independent crowd, as well as the millenials. If they don't vote for instance, that can be a blow, considering the youth vote is often tied to the Democrats. There seems to be a growing sentiment about protest votes or non-votes. Things like that don't matter much in say solid blue or red states, but swing states...that I don't know.

Trump is melting down so hard right now that there's now conspiracy theories that he's trying to sabotage his own campaign because he doesn't want to deal with the actual responsibilities of being President. I don't actually buy this conspiracy, but with Trump, you never know.

The crazy thing is that a contested convention is becoming more and more likely, which just reiterates my initial argument. If Donald Trump is not a strong enough candidate to win his own party's nomination on the first ballot, why should one assume that he's going to be a stronger general election candidate, particularly when he hasn't shown the slightest bit of message discipline.

On a slightly related note, why anybody would want to support a candidate that tweets "My wife is so much hotter than ugly wife" is beyond me. Do these people actually think that crassness and vulgarity are admirable traits?

Stop trying to make him conform to the PC culture!

lol. That's pretty much Trump supporters' defense of Trump's behavior to a tee. It's sad that for these people, being "anti-PC" is somehow more of a qualification than knowing what you're talking about and being a mature person.

The appeal comes from the fact that he is being blunt. Which is a strong contrast to the fake politician that someone like Marco Rubio is or a pandering one like Hillary Clinton.

Personally, I would rather vote for someone who made a petty jab, than someone who condones war criminals and had emails that very much sounded like she was plotting to commit crimes against humanity (Hillary Clinton).

Meanwhile, Trump actually promotes war crimes as part of his platform.

'Anti-PC' just really means they are people that are sad they have to muffle their racist and misogynistic overtones under their breathe.

Bombing the families of ISIS is nowhere near as bad as attacking a nuclear reactor. Which a leaked email implied.

Definitely voting Democrat this year.....the 2 candidates are far better than anything the Republicans are offering.

All "politically correct" means is not trying to offend anyone. So basically people are oppressed and have to keep their offensive, mean spirited, ignorant thoughts to themselves. I can't really be bothered by that no matter how hard I try.

Don't forget advocating torture.

Speaking of Trump and nuclear war:

Speaking at campaign event in Wisconsin, Mr Trump said Japan should use nuclear weapons to deter North Korea aggression instead of relying on US military protection.

He said: "I would rather have them not arm, but I'm not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money.

"And, frankly, the case could be made that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They'd probably wipe them out pretty quick

"If they fight, you know what, that'd be a terrible thing. Terrible. ... But if they do, they do."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-on-nuclear-war-between-japan-and-north-korea-it-would-be-terrible-but-if-they-do-they-a6965861.html

Trumps spokeswoman said,“What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-spokeswoman-bizarre-comment-o-reilly-factor-article-1.2471029

“I know what I'm doing. I'm a smart person. The highest level of smart,” he boasted.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-nuclear-people-interview-221378

@HoolaHoopMan: maybe they just oppose the suppression of free speech. PC mascurades equality but instead just muffles any truths it doesn't like.

I think you need to reread the 1st amendment. No one's speech is being infringed upon. Unless you think being called out on racist shit is somehow stiffing a person's free speech.

Gonna ignore the bit about torture, because it was way overshadowed by the scarier remaining 90% of your post.

Because, now that, that is a scary thought.

I take back what I said.

So you're voting for Trump then?

Pretty much.

so lets sum up.

we have a racist that not one person can show is racist even after cnn went over 30 years worth of books and television appearances with a fine tooth comb.

a woman hater that can be shown to have given fair treatment and opportunity to women in all of his businesses decades before it was trendy.

a dumb guy was just was ridiculed for saying brussels was like living in a hellhole a couple of weeks before terrorists blew the shit out of the place.

and an authoritarian fascist who all other authoritarian fascists hate with a vengeance and are currently lining up against.

look folks, i'm a lifelong democrat and never once thought i would ever support this guy and still mostly don't because i don't really believe he is presidential material but sometimes if i see someone and i see that he has all the right enemy's and that every media outlet from fox to msnbc dislike him and then i see the republican establishment dislike him even more than the democrats do then i see the sjws having palpitations at his popularity then it looks to me that is going in exactly the right direction.

the more people that i hold in contempt that come out against him the more legitimate he becomes and the more people i see here that have to lie about the reality because that is all they can come up with is his endorsement.

i have not made my decision yet but it's not looking good for the home team.

People whose thought process amounts to "these people who annoy me don't like this candidate, so he must be good" are not mature voters IMO.

Also, punctuation and capitalization are things that exist.

While PCness can get ridiculous at times, I also can't find many fucks to give about it. From what I've seen, the anti-PC brigade are just looking for some kind of moral high ground for their crass and callous opinions. From my experience, most of the people that rant about PCness are usually fairly mean-spirited, immature, and coarse.

