2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika · 13-06-2016 2:46pm

Black Swan wrote: »

FAILED Trump University says a lot about Donald Trump, as do his attempts to discredit a US Judge that ordered defendant Trump be tried immediately following 8 November 2016 general election on alleged fraud charges.

Amerika wrote: »

The judge should have recused himself from the case.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (Republican) concluded that Trump's statements about US Judge Gonzalo Curiel represented a "textbook definition of a racist comment."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican) concluded about Trump's comments about US Judge Gonzalo Curiel: "He uttered a series of outrageous and unacceptable statements over the last week."

Addressing Trump's statements about US Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Senator Mark Kirk (Republican) commented: I have spent my life building bridges and tearing down barriers not building walls. That s why I find Donald Trump s belief that an American-born judge of Mexican descent is incapable of fairly presiding over his case is not only dead wrong, it is un-American.

Where was the outcry from the media and public about racism when Obama's Department of Justice became concerned with the appearance of impropriety for a judge of Iranian heritage. The judge's DOJ superiors made it an official order that she recuse herself from any future cases involving Iranian nationals. Judge Tabaddor sued the DOJ and eventually settled for $200,000. But because it involved Barack Obama and a Democratic administration, we hear nothing of it, and I m guessing no one hear has ever heard of this. But Trump merely saying something, not actually acting upon it, causes Armageddon throughout the media. So please don t tell me there isn t bias against Republicans in the media.

ancapailldorcha · 13-06-2016 2:55pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Apologies if it isn't appropriate to ask this in thread. Is it okay to discuss yesterday's massacre in the context of the presidential race? As in, could we discuss what candidates are saying about the massacre and how it might affect the campaign? Or is it best just to leave the whole topic behind given how things fared out yesterday evening?

That should be fine as long as discussion remains within the confines of the US presidential race and not Islam or immigration as wholes.

Jawfin · 13-06-2016 4:40pm

Akrasia wrote: »

This is one of my fears about Trump

First he says he wants to 'temporarily' stop all muslims from entering the U.S. (including american citizens) 'Until we figure out what's going on'

Out of interest, what does he mean by, 'Until we figure out what's going on'? Does he think every Muslim is in a conspiracy against the west? Or does it just mean, 'Until there's no more ISIS, but I'm not allowed to say that because it needs to sound as if I know what I'm doing'?

Akrasia · 13-06-2016 8:41pm

Jawfin wrote: »

Out of interest, what does he mean by, 'Until we figure out what's going on'? Does he think every Muslim is in a conspiracy against the west? Or does it just mean, 'Until there's no more ISIS, but I'm not allowed to say that because it needs to sound as if I know what I'm doing'?

Trump likes to be vague because it gives him lots of escapes in interviews.' Until we figure out what's going on' is as vague as it comes.

Also when Trump makes these kind of statements it allows his supporters to pick their own version of what they think he meant

It also allows him to change his positions back and forth by referring to previous vague statements that he made

It's a debate strategy called Weasel Words. You give yourself an escape route from everything that looks like a commitment

oscarBravo · 14-06-2016 9:41am

So, about those deleted emails...

No, not those deleted emails.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/

In 2006, when a judge ordered Donald Trump's casino operation to hand over several years' worth of emails, the answer surprised him: The Trump Organization routinely erased emails and had no records from 1996 to 2001. The defendants in a case that Trump brought said this amounted to destruction of evidence, a charge never resolved.

Akrasia · 14-06-2016 10:41am

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, about those deleted emails...

No, not those deleted emails.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/

Its funny isn't it. But it would be a terrible idea for Clinton supporters or her campaign to talk about this

Dragging Clinton down to his level is Trump's best chance at success.

If Trump is attacked on this he'll just blame some underling for screwing up or just outright lie and say that he never deleted any emails, But by Clinton trying to attack Trump on this, she would be basically saying 'It's wrong to delete emails that are subject to an investigation' which is exactly what she has done.

Akrasia · 14-06-2016 11:02am

Clinton today said that "Those under FBI investigation shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-scrutiny-shouldnt-buy-gun/story?id=39814942

I agree with her, but what else should people under active FBI criminal investigations not be allowed to do?

