2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Aren t you the one that always adds a cautionary note regarding any and all polls?

I've made these poll cautions so many times in this thread that I thought you and others would have gotten the point by now?

Amerika wrote: »

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.

Or if the 48 Donald Trump deposition video tapes are released for his alleged fraud trial, which his defense attorney and law firm have motioned to block, because they can be so potentially damaging to Donald Trump. From his video taped sworn under oath Trump University legal depositions testimony, the following quote by Donald Trump had been investigated:

“I know Hillary, and I think she would make a great president or vice president” and “Bill Clinton was a great president.”

It's one thing to read from the Donald Trump trial deposition transcripts, and another to actually see him testify in video in an attempt to explain the above statements about Hillary and Bill Clinton he made before declaring for president 2016. What a craic this election has become!

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

I've made these poll cautions so many times in this thread that I thought you and others would have gotten the point by now?


I know Hillary, and I think she would make a great president or vice president and Bill Clinton was a great president.

It's one thing to read from the Donald Trump trial deposition transcripts, and another to actually see him testify in video in an attempt to explain the above statements about Hillary and Bill Clinton he made before declaring for president 2016. What a craic this election has become!

I'll hold you to that no more cautionary poll notes, especially when the polls again shift in Republican favor.


Gotta love the Trump U coverage. Ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton continues to lie to the public at every turn regarding the FBI criminal investigation, or as she tells it... 'routine security inquiry' (of which there is no such thing), into her use of a private bathroom server loosely protecting national security matters and serious pay-to-play issues regarding the Clinton Foundation. So... Instead focus and demonize Trump over bringing up an impartiality question of a Clinton supporter and La Raza affiliate in a lawsuit represented by a law firm that paid the Clinton's hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Our media certainly is!

(Buy the way, it seems Hillary now believes in building walls, and she is going to make ME pay for it. The DNC will be building a wall around the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, PA during the Democratic National Convention next month. So... she will have a wall built around her convention to keep all the unapproved people out, while at the same championing for open borders policies. Oh, the irony! And it's me, a Pennsylvania taxpayer (who s majority of state tax money goes to the City of Brotherly Love so they can have their public services provided at much less then it costs the rest of us in the state), PAY FOR IT, and at outrageous labor union rates and regulations.)

Tough election, I ll grant you that. Our choices are between a self-centered candidate that cares more about themselves than the people they pretend to represent, and a self-centered candidate that cares more about themselves than the people they pretend to represent.

Note: I really do dislike the new format of boards.ie. I can't seem to figure out the whole quote thing and editing feature. Why couldn't they just keep the stuff that works well?

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

I'll hold you to that no more cautionary poll notes, especially when the polls again shift in Republican favor.


Gotta love the Trump U coverage. Ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton continues to lie to the public at every turn regarding the FBI criminal investigation, or as she tells it... 'routine security inquiry' (of which there is no such thing), into her use of a private bathroom server loosely protecting national security matters and serious pay-to-play issues regarding the Clinton Foundation. So... Instead focus and demonize Trump over bringing up an impartiality question of a Clinton supporter and La Raza affiliate in a lawsuit represented by a law firm that paid the Clinton's hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Our media certainly is!

(Buy the way, it seems Hillary now believes in building walls, and she is going to make ME pay for it. The DNC will be building a wall around the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, PA during the Democratic National Convention next month. So... she will have a wall built around her convention to keep all the unapproved people out, while at the same championing for open borders policies. Oh, the irony! And it's me, a Pennsylvania taxpayer (who s majority of state tax money goes to the City of Brotherly Love so they can have their public services provided at much less then it costs the rest of us in the state), PAY FOR IT, and at outrageous labor union rates and regulations.)

Tough election, I ll grant you that. Our choices are between a self-centered candidate that cares more about themselves than the people they pretend to represent, and a self-centered candidate that cares more about themselves than the people they pretend to represent.