Whenever I hear people going on and on about how being having their opinions challenge=suppression of their freedom of speech, I can't help but think they're basically pussies who can't stand having their opinions challenged.

what a shocker. a grammar nazi that does not have the ability to see what i am saying or offers to refute it.

lol. what a perfect example.

i don't use capitol letters because it is blatantly a discriminatory discrimination and a social construct.

all letters are equal and none should get special privileges just because of the place they hold.

there, now do i fit in?

yuck yuck yuck.

Don't quit the day job.

But anyway, it's not so much I'm being a Grammar Nazi, but that a post with no capitalization and punctuation is not the easiest thing to read.

just sound out the big words.

Seriously though: I don't see how "people I don't like don't like this guy so i like this guy" is a coherent political philosophy.

the idea is more based on people who are dishonest and can be plainly shown to be dishonest and will go to any length to discredit him.

i don't like him much either but i'm not going to make up some he man woman hating racist propaganda without a scrap of evidence to try and brow beat people over to my way of thinking.

that makes those that do the ones that do not believe in the truth and being on the opposite side of that is more important to me than crossing party lines.

This has been politics for the past few decades. It always boils down to a character debate with policies hardly being relevant.

John Kerry was "unpatriotic" because he protested the Vietnam war, despite the fact that he participated in the conflict and that it was wildly unpopular at the time.

Mitt Romney was a maniac who tied his dog on top of his car in a travel cage.

In an election process where voters are essentially picking "not the bad man", there is little evidence to suggest that the republican party hasn't been intentionally handing elections to the democrats by picking such flawed candidates. If there was an election they could win, it would be against Hillary Clinton......unless they pick Donald Trump, who happens to be the ONLY man that can possibly lose to her.

i've been looking at this whole thing as almost more of a protest than an election.

despite being wildly popular bernie and trump are the outsiders and targets of the establishment that have to be destroyed by any means.

the people on both sides want what they are not allowed to have.

They are popular, but their popularity is somewhat overstated. Trump has never managed to win a majority of the vote and Bernie is losing the Dem popular vote.

I don't blame the Republican establishment for trying to destroy Trump. He's a general election disaster and the Republicans want to win. Why in the world would they want to nominate somebody who seems to have some weird desire to inflict as much damage on his candidacy as possible?

Though strangely enough, it's movement conservatives that hate Trump the most because they feel like he's a Democrat in Republican clothing.

To be fair, Cruz would probably lose to her as well. His unfavorables are almost as bad and he doesn't have very broad appeal due to extreme positions.

He also tried to his best to shut down the government. Would be pretty hard to argue that you should be the chief executive of the government when you tried to sabotage it for political gain.

@GreySeal9: Cruz also has the problem that most of his colleagues in Congress from both parties can't stand the man. To get anything substantial done he'll need to get legislation through Congress. It's pretty hard to get people who hate you to cooperate, especially in Washington.

Cruz would be even worse because he has no appeal to millennials or independents. He also has a political career that, as you said, pretty much involved him shutting down the government. He's too predictable and even more susceptible to traditional leftist criticisms than Trump. Republicans that truly believe most Trump supporters would show up for Cruz are living a damn lie. The Republican party has to fold. You can only fail so many times before people move on.

I think Libertarians have a strong core base in absence of a republican party. A lot of former social progressives and social liberals are starting to see some holes in the leftist agenda. You do have to wonder at what point a liberal becomes conservative.

Still voting for trump I had no intention of ever voting in a presidential election in the U.S but now that Trump is running gotta go exercise my constitutional right to vote and I'd willing to bet I am not alone in that matter I expect this up coming election to have the highest voter turnout ever in the United States history.

Trump's "**** you Establishment" campaign has put the flaws of Republican Candidates on full display. Democrats have been pushing their leftist agenda by strategically choosing candidates that, despite obvious flaws, do not fall into the "white male privilege" category that Democrats can so easily put Republicans in.

They also have no balls. The Democrats put Republicans in the WPM category and they simply campaign to dispel this allegation instead of throwing their own punches at the flawed leftist candidates.

• Republican candidates are afraid of being politically incorrect, but when they have a slip of tongue trying to be politically correct it often sounds worse than being politically incorrect. They don't realize that most Americans find politically correct speech to be patronizing
• They're try to hide the fact that they're well off and avoid the topic for fear of the WPM stamp inking their forehead. No, this only implies guilt and that their wealth was illicitly acquired.
• They answer specific questions as they are asked in a debate, come off as being unintelligent when they veer off topic rather than re framing the question to suit their political narrative as democrats seem able to do.
• They insist on being pro-middle class when most Americans don't believe they're middle class when they're living paycheck to paycheck. While people used to have too much pride to consider themselves "poor", most Americans do in this shitty economy. Appealing to the middle class is appealing to a single minority.

so lets sum up again.

you could not answer any of these questions i initially had for you instead choosing to rules lawyer me about my blatant disregard for capitol letters. remember that?