Kur4mA · 14-06-2016 11:16am

Akrasia wrote: »

Clinton today said that "Those under FBI investigation shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-scrutiny-shouldnt-buy-gun/story?id=39814942

I agree with her, but what else should people under active FBI criminal investigations not be allowed to do?

Run for President of the United States? :pac:

ancapailldorcha · 14-06-2016 11:19am

Kur4mA wrote: »

Run for President of the United States? :pac:

This is a forum for serious discussion. Please read the charter before posting again.

Suryavarman · 14-06-2016 11:56am

Akrasia wrote: »

Clinton today said that "Those under FBI investigation shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-scrutiny-shouldnt-buy-gun/story?id=39814942

I agree with her, but what else should people under active FBI criminal investigations not be allowed to do?

It's a very slippery slope as you allude too. As much sense as that policy might make, it can hardly considered to be just to take away constitutional rights without criminal sanction.

Akrasia · 14-06-2016 12:44pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's a very slippery slope as you allude too. As much sense as that policy might make, it can hardly considered to be just to take away constitutional rights without criminal sanction.

Its down to the nature of constitutional rights. All rights can be revoked subject to certain criteria, up to and including the right to Life via the death penalty

People have the right to freedom but if you're a criminal, that gets taken away. You have the right to bare arms, but if you fail the background check in certain states, that right is revoked.

Should the background check only include criminal convictions, or should charges and indictments or even evidence of suspicious behaviour collected by intelligence or criminal investigations be enough to disqualify someone from the right to own guns?

I think Clinton is on a shaky ground when she says that someone who was previously investigated by the FBI but no further action was taken is therefore no longer trustworthy enough to be allowed buy guns in light of her current ongoing FBI criminal investigation into her mishandling of sensitive and classified information and her application for the position of Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed forces and President of the U.S.A.

Call Me Jimmy · 14-06-2016 3:04pm

If I was an american I would be more concerned about such a move than the threat of domestic terrorism.

eire4 · 14-06-2016 7:56pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Its down to the nature of constitutional rights. All rights can be revoked subject to certain criteria, up to and including the right to Life via the death penalty

People have the right to freedom but if you're a criminal, that gets taken away. You have the right to bare arms, but if you fail the background check in certain states, that right is revoked.

Should the background check only include criminal convictions, or should charges and indictments or even evidence of suspicious behaviour collected by intelligence or criminal investigations be enough to disqualify someone from the right to own guns?

I think Clinton is on a shaky ground when she says that someone who was previously investigated by the FBI but no further action was taken is therefore no longer trustworthy enough to be allowed buy guns in light of her current ongoing FBI criminal investigation into her mishandling of sensitive and classified information and her application for the position of Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed forces and President of the U.S.A.

Yes she is on very shaky ground indeed. How many times have the police forces around the US stiched up innocent people on charges to cover up their own mal practice or bad behaviour? Who knows for sure but its not hard to find examples of it. What she is essentially saying is that innocent until proven guilty is out the window and that is a very dangerous slippery slope to start to go down. But it does not surprise me coming from a war hawk like corporate Clinton who would I have no doubt love to see spying and all parts of the Orwellian survellience state that Obama and Bush have built up even increased and made more powerful even.

eire4 · 14-06-2016 7:58pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If I was an american I would be more concerned about such a move than the threat of domestic terrorism.

Without a doubt the corrupt Republican and Democratic parties are using the recent events and the Pandoras Box that the Americans themselves under Bush opened in the middle east to scare monger and use to ramp up the power and control they have over the general population so they can maintain their corrupt grip on power at the expense of what is actually best for the vast majority of Americans. Once again we see there is seemingly a bottomless pit of money available for war and war like activities but no can do for any social programmes, education or anything else that might actually make the lives of most Americans better.

Black Swan · 15-06-2016 8:32am

Christy42 · 15-06-2016 9:02am

Black Swan wrote: »

Recent national presidential polls show Clinton leading Trump ranging from 3 to 12 points.