Note: I really do dislike the new format of boards.ie. I can't seem to figure out the whole quote thing and editing feature. Why couldn't they just keep the stuff that works well?

Just out of interest, what is your prediction for the election? In a percentage preferably. You were hilariously wrong about Romney and seem to be following the same pattern 4 years later.

Amerika

Just out of interest, what is your prediction for the election? In a percentage preferably. You were hilariously wrong about Romney and seem to be following the same pattern 4 years later.

LOL. I predict Hillary will win, and hopefully my streak will continue.

Actually, if the FBI criminal investigation goes against Clinton and there is 1) an indictment; or 2) the DOJ chooses politics over principle and does nothing; or 3) Obama issues Clinton a pardon, I think the DNC will dump her, regardless, and go with a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket. I think that combination is a sure win for POTUS in this election.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

LOL. I predict Hillary will win, and hopefully my streak will continue.

Actually, if the FBI criminal investigation goes against Clinton and there is 1) an indictment; or 2) the DOJ chooses politics over principle and does nothing; or 3) Obama issues Clinton a pardon, I think the DNC will dump her, regardless, and go with a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket. I think that combination is a sure win for POTUS in this election.

Grand job. I just remember you seeming convinced Romney would have it sewn up and using using Rasmussen numbers to back it up. :pac:

You should probably give up on the indictment thing tbh. If she's indicted so will the last few Secretaries of State along with several former VPs and plenty of other staffers if they fancy it.

Billy86

Brian? wrote: »

Not just Romeny. But McCain .

Poor old McCain will be forever linked to that shambles for longer than he has left on this earth and for some of the stuff he did after. Didn't always agree with the guy, but it's a shame because he has extremely high character and is a bonafide war hero. It's interesting to think how different the world could be today if he got the Republican nomination back in 2000, but instead Bush got it by lying that McCain had illegitimate children with a black prostitute (always with a heavy emphasis on black).

A moment in the 2008 election cycle highlights some of the differences between that and now. McCain gave the mic at a speech to an elderly woman... who then proceeded to go on a rant about Obama being a Kenyan Muslim or whatnot, and McCain immediately snatched the mic back off her and said that Obama is a good man (or something to that effect).

Contrast that with today, and the guy currently running from the GOP wouldn't only not snatch that mic back, after she was done he'd go off on a rant all of his own to an even further extent.

I went to find the McCain video on youtube, but it seems someone has beaten me to the entire thing!

Amerika

Grand job. I just remember you seeming convinced Romney would have it sewn up and using using Rasmussen numbers to back it up.

You should probably give up on the indictment thing tbh. If she's indicted so will the last few Secretaries of State along with several former VPs and plenty of other staffers if they fancy it.

Wishful thinking on my part 4 years ago, I guess. When the spoiler (Candy Crowley) was interjected late into the election process, I believe it helped secure the win for Obama. I think too many overlook the impact Crowley had in that debate, and why CNN fired her. She put media bias on display for all to see.

And the Clinton email scandal isn t going away, as much as Democrats and the media wish it would. In fact, it is now considered a Criminal Investigation.

And regarding the DNC talking points about claims Clinton did the same, regarding her email practices, as her predecessors, let s look at the facts.


Only four former secretaries of state were in office during the prominence of electronic communications: Albright, Clinton, Powell and Rice..

Albright did not use email while she was in office, and Rice rarely ever used email. That leaves Powell, which is the argument Clinton stands upon. But comparing Clinton s methods to Powell s is comparing apples to oranges.

Per Politifact:

Clinton said, regarding her State Department email practices, "my predecessors did the same thing."

This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell. Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did.

We rate this claim Mostly False.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Wishful thinking on my part 8 years ago, I guess. When the spoiler (Candy Crowley) was interjected late into the election process, I believe it helped secure the win for Obama. I think too many overlook the impact Crowley had in that debate, and why CNN fired her.

So they 'fired' her for the 2008 debates... in December, 2014? Why in your opinion did they wait six years after the incident to fire her for it?