"so lets sum up.

we have a racist that not one person can show is racist even after cnn went over 30 years worth of books and television appearances with a fine tooth comb.

a woman hater that can be shown to have given fair treatment and opportunity to women in all of his businesses decades before it was trendy.

a dumb guy was just was ridiculed for saying brussels was like living in a hellhole a couple of weeks before terrorists blew the shit out of the place.

and an authoritarian fascist who all other authoritarian fascists hate with a vengeance and are currently lining up against."

then after changing the subject because you could not answer these questions and me giving you my thinking on why i feel like i do you again ignore my point and attempt to go off on another tangent that i answered for you here.

"the idea is more based on people who are dishonest and can be plainly shown to be dishonest and will go to any length to discredit him.

i don't like him much either but i'm not going to make up some he man woman hating racist propaganda without a scrap of evidence to try and brow beat people over to my way of thinking.

that makes those that do the ones that do not believe in the truth and being on the opposite side of that is more important to me than crossing party lines."

so here is the punchline.

i spent my life in fear of an unreasonable illogical right wing takeover of thought and people using lies and mistruths and ideological slight of hand to maintain a false narrative and then when being shown evidence of how wrong they are just doubling down so they could suppress the will of the people, any logical arguments and perpetuate the lies that they have to do mental gymnastics to maintain.

and then that exact thing happened.

and it came from the people who are traditionally on my side of the ideological fence.

lolololololololololololololololololo!

wow, the joke truly is on me.

All the first amendment means is that I can say what I want without being concerned with your personal sentiments. You won't have to try to be bothered by it when someone perceives something you say to be offensive. By not finding "oppressed" speech problematic, you're clearly being short sighted.

@Johnny-n-Roger: the thing is people can say whatever they want. All that is going to happen is you are going to be shamed for what you say. No one is trying to pass a law against being politically incorrect as far as I'm aware.

But when people start to think it's acceptable to suppress speech and ideas that are offensive to others, it open that window. The threat of actually losing rights that we take for granted is more than just paranoia. We've transcended classical progressive, and liberal paradigms and are on to something that has yet to be defined that I refer to as "leftism." When you realize that people actually believe in such things called "microaggressions" you laugh at first, until you realize that these people are seriously THAT submissive.

Lulz, at what Donald Trump just retweeted,

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/717003103871115267

It was deleted?

Trump is a narcissistic buffoon. I'm registered independent as a current resident of Pennsylvania. In this state I can't vote in the Primary. If Trump, Cruz or Kasich (or anyone not named Rand Paul) get the republican nominee, I'm voting libertarian and straight democrat just to middle finger the RNC.

Since Hillary stole the nomination from Sanders and is a horrible candidate, she sure as hell does not deserve anyone's votes. Bernie needs to start going HAM on how shitty of a candidate Hillary is for being so dishonest and protected by her DNC establishment. The lefties really need to send their own middle finger to the DNC.

We need new Parties here.

You have one. His name is Bernie Sanders.

I have my Christmas list ready just in case he gets elected. Too bad Hillary stole the nomination before they even started campaigning. Superdelegates are bullshit. If you look at who actually represents them, half of them aren't even elected officials. Hillary also has over 200 from States that Sanders won by a landslide.

What a scam. Hillary is a scam. She exploits black voters and calls Bernie Sanders a racist. Bernie Sanders wasn't a racist when it was "cool" to be a racist.

Seeing what happened in Wisconsin today, I'm pretty confident Sanders will still win the nomination. He is a freight train running down a heavy grade. He has the people by the feels and is only gaining in support. All Clinton has is the money of the big movers and shakers who can't even get their media corporations to get the general public to care.

You mean the only man who can crush her. To say that it is a character debate is only half right. It really boils down to memetic image.

Bush played the humble cowboy.

Obama played the minority full of hope and change.

The only things Hillary has going for her are being a woman and her association with Bill Clinton. She's so soulless she can't even act like someone who has one.

I know Ted Cruz couldn't sell me a used car. I actually was being disingenuous. None of the republican candidates were worth a shit. That's the problem; the republican party picks failed candidates. My question, however, is that if Hillary is elected, who's the next "non-white privileged male" that the democrats can play? Hillary fails as president by not having a firm stance on radical Islamic terrorism and the whole giving Iran billions of dollars to test ballistic missiles so that when they DO get warheads, they'll have the ICBMs to cross the Atlantic. Nothing like spending 25% of your military budget funding the military of an established enemy of the State.

Seems like it. This video is what he retweeted.

Do some of those quotes sound familiar? If you played one of the more prominent gaming trilogies of the last gen, they probably will.

Voting for the libertarian party would probably be for the best.

@Maroxad:

Trump sucks, he doesn't have a clue.....Hillary or Bernie for president, anybody otherwise is a mistake, with the possible exception of Kasich, I'd love to see him win at a convention.

Trump says what alot of Americans want to hear uh usually, but beneath that is no substance. Everything is about him, he's a classic narcissist, and he needs to be taken down, he's delusional.