Poll | Taken | Clinton | Trump
Bloomberg | 10-13 June | 49 | 37
Fox News | 5-8 June | 42 | 39
Rasmussen | 6-7 June | 42 | 38
Reuters | 4-8 June | 42 | 34
Economist | 2-5 June | 44 | 41
IBD-TIPP | 31 May-5 June | 45 | 40
Quinnipiac | 24-30 May | 45 | 41

Orlando may have factored into Bloomberg, but not certain. Makes me wonder what will happen with the next few polls with Orlando factored in?

I imagine most people who were going to go over to Trump's side would have done so after previous attacks. Could be wrong though.

Suryavarman · 15-06-2016 9:13am

Black Swan wrote: »

Recent national presidential polls show Clinton leading Trump ranging from 3 to 12 points.

Poll | Taken | Clinton | Trump
Bloomberg | 10-13 June | 49 | 37
Fox News | 5-8 June | 42 | 39
Rasmussen | 6-7 June | 42 | 38
Reuters | 4-8 June | 42 | 34
Economist | 2-5 June | 44 | 41
IBD-TIPP | 31 May-5 June | 45 | 40
Quinnipiac | 24-30 May | 45 | 41

Orlando may have factored into Bloomberg, but not certain. Makes me wonder what will happen with the next few polls with Orlando factored in?

Although all polls are from different companies the margin appears to be widening over time. It'll be interesting to see if Clinton gets another boost after the convention with the party clearly united behind her. The Republican Party seems to be cooling on Trump ever since the judge Curiel incident so I doubt he could get a similar boost.

Akrasia · 15-06-2016 11:07am

Suryavarman wrote: »

Although all polls are from different companies the margin appears to be widening over time. It'll be interesting to see if Clinton gets another boost after the convention with the party clearly united behind her. The Republican Party seems to be cooling on Trump ever since the judge Curiel incident so I doubt he could get a similar boost.

It's interesting that Clinton's figures aren't really going up, it's Trump who is going down.
Trump's support is at 38% and Clinton is at 46%.

Clinton's average is at 44% which is pretty close to the lowest it's been since 2015

Trump is now at where he was in April, but it remains to be seen where his figures will go following the Orlando attack. Will the supporters he lost since May go back to his side because of his 'hard-line stance' on immigration?

Clinton is facing another leak of her Emails from Wikileaks (possibly supplied by the Russians)
Assange says the information he's about to release is damning, but Assange absolutely hates Hillary, so we'll have to wait and see what is in the leaks.

We're getting into a position where a 3rd party candidate could poll above the 15% threshold required to be allowed participate in the presidential debates. With candidates this unpopular, a 3rd party candidate, while still a huge outsider, is moving from the ranks of protest vote with no hope of winning, into a dark horse candidate who could pull off a huge upset in November.

Ozymandius2011 · 15-06-2016 11:12am

Suryavarman wrote: »

Although all polls are from different companies the margin appears to be widening over time. It'll be interesting to see if Clinton gets another boost after the convention with the party clearly united behind her. The Republican Party seems to be cooling on Trump ever since the judge Curiel incident so I doubt he could get a similar boost.

In the context of a terror attack Trump can argue not to change horses midstream.

As for Dem unity, Sanders still hasnt endorsed her.

Mal-Adjusted · 15-06-2016 11:28am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

As for Dem unity, Sanders still hasnt endorsed her.

I was thinking the same myself. TBH, I half expect Sanders' zealots to burn the convention down (well okay, i expect a reasonably large protest) if he and Hillary don't make up.

Akrasia · 15-06-2016 11:52am

Sanders and Clinton had a meeting today where basically they agreed to team up to go after Trump.

Sanders didn't conceed the nomination, but he won't go after Clinton directly.

He is still challenging the Democratic party leadership and still wants Debbie Wasserman Schultz to be replaced before the convention.

Sanders is focusing on influencing the party platform at the convention which further demonstrates that he is interested in change more than power.

Sanders will probably still make his case to the DNC that he is the better candidate than Clinton, but that will depend on how Clinton performs herself between now and July 25.

If the convention arrives and Clinton is still hugely unpopular and maybe dealing with very serious allegations arising from the email scandal, this is where Sanders will make his case.

Ozymandius2011 · 15-06-2016 12:53pm

Its strange that compared to 2008 and 2012 there have been so few state polls especially in the Deep Red states,. There was a shock poll a few weeks ago that had Trump leading in Oregon.