CNN announced on December 5, 2014 Crowley's decision to leave the network after 27 years. CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker said Crowley "has made the decision to move on, so she can embark on the next chapter of her already prolific career. As difficult as it is for us to imagine CNN without Candy, we know that she comes to this decision thoughtfully, and she has our full support." [14] Her last broadcast was on State of the Union on December 21, 2014.[15] On August 17, 2015, Politico reported that CNN correspondent Dana Bash would replace Crowley as chief political correspondent.

And the Clinton email scandal isn t going away, as much as Democrats and the media wish it would. In fact, it is now considered a Criminal Investigation.

Just like Trumps. Two people on criminal trial running against each other for probably the most powerful job in the world.

Amerika

So they 'fired' her for the 2008 debates... in December, 2014? Why in your opinion did they wait six years after the incident to fire her for it?

The debate took place in October 2012, not 2008.

In my opinion, and that of many experts, Crowley was pushed out the door. CNN couldn t get rid of her immediately fearing a fallout. And her presence at CNN greatly diminished after the incident. Also, after the 2012 debate CNN was trying hard to overcome the perception of overt bias, and Crowely remained like a noose around their necks in that effort to overcome a negative perception.

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/candy-crowley-aids-obama-2-1-liberal-agenda-validation-libya-falsehood

Just like Trumps. Two people on criminal trial running against each other for probably the most powerful job in the world.

Trump is involved in a civil trial, not a criminal trial, which was brought about by a law firm that has paid the Clintons' hundreds of thousands of dollars.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Trump is involved in a civil trial, not a criminal trial, which was brought about by a law firm that has paid the Clintons' hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Trump is being sued because he stole people's life savings in a fraudulent business.

There's video of his victims describing how much money they were pressured to pay and how they were defrauded.

And on the other hand Hillary may (or may not) have sent some official email from home and may or may not be charged.

Amerika

Trump is being sued because he stole people's life savings in a fraudulent business.

There's video of his victims describing how much money they were pressured to pay and how they were defrauded.

And on the other hand Hillary may (or may not) have sent some official email from home and may or may not be charged.

Thanks for the best laugh of the day. You state as if it's fact that Trump defrauded people, but that what the civil trial will determine. Yet you state things like 'may (or may not)' in regards to Clinton's email, were it has been determined she sent and received classified data on official emails that she stored on her home server.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Thanks for the best laugh of the day. You state as if it's fact that Trump defrauded people, but that what the civil trial will determine. Yet you state things like 'may (or may not)' in regards to Clinton's email, were it has been determined she sent and received classified data on official emails that she stored on her home server.

Oh hey its all humorous isnt it?

I mean you're trying to make out that trump fleecing people of their life savings isnt as bad as Hillary (maybe) sending official email from home.

Amerika

Oh hey its all humorous isnt it?

I mean you're trying to make out that trump fleecing people of their life savings isnt as bad as Hillary (maybe) sending official email from home.

Well, your post was, anyway.

Again, we need to see what the court decides if he did in fact fleece anyone. I look at reviews and comments all the time at things I wish to purchase on the internet, and see quite a bit of opinions from both sides of the spectrum. I then decide, knowing there is a level of risk no matter what, as there are no guarantees, if I wish to purchase the product or service. Ever hear of the term "Buyer Beware?" I guess the difference is I don t have some sleazy lawyer approaching me to sue if I am unhappy with the outcome of my purchase.

And Hillary s wanton disregard for safeguarding classified and top secret information may have contributed to putting people s lives in danger, or compromised secret operations. But I suspect we will never know if it did as I gather the US government would never tell us anyway, or if people lost their lives because her information was hacked by groups hostile to us.

And if did happen, I suspect even you would consider it much, much worse.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

Lets not forget that the 15% threshold you mention is another example of how corrupt and broken the American political system is. The presidential debates are currently run and operated by a private company (commission on presidential debates) owned and operated by the corrupt Republican and Democratic parties who present it as if it was an independent body when in fact it is an undemocratic company used as part of the 2 party cartel on power in DC to stop any other parties emerging in the US on a national scale especially if said parties might actually try and represent the best interests of the vast majority of Americans rather then just the wealthy individuals and major corporations who essentially have bought the Republican and Democratic parties.

InTheTrees

Well the Trump presidential campaign continues to make history.

The worst approval ratings ever recorded by a presidential candidate. Its looking like it will be more and more difficult for him to find a suitable VP candidate because any politician with any ambition doesnt want to be associated with him.

Paul Ryan yesterday again hinted that GOP delegates are being pressured to switch their votes. We'll just have to wait and see what happens at the convention.

Akrasia

InTheTrees wrote: »

Oh hey its all humorous isnt it?

I mean you're trying to make out that trump fleecing people of their life savings isnt as bad as Hillary (maybe) sending official email from home.

Fleecing a few people is just ordinary crime and fraud that happens but the world still turns.

Clinton showed an incredible disregard for the sensitive intelligence and diplomatic information she was entrusted as the Secretary of State just because she wanted to avoid transparency and conduct her own private affairs in secret.

In other words, she jepordised U.S. national security to protect her own private interests. Is this the kind of judgement you want in the President?

ECO_Mental

Akrasia wrote: »

Fleecing a few people is just ordinary crime and fraud that happens but the world still turns.

Clinton showed an incredible disregard for the sensitive intelligence and diplomatic information she was entrusted as the Secretary of State just because she wanted to avoid transparency and conduct her own private affairs in secret.

In other words, she jepordised U.S. national security to protect her own private interests. Is this the kind of judgement you want in the President?

From what I hear and i could be wrong but up to Clinton this was common practice to use personal email and i am sure also the state dept or the CIA NSA etc were not sending top secret email to hillary@hotmail.com..... They might have sent stuff that was private like "hey that Putin is a slippery fella mind your self out there in Moscow and don't be talking in the jacks as they will have that bugged". anything that is marked secret will have numerous protocols that would have to be fulfilled. Apparently to get secret or top secret clearance can take a year with CIA NSA back round checks etc and only then you are allowed access to certain docs.

To say that hillary@hotmail.com is full of secret and top secret files is total crap. Now there might be sensitive info that they might not want to be out in the open is another thing. It's just the GOP trying their best to catch her out on everything and will go to the ends of the earth to bring her down.

There is only one political party here that has deliberately put the life of a US citizen on the line with the release of secret info... That of the CIA agent whose husband disagreed with the white house. And that game from the TOP......

InTheTrees

ECO_Mental wrote: »

It's just the GOP trying their best to catch her out on everything and will go to the ends of the earth to bring her down.

They've spent $15million of taxpayers money on their "benghazi committee" which promised the party faithful that they'd have Hillary in handcuffs, and this is all they got. So they're puffing it up all they can to try and justify their existance.

InTheTrees

Akrasia wrote: »

Fleecing a few people is just ordinary crime and fraud that happens but the world still turns.

Perhaps. I think what makes this case of fraud a bit out of the ordinary is that its perpetrated by the republican parties candidate for president .

Black Swan

"In a court filing Friday night, Trump's attorneys reject allegations in a federal class-action lawsuit that Trump University violated the RACKETEERING Influenced and CORRUPT Organizations Act and that Trump was directly involved in those violations." The soon-to-be official nominee for US president after the July Republican convention has been accused of fraud, racketeering, and corruption? And these FRAUD allegations are from 2 states in America, New York and California? Has there ever been a nominee for president in US history that was being legally tried in high state courts of law for fraud and racketeering while running for the nation's highest office? Should this be in our Guinness World Book of Records?

Amerika wrote: »

Gotta love the Trump U coverage. Ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton continues...

This is an all too frequent strategy used by those that support Trump. Quickly divert attention to Hillary Clinton's failures. They cannot address the fact that Donald Trump, and the Trump University he founded, are being tried for FRAUD in both the states of New York and California, cases that began before Trump declared he was running for 2016 president (Trump University opened 2005 and FAILED 2010, with suits of serious FRAUD allegations immediately following).

The FRAUD allegations in these two different state cases are quite damning (e.g., Trump University "playbooks," and the 48 TU Donald Trump "testimony" videos that his legal defense is trying to KEEP SECRET), especially when the only experience that Trump can use is his private sector business experience (e.g., Trump University, etc.), because he has ZERO experience in governance, having never been elected to public office. And now American voters are going to elect him to their highest public office based solely on what comes out of his MOUTH from his political pulpit (and a MOUTH that contradicts itself all too often**)? What an absolute inexplicable, irrational, and total craic!



**Lest we forget, before the 2016 presidential election Donald Trump's MOUTH said (quote):
“I know Hillary, and I think she would make a great president or vice president” and “Bill Clinton was a great president.” Remember these Trump quotes the next time he attacks either Hillary or Bill Clinton during Trump's campaign as the Republican nominee for 2016 president.

Black Swan

Those are doctorate robes that Donald Trump is wearing. I wonder if his believers know that Trump had not "earned" a doctorate through scholarly research and successful defense of a dissertation from RGU, rather had been given an "honorary" (Hon DBA) from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Scotland, October 2010? Or that the university REVOKED Trump of his doctorate in 2015 as a result of Trump's internationally embarrassing policy statements occurring during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign?

“In the course of the current US election campaign, Mr Trump has made a number of statements that are wholly incompatible with the ethos and values of the university. The university has therefore decided to REVOKE its award of the honorary degree.”

This university removal of Trump's doctorate occurred at the same time as Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon stripped Mr Trump from his role as a business ambassador.

Does anyone think that Donald Trump will all of a sudden "see the light" if elected 8 November 2016 US president, and instantly become diplomatic, given that he has ZERO diplomacy experience for the highest elected diplomatic office in US government, and has offended, and continues to offend governments about the globe as the Republican de facto nominee?

AbusesToilets

ECO_Mental wrote: »

From what I hear and i could be wrong but up to Clinton this was common practice to use personal email and i am sure also the state dept or the CIA NSA etc were not sending top secret email to hillary@hotmail.com..... They might have sent stuff that was private like "hey that Putin is a slippery fella mind your self out there in Moscow and don't be talking in the jacks as they will have that bugged". anything that is marked secret will have numerous protocols that would have to be fulfilled. Apparently to get secret or top secret clearance can take a year with CIA NSA back round checks etc and only then you are allowed access to certain docs.

To say that hillary@hotmail.com is full of secret and top secret files is total crap. Now there might be sensitive info that they might not want to be out in the open is another thing. It's just the GOP trying their best to catch her out on everything and will go to the ends of the earth to bring her down.

There is only one political party here that has deliberately put the life of a US citizen on the line with the release of secret info... That of the CIA agent whose husband disagreed with the white house. And that game from the TOP......

No. Hilary was found to have classified information in the emails that were on her server, 22 of those at the Top Secret level. Having that information on there required that it be deliberately transcribed from the separate Secret networks that the US employs. That is a huge violation of established protocol and regulation. A similar action by a regular person would likely result in jail and/ or a huge fine.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

Fleecing a few people is just ordinary crime and fraud that happens but the world still turns.

Clinton showed an incredible disregard for the sensitive intelligence and diplomatic information she was entrusted as the Secretary of State just because she wanted to avoid transparency and conduct her own private affairs in secret.

In other words, she jepordised U.S. national security to protect her own private interests. Is this the kind of judgement you want in the President?

Never mind her role in the coup in Honduras while secreatray of state which has wreaked havoc in that country as another example of who she is and who she takes care of. In this case multi nationals at the expense of the Honduran people.

Jawfin

I quote from an ITV article:

"Donald Trump has said the United States should "seriously" consider profiling Muslims as a terrorism-fighting tool.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that it was a matter of choosing "common sense" over "political correctness".

Mr Trump argued that it was "not the worst thing to do", and added that other countries use profiling.
"I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense".

Profiling is the government practice of targeting people for investigation based on factors such as their race, religion or nationality.

Civil libertarians have decried the practice as discriminatory.

Previously the outspoken billionaire has also proposed a temporary ban on foreign Muslims from entering the US."



I still can't decide if this man is, 'a silly old billy', (to put it lightly) or not. If he meant any of what he was saying he could project it easily with emotive stuff - "If so-and-so victimisation scheme saves one life, then it's worth it", and so on. I'd say he could even win over a less-than-inconsiderable amount of democrat votes by doing so. But no - he calls muslims a 'problem'. Why?

InTheTrees

Jawfin wrote: »

I'd say he could even win over a less-than-inconsiderable amount of democrat votes by doind so. But no - he calls muslims a 'problem'. Why?

He seems unable to switch gears from the low brow primaries to the presidential campaign. He's still appealing to his base.

Amerika

Does Julian Assange have all of Hillary Clinton's emails? The WikiLeaks founder claims they have emails of Clinton's and enough information that would warrant an indictment, if the legal process isn t corrupted by the US attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who was appiointed by Barack Obama.

WikiLeaks released a filed labeled WIKILEAKS INSURANCE. It is theorized that it is a huge downloadable file put out there in advance of a some "big announcement," and exists if US Governmental efforts to keep Clinton's emails from becoming public are successful. Supposedly it is a deadman's switch, where downloaders get an encryption key, but need a second key before they can unlock the file, and a type of insurance for Wikileaks to get the information out, no matter what.

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-email-scandal-imminent-document-leak-enough-to-indict-her/

This will be a nightmare for the Clinton campaign, regardless whether the media hides it on page 14, ignores it completely, or for once puts journalistic integrity over their own ideology.

Hande hoche!

See that Corey Lewandowski has left the Trump campaign. Seems like it was a long time coming.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/corey-lewandowski-out-as-trump-campaign-manager/index.html

Billy86

Certainly looks like a bit of a panic move, though possibly justified as the campaign really does appear to have gone into free-fall the last few weeks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/19/the-brutal-numbers-behind-a-very-bad-month-for-donald-trump/

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Does Julian Assange have all of Hillary Clinton's emails? The WikiLeaks founder claims they have emails of Clinton's and enough information that would warrant an indictment, if the legal process isn t corrupted by the US attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who was appiointed by Barack Obama.

WikiLeaks released a filed labeled WIKILEAKS INSURANCE. It is theorized that it is a huge downloadable file put out there in advance of a some "big announcement," and exists if US Governmental efforts to keep Clinton's emails from becoming public are successful. Supposedly it is a deadman's switch, where downloaders get an encryption key, but need a second key before they can unlock the file, and a type of insurance for Wikileaks to get the information out, no matter what.

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-email-scandal-imminent-document-leak-enough-to-indict-her/

This will be a nightmare for the Clinton campaign, regardless whether the media hides it on page 14, ignores it completely, or for once puts journalistic integrity over their own ideology.

The aul media bias eh? The number one rated news network in the US is flagrantly pro GOP.

Amerika

Hearing rumblings that a substantial number of disgruntled Sanders supporters and of whom are disillusioned with Clinton, may be throwing their support behind Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party candidate. And it could be as high as 45 percent of Sanders supporters who won t vote for Clinton. Stein may be on the ballot of 47 states.

So, now we may have two spoilers thrown into the wild and wacky US presidential race of 2016. Stein of the Green Party sucking off Democratic votes and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party appealing to some Republicans. If Trump doesn't change some of his ways, at the current juncture Johnson might get my vote. But Johnson would have to change some of his views on illegal immigration, first.