Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "Would Trump Third Party Run Sink The Republicans?" video.

  1. Wallace Goromchevna the 6th Angus King and Bernie Sanders are both in the Senate. And if you say they don't count because they caucus with the Democrats? In parliamentary systems it's standard procedure for such coalitions to be formed.
    3
  2. ***** Are you kidding? Their campaigns couldn't possibly be less similar. And Trump isn't well-liked at all. He's got the support of the lunatic fringe of Republican Party, and no one else.
    1
  3. ***** I'm still waiting for your explanation of how their campaigns are similar. Trump's campaign is defined by being as insulting as possible, while Sanders refuses to engage in any sort of negative campaigning.
    1
  4. ***** In what way is Sanders "looney toons" on foreign policy?
    1
  5. ***** Let me get this straight. You're trying to argue that it's "looney" to fund the UN Human Right Commission when the US isn't on the commission? You do get that the HRC has no permanent members, right? And your claim that he wants to open diplomatic relations with ISIS and encourage everybody to not fight them is simply a lie. Sanders' position is that the Arab states surrounding ISIS should be the ones doing the fighting, rather than the US getting involved in yet another Middle East quagmire instead of focusing on our own problems at home.
    1
  6. ***** Oh and what do you mean by "he also was staunchly against cooperating with as a nuclear power"? Cooperating with who?
    1
  7. eatmorenachos Exit polling in 1992 showed that Perot drew exactly the same amount of voters away from Clinton as he did from Bush. 38% of Perot supporters would've voted for Bush if Perot hadn't been on the ballot, 38% would've voted for Clinton, and 24% would've either not voted or voted for some other third-party candidate. Bush didn't lose because of Perot, he lost because on election day he had a 33% approval rating. When 2/3 of the country think you're doing a bad job, it's hard to get reelected.
    1
  8. TC Sam You remember wrong, then. The actual data shows that Perot pulled just as many voters away from Clinton as he did from Bush. Had Perot not been the in race, the main difference in the outcome would've been Clinton winning an absolute majority of the popular vote. Republicans have been pushing the mythology Perot was the cause of Clinton's victory ever since, but the facts show otherwise.
    1
  9. Stu Bee Perot took exactly the same amount of voters away from both Bush and Clinton. 38% of his supporters said they would've voted for Bush if Perot hadn't been a candidate, 38% said they would've voted for Clinton, and 24% said they would've voted for neither.
    1
  10. Stu Bee Are you fucking stupid? How could Perot taking votes away from Bush have cost Bush the election, when he took just as many votes away from Clinton? If Perot hadn't been a candidate, Clinton would've won about 53% of the vote. This is called math, do you understand it?
    1
  11. Stu Bee You just don't get it. Perot was not a Republican, and he divided both parties' bases.
    1
  12. Stu Bee It doesn't matter that he pulled Republican votes that would've went to Bush. He pulled an equal number of Democratic votes that would've gone to Clinton. If Perot had not run, Clinton would've had about 52.4 million votes and Bush would've had about 46.6 million. (As opposed to 44.9 million for Clinton, 39.1 million for Bush, and 19.7 million for Perot in the actual election). 52.4 million is more than 46.6 million. You are a complete blithering idiot if you don't understand this. And you're the one who brought up Perot, so you don't get to say it's out of bounds that I called you out on being totally wrong about how the 1992 election actually played out.
    1
  13. Stu Bee You can't grasp that 52.4 million is a larger number than 46.6 million (and those are what the actual vote totals would've been with no Perot candidacy), yet you think I'm the one who failed arithmetic?
    1
  14. Stu Bee Reality is that Perot had nothing to do with Bush's loss in 1992. Your stubborn rejection of facts won't change that. And apparently you can't grasp that the "flying pink elephants and green skies and unicorns and Leprechauns and 1+2=4" scenario is your bizarre one in which Bush could've gotten back the votes he lost to Perot but Clinton couldn't.
    1
  15. Stu Bee My God, your stupidity is beyond words. Claiming that Perot caused Bush to lose is in open defiance of basic arithmetic.
    1
  16. Stu Bee There were also only so many liberal votes to go around. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?
    1
  17. Stu Bee No, as I've already repeatedly told you, a significant number of the liberal votes went to Perot. You're just stubbornly insisting on the bizarro-world claim that all of Perot's voters would've otherwise supported Bush, facts be damned.
    1
  18. Stu Bee If any? The number of liberal votes that went to Perot is exactly the same as the number of conservative votes that went to Perot.  Why can that not be pounded through your thick skull? There is no possibility that Bush could have won in 1992, regardless of whether Perot was a candidate.
    1
  19. Stu Bee Yes, you keep saying that, and it's still a completely idiotic thing to say. Perot did not get a bigger percent of the Republican vote than 6%.
    1
  20. ***** No, he's telling the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party what they want to hear.
    1