Amerika · 15-06-2016 1:22pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Recent national presidential polls show Clinton leading Trump ranging from 3 to 12 points.

Poll | Taken | Clinton | Trump
Bloomberg | 10-13 June | 49 | 37
Fox News | 5-8 June | 42 | 39
Rasmussen | 6-7 June | 42 | 38
Reuters | 4-8 June | 42 | 34
Economist | 2-5 June | 44 | 41
IBD-TIPP | 31 May-5 June | 45 | 40
Quinnipiac | 24-30 May | 45 | 41

Orlando may have factored into Bloomberg, but not certain. Makes me wonder what will happen with the next few polls with Orlando factored in?

Aren t you the one that always adds a cautionary note regarding any and all polls? You must have forgotten this time. Or is there something in these polls that 'trumps' circumspection?

Polls will go up and down throughout the election. The next big factor affecting the polls, I suspect, would be if Hillary is recommended for indictment by the FBI now that the matter surrounding her email server and possible pay-to-play schemes involving the Clinton Foundation have moved into a Criminal Investigation.

Ozymandius2011 · 15-06-2016 2:38pm

The Ipsos-Reuters poll shows a slight improvement for Trump compared to the previous week.

However I have serious issues with that particular poll. Looking into its internals of the previous weeks poll, only 12% of the sample are Independents, compared to at least 30% of the electorate a -- group Trump has led with in many recent polls including this one last week.

InTheTrees · 15-06-2016 3:39pm

A Washington Post ABC News poll has trumps negative rating at 70% up 10% over the last month.

Mr Freeze · 15-06-2016 3:46pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

A Washington Post ABC News poll has trumps negative rating at 70% up 10% over the last month.

And in polls that show him vs Clinton, do they change as his unpopularity increases?

InTheTrees · 15-06-2016 3:54pm

Mr Freeze wrote: »

And in polls that show him vs Clinton, do they change as his unpopularity increases?

I'm just giving you the Wa Post ABC poll news.

Unfavourable rating up 10% to 70%. The poll was taken before the Orlando attack.

It could well be more about Clinton becoming the presumptive nominee and the DNC now switching from the primaries to full on attacks on Trump.

Ozymandius2011 · 15-06-2016 4:39pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm just giving you the Wa Post ABC poll news.

Unfavourable rating up 10% to 70%. The poll was taken before the Orlando attack.

It could well be more about Clinton becoming the presumptive nominee and the DNC now switching from the primaries to full on attacks on Trump.

The same poll out today has her negatives on 55%.

Billy86 · 15-06-2016 5:12pm

Some handy graphs, charts and broken down details of candidate favourability - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unfavorables-spike-clintons-challenged-poll/story?id=39856303

Some worrying points for Trump: His favourability among non-white voters is a shockingly low 12% (Clinton by comparison is at 66% there), and he fails to break 50% in any single demographic mentioned barring 'Republicans' (though he does hit 47% among 'Conservatives' and 46% among 'white males'). To break down...

Trump:
20% plus favourability lead: Republicans (54%), conservatives (20% lead), white men (20%)
10-19% plus favourability lead: none
0-9% plus favourability lead: men (1%), whites (8%)

Clinton:
20% plus lead: Democrats (70%), moderates (23%), liberals (48%), women (28%), blacks (75%), hispanics (53%), nonwhites (44%), non-white men (42%), non-white women (65%), college graduates (21%)
10-19% lead: non-college graduates (11%), under 50s (18%), over 50s (16%)
0-9% lead: independents (4%), white women (6%).

InTheTrees · 15-06-2016 6:55pm

Billy86 wrote: »

Some worrying points for Trump: His favourability among non-white voters is a shockingly low 12% (Clinton by comparison is at 66% there), and he fails to break 50% in any single demographic mentioned barring 'Republicans' (though he does hit 47% among 'Conservatives' and 46% among 'white males').

He has to substantially increase his support from women and Hispanics if he wants to win.

And he's not showing any signs of doing that. I think i heard one of his lunatic pronouncements once about he was the most popular candidate with Hispanics ever.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments