2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

At some point trump is going to have to defend the published policies of the GOP

Why does he plan on defunding the Environmental Protection Agency?

How will he replace The Affordable Care Act? How is he going to privatise old age pensions?

The school yard squabbling was okay in the primaries because everyone was considered to be basically on the same page, but now voters are going to want to know specifics.

The EPA has become a very dangerous joke, which is nothing to laugh about. Under Obama is has become a toxic waste dump of lawlessness, governed by disdain for the Constitution, and a leftist-controlled agency who’s only in business to serve its administration green energy cohort’s and their businesses, and punish and subvert political enemies. This administration can’t get its agenda done through legislation, so they use the EPA to institute abusive regulations. Its most recent administrators have placed political agendas over sound science and broke laws governing the computer records of public officials to hide what they were doing. It has become a brutal agency with the power to act as judge, jury and executioner in bringing businesses and people to their knees without the backing of sound science. The EPA should either be shut down, or fire all of its administration and enact laws that govern and limit its power back to its original intent.

Also, ObamaCare is on the verge of collapsing. Even Obama realizes this and is now calling on Congress to add a “public option” (single payer system) to ObamaCare in order to save it.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

The EPA has become a very dangerous joke, which is nothing to laugh about.

A good indicator of how seriously the republicans consider climate change to be is their platform position on coal being a "clean" source of energy.

Given that position I can appreciate how they feel The "Environmental Protection Agency" is a dangerous joke.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

The EPA has become a very dangerous joke, which is nothing to laugh about. Under Obama is has become a toxic waste dump of lawlessness, governed by disdain for the Constitution, and a leftist-controlled agency who’s only in business to serve its administration green energy cohort’s and their businesses, and punish and subvert political enemies. This administration can’t get its agenda done through legislation, so they use the EPA to institute abusive regulations. Its most recent administrators have placed political agendas over sound science and broke laws governing the computer records of public officials to hide what they were doing. It has become a brutal agency with the power to act as judge, jury and executioner in bringing businesses and people to their knees without the backing of sound science. The EPA should either be shut down, or fire all of its administration and enact laws that govern and limit its power back to its original intent.

Also, ObamaCare is on the verge of collapsing. Even Obama realizes this and is now calling on Congress to add a “public option” (single payer system) to ObamaCare in order to save it.

Some specifics would be nice, because otherwise this post is just a lot of hot air that doesn't actually say anything. It is so vague and lacking in substance or content that you could copy and paste any agency in there in place of EPA if you liked, and could switch it from left to right if you wish too. The reason I ask is that this kind of posting style is typically (not always) indicative of someone who doesn't know what they are actually talking about, and have not reached their own conclusions on the basis of looking at the evidence and trying to get an honest interpretation of it, but rather have reached their own conclusions because they have been told what to conclude from where they get their favourite politicians, news outlets, etc.

Watch...

The Department of Defense has become a very dangerous joke, which is nothing to laugh about. Under Bush is has become a toxic waste dump of lawlessness, governed by disdain for the Constitution, and a right wing-controlled agency who’s only in business to serve its administration fossil fuel cohort’s and their businesses, and punish and subvert political enemies. This administration can’t get its agenda done through legislation, so they use the DOD to institute abusive regulations. Its most recent administrators have placed political agendas over sound science and broke laws governing the computer records of public officials to hide what they were doing. It has become a brutal agency with the power to act as judge, jury and executioner in bringing businesses and people to their knees without the backing of sound science. The DOD should either be shut down, or fire all of its administration and enact laws that govern and limit its power back to its original intent.

So in light of this, could you please go into some actual specifics as to what you are actually talking about?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

A good indicator of how seriously the republicans consider climate change to be is their platform position on coal being a "clean" source of energy.

Given that position I can appreciate how they feel The "Environmental Protection Agency" is a dangerous joke.

The most promising clean coal technology involves using coal to make hydrogen from water. Then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen. Unfortunately, the technology isn’t being undertaken in greater efforts because there is typically at least a 20% energy penalty under the Obama administration involved in clean coal processes.

Dang that science stuff, eh?

Harry Palmr

Has anyone yelled "Hello Cleveland!" yet?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

The most promising clean coal technology involves using coal to make hydrogen from water.

The republicans want to close down environmental protections so they can continue to pollute at the current rate.

The current republican congress isnt trying to defund the EPA because they're desperate for hydrogen research.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Some specifics would be nice, because otherwise this post is just a lot of hot air that doesn't actually say anything. It is so vague and lacking in substance or content that you could copy and paste any agency in there in place of EPA if you liked, and could switch it from left to right if you wish too. The reason I ask is that this kind of posting style is typically (not always) indicative of someone who doesn't know what they are actually talking about, and have not reached their own conclusions on the basis of looking at the evidence and trying to get an honest interpretation of it, but rather have reached their own conclusions because they have been told what to conclude from where they get their favourite politicians, news outlets, etc.

Watch...



So in light of this, could you please go into some actual specifics as to what you are actually talking about?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#2ac025575beb

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/21/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies-part-ii/#719192487a38

But I highly doubt it means anything to you, as ‘disregarding facts and information if it deviates from the leftist agenda, seems to be the name of the game here.

Also, I have personally been the benefactor of EPA abuses. I wanted to put a plank across a creek (the creek being about 8 feet wide, the plank being 12 inches wide) so I can get from one side of my property to another. I was told by the EPA it wouldn’t be allowed by them, but I could spend about $100,000 to try and legally obtain permission. But before I do, I would also need to spend additional money to get permission from the Army Corps of Engineers, the PFBC Division of Environmental Services, and the PA Fish and Game Commission. The EPA said unless I had unlimited funds I might as well forget about it, and if I just put a plank across the creek in disregard of their regulations, I could be fined up to $10,000 per day.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

The republicans want to close down environmental protections so they can continue to pollute at the current rate.

Please provide some sources supporting this assertion.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Please provide some sources supporting this assertion.

You can just google: Republican position on climate change

Here's a couple on all the candidates views, you can get a general idea. Republicans deny it. Its been like that since they vilified Al Gore for his Warnings.

https://newrepublic.com/article/124381/2016-presidential-candidates-view-climate-change

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266716-climate-change-where-the-gop-field-stands

Here's a good piece from The Economist about Republicans and Climate Change:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/01/snow-blindness

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Trump is just giving ammo to the opposition, just saw a preview of jimmy fallon tonight. It had trump coming out from that white background with queen and then jimmy going into Michael Jackson"Billy jean" as i said earlier this is a comedy show. Entertainment..the trump campaign just keeps giving us comedy material every day.

I get a kick out of people referencing political propaganda shows disguised as entertainment.

Here is something you won’t see on the Daily Show. An individual tried recording the Daily Show film crew, interviewing a young gay conservative who supports Trump, outside a “Gays for Trump” party hosted by Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos at the GOP convention. He attempted to record the exchange because he wanted to compare it to the Daily Show’s final cut and see whether they would be fair to individual they were interviewing, or if it was just an ambush to humiliate the man for being gay and having the wrong political views.

Results: Guy with cell phone – 1, Daily Show – 0.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

You can just google: Republican position on climate change

Here's a couple on all the candidates views, you can get a general idea. Republicans deny it. Its been like that since they vilified Al Gore for his Warnings.

https://newrepublic.com/article/124381/2016-presidential-candidates-view-climate-change

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266716-climate-change-where-the-gop-field-stands

Here's a good piece from The Economist about Republicans and Climate Change:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/01/snow-blindness

Thanks. I read them. Climate change is happening and has been happening since the beginning of time, and there is little denying that. Seems to me the vast majority of Republicans stand behind the position that we aren't going to destroy our economy based on unsettled science regarding man's effect on climate change and our ability to actually change it. Nowhere does it point to them wanting to 'close down environmental protections so they can continue to pollute at the current rate.'

Amerika

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Has anyone yelled "Hello Cleveland!" yet?

I know many here whom didn’t follow the NBA championship this year won’t get the reference, but I thought the best line from yesterday’s nomination process was the Florida GOP chair stating in Cleveland “We are the state that gave LeBron James his first two championships.”

Suryavarman

A speechwriter for the Trump campaign is now admitting that Melania's speech was plagiarised:

Trump speechwriter Meredith Melver says that the copied passages were due to a miscommunication. In her telling, Melania read some phrases to Melver over the phone and Melver didn’t realize they were verbatim quotes from Michelle’s 2008 speech.

Melver says she offered to resign, but the Trump family asked her to stay on the job.

Amerika

The latest RCP poll averages from 7/2 to 7/18 show Clinton’s lead over Trump down to only 2.7 points, within the margin of error. Previously, I thought this election would simply be a coronation for Hillary Clinton. But her missteps and negative trust factor has changed things. Now, I not only think Trump might win, but by a significant margin. Over and over again I keep hearing people talk (off the record) that they will be voting for Trump but would never say so to a pollster or anywhere in public out of fear of being demonized. Polls don’t factor in the fear of telling the truth (unless we start to see the margin of error increase). With all that is going on nationally and internationally I believe it’s now going to be a national security election, and in that area Trump trumps Clinton.

B_Wayne

Amerika wrote: »

The latest RCP poll averages from 7/2 to 7/18 show Clinton’s lead over Trump down to only 2.7 points, within the margin of error. Previously, I thought this election would simply be a coronation for Hillary Clinton. But her missteps and negative trust factor has changed things. Now, I not only think Trump might win, but by a significant margin. Over and over again I keep hearing people talk (off the record) that they will be voting for Trump but would never say so to a pollster or anywhere in public out of fear of being demonized. Polls don’t factor in the fear of telling the truth (unless we start to see the margin of error increase). With all that is going on nationally and internationally I believe it’s now going to be a national security election, and in that area Trump trumps Clinton.

Trump trumps Hilary on national security? He has consistently provided unintelligible policies in all areas. I still suspect he stands no chance in this elections and Nate Silver's stats tend to favour this. I'm seeing a landslide defeat for him.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#2ac025575beb

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/21/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies-part-ii/#719192487a38

Copying and pasting to an energy lobbyist doesn't do much to combat my comment about people not articulating their own conclusion and instead having "reached their own conclusions because they have been told what to conclude from where they get their favourite politicians, news outlets, etc" to be honest. And both articles are from the same climate change denier. He thinks DDT should never have been banned - making out that one man forced it through against all advise, and conveniently overlooking the fact that the ban was upheld in the appeals court.

The 1978 claim is another farce, and blown completely out of proportion for political gain... let's not forget that one of the guys mentioned, Richard Schweiker, was Ronald Raegan's campaign coordinator.

The story also confirms the critical role of the news media in making a leak work. The EPA memo was actually a document of little consequence. It did not reveal specific policy decisions or even the opinion of the agency's administrator, Douglas M. Costle. Rather, it represented only an analysis of the steel industry's condition, written by a relatively junior member of the bureaucracy, that had been forwarded to Costle. But following the Senators' lead, the press inflated the memo's significance, allowing Heinz and Schweiker to reap a partisan publicity bonanza in a state considered crucial in the presidential election.

Moving on to the 1991 claim is another example of why you shouldn't blindly take someone else's opinion as fact... because "conveniently" Hendricks forgot to mention that a) the EPA themselves requested the outside review, and b) though it was a rocky road, they had satisfied their findings by the end of the 90s.

In 1991, EPA Administrator William Reilly requested a panel of four academic scientists, including two members subsequently appointed to our committee, to evaluate how EPA could meet the goal of using sound science as the foundation for agency decision-making.

...

In November 1999, the Research Strategies Advisory Committee of the SAB reported that the agency has shown “diligence” with respect to peer review, that its peer-review process is “well-articulated,” “fundamentally sound,” and “with a few exceptions, working as intended” (EPASAB 1999). It concluded that EPA has been responsive to previous recommendations of the SAB, the GAO, and other organizations regarding peer review. It commented that EPA's peer-review processes are continuing to improve through high-level management commitment and a mechanism of continued internal examination and process changes led by the agency's ORD and Science Policy Council.

After this, he continues the tactic of ignoring the facts by claiming the 1989 asbestos ban was "despite studies from Oxford, Harvard, the Canadian Royal commission, New Jersey, etc. that the health risks posed by asbestos-lined buildings were miniscule". Funny that, because here the Harvard paper says "The mortality rate from lung cancer was higher than has been reported in any other study," and that it was a huge risk to those exposed to it regularly. He also "conveniently" neglects to mention that the Canadian study was so thoroughly criticised as to open an invesrtigation of misconduct on it's author, to see if it was intentional.

He then harps on that the ban was overturned a few years later, not mentioning that is was pretty much entirely down to red tape and not to do with asbestos being deemed unharmful, or his flat-out lie that it had to do with the EPA "exceeding it's legislative authority".

Next up is a blatant, open lie where he says the EPA “regulate lands where puddles form after heavy rains”. When Rubio touched on this calling these water bodies “barely bigger than a puddle of water” that was found ‘mostly false’ - http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/22/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-epa-rule-covers-water-barely-bigg/ - so trust this obvious shill for larger energy corporations to double down further by literally referring to them as “puddles”. And in a completely unexpected turn of events, those most in favour of overturning this are… mining and fracking companies!

And on and on it goes like this… and this is the problem. Those to the far right read the headline and decide “I like this, and because of that this is the truth” – and that is the end of the thought process. Then when it comes time to argue the benefits of that to the nation outside of their usual ‘safe space’ they get called on their errors, falsehoods, half-truths and lies… and run away back to a safe space cry about “media bias”.

But I highly doubt it means anything to you, as ‘disregarding facts and information if it deviates from the leftist agenda, seems to be the name of the game here.

"But but but... the left!!"

Billy86

Suryavarman wrote: »

A speechwriter for the Trump campaign is now admitting that Melania's speech was plagiarised:

And it's also an open admission that her "I wrote it" claim was an utter lie.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

And it's also an open admission that her "I wrote it" claim was an utter lie.

So, yes, it appears small portions of the speech were plagiarized. The guilty party has stepped forward and admitted it. So I trust we can put this to rest now... or does Michelle Obama own the intellectual rights to values, dignity, and children?

And, what she actually said was 'I wrote it with as little help as possible.' Not an utter lie. (See Hillary Clinton for the definition of utter lie).

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Copying and pasting to an energy lobbyist doesn't do much to combat my comment about people not articulating their own conclusion and instead having "reached their own conclusions because they have been told what to conclude from where they get their favourite politicians, news outlets, etc" to be honest. And both articles are from the same climate change denier. He thinks DDT should never have been banned - making out that one man forced it through against all advise, and conveniently overlooking the fact that the ban was upheld in the appeals court.

The 1978 claim is another farce, and blown completely out of proportion for political gain... let's not forget that one of the guys mentioned, Richard Schweiker, was Ronald Raegan's campaign coordinator.


Moving on to the 1991 claim is another example of why you shouldn't blindly take someone else's opinion as fact... because "conveniently" Hendricks forgot to mention that a) the EPA themselves requested the outside review, and b) though it was a rocky road, they had satisfied their findings by the end of the 90s.


After this, he continues the tactic of ignoring the facts by claiming the 1989 asbestos ban was "despite studies from Oxford, Harvard, the Canadian Royal commission, New Jersey, etc. that the health risks posed by asbestos-lined buildings were miniscule". Funny that, because here the Harvard paper says "The mortality rate from lung cancer was higher than has been reported in any other study," and that it was a huge risk to those exposed to it regularly. He also "conveniently" neglects to mention that the Canadian study was so thoroughly criticised as to open an invesrtigation of misconduct on it's author, to see if it was intentional.

He then harps on that the ban was overturned a few years later, not mentioning that is was pretty much entirely down to red tape and not to do with asbestos being deemed unharmful, or his flat-out lie that it had to do with the EPA "exceeding it's legislative authority".

Next up is a blatant, open lie where he says the EPA “regulate lands where puddles form after heavy rains”. When Rubio touched on this calling these water bodies “barely bigger than a puddle of water” that was found ‘mostly false’ - http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/22/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-epa-rule-covers-water-barely-bigg/ - so trust this obvious shill for larger energy corporations to double down further by literally referring to them as “puddles”. And in a completely unexpected turn of events, those most in favour of overturning this are… mining and fracking companies!

And on and on it goes like this… and this is the problem. Those to the far right read the headline and decide “I like this, and because of that this is the truth” – and that is the end of the thought process. Then when it comes time to argue the benefits of that to the nation outside of their usual ‘safe space’ they get called on their errors, falsehoods, half-truths and lies… and run away back to a safe space cry about “media bias”.

"But but but... the left!!"

Those were only some of the facts. A quick google search would result you in a huugge amount of reports of EPS illegalities, overreaches, abuses and pandering.

Anyone know where H.R.3880 - Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2015 stands at?

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Those were only some of the facts. A quick google search would result you in a huugge amount of reports of EPS illegalities, overreaches, abuses and pandering.

Anyone know where H.R.3880 - Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2015 stands at?

And every single one of those 'facts' I looked at was exaggerated, a half truth, or an out-and-out lie.

And if this became an election issue and Trump took the writers' stance and wound up getting called up on it, Trump fans would immediately be up in arms over "media bias". Again.

EDIT: This scattergun approach doesn't do you any favours by the way. What you should be looking at are legitimate areas where the EPA have overreached or abused their position (and I am sure those do exist) and really key in on them, rather than trying to use them to attach more and more claims, each less valid than the last, up until the stage where the actual valid points get lost in the heaping mountain of bullsh*t.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

And every single one of those 'facts' I looked at was exaggerated, a half truth, or an out-and-out lie.

And if this became an election issue and Trump took the writers' stance and wound up getting called up on it, Trump fans would immediately be up in arms over "media bias". Again.

EDIT: This scattergun approach doesn't do you any favours by the way. What you should be looking at are legitimate areas where the EPA have overreached or abused their position (and I am sure those do exist) and really key in on them, rather than trying to use them to attach more and more claims, each less valid than the last, up until the stage where the actual valid points get lost in the heaping mountain of bullsh*t.

Okay, here are two quick examples for your reading enjoyment.
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/an-out-of-control-epa-loses-yet-another-court-case/
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/epa-gets-another-smackdown-from-courts/

And media bias does exist. They often fail to report on anything negative involving the Clintons. Have you heard of any reporting on the following:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation

Anyone denying that if any republicans name would have been substituted in this story instead of the Clintons - that there would have been a firestorm of outrage from the media, is denying reality.

But Trump will never let anything like this slide in the general election. He will be hitting Hillary hard with this kind of information and much more that I guarantee the majority of the voters have never heard about.

RobertKK

The Trump family are great assets for his campaign. They seem really nice and there are lots of them.

Hillary Clinton has tied herself to Obama which is not good.
Some think Obamacare is good, and it is for some who had no cover, but for others the average for single people is over $6,000 a year, and for families over $16,200 making it unaffordable healthcare as prices for health insurance have risen sharply.
The FBI described Hillary Clinton as 'extremely careless' which could also be used to describe her stint as secretary of state, and the trail of destruction she helped.
Not to mention under the Obama presidency, race relations seem to have gotten worse and police are being murdered, and terrorism within the US is happening more frequently.

Given the state of the world seems to be getting worse, and things within the states going downhill.
I don't think people will vote for four more years of proven failed policy, plus I think Hillary's voice will start to grate on people, if it hasn't already, especially when she shouts as if her audience is deaf.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, here are two quick examples for your reading enjoyment.
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/an-out-of-control-epa-loses-yet-another-court-case/
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/epa-gets-another-smackdown-from-courts/

I'm not even entertaining them until you actually address the list of lies, half truths and exaggerations you linked to earlier. You linked to it so you defend it.

StringerBell

I still can't see anything but a landslide victory for the anybody but Trump side.

LostinKildare

Billy86 wrote: »

And it's also an open admission that her "I wrote it" claim was an utter lie.

Yes. And that M. Trump knew it was plagiarism --- "Over the phone, she read me some lines from Mrs. Obama’s speech . . . I wrote them down". Those lines appeared in Trump's speech, and she delivered the speech knowing that these were someone else’s words. Did she add anything at all original to this speech that was written first by two experienced speechwriters, and then revised by McIver? Or was the plagiarized bit her only contribution?

The cherry on top is that in taking the fall for this, McIver states that she is "an in-house staff writer at the Trump Organization" rather than an employee of the campaign. And the statement was released on Trump Organization letterhead. This raises questions about whether the Trump campaign has violated federal campaign law by illegally using corporate resources for a political campaign.

What a mess they've made of this. This would have been a minor issue for a competent professional campaign, but they don't seem to know what they're doing.

There's an interesting piece from the Atlantic about why this episode matters, by David Frum(!). Frum is a neoconservative, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, very famous for the "Axis of Evil" speech (love him or hate him, he knows his political rhetoric). One quote:

Trump has just vividly demonstrated that his campaign—never mind the campaign, he himself—have zero skill at crisis management. Confronted with this comically absurd failure, their instinct is not only to lie, shift blame, and refuse responsibility, but to do so in laughably unbelievable ways. It’s all a big joke when the crisis in question is a plagiarized speech by a would-be first lady. It won’t be so funny when a President Trump tries to manage a truly life-and-death crisis in the same blundering, dopey, and cowardly way.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/melania-trumps-speech-matters/492038/

Amerika

LostinKildare wrote: »

Yes. And that M. Trump knew it was plagiarism --- "Over the phone, she read me some lines from Mrs. Obama’s speech . . . I wrote them down". Those lines appeared in Trump's speech, and she delivered the speech knowing that these were someone else’s words. Did she add anything at all original to this speech that was written first by two experienced speechwriters, and then revised by McIver? Or was the plagiarized bit her only contribution?

The cherry on top is that in taking the fall for this, McIver states that she is "an in-house staff writer at the Trump Organization" rather than an employee of the campaign. And the statement was released on Trump Organization letterhead. This raises questions about whether the Trump campaign has violated federal campaign law by illegally using corporate resources for a political campaign.

What a mess they've made of this. This would have been a minor issue for a competent professional campaign, but they don't seem to know what they're doing.

There's an interesting piece from the Atlantic about why this episode matters, by David Frum(!). Frum is a neoconservative, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, very famous for the "Axis of Evil" speech (love him or hate him, he knows his political rhetoric). One quote:


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/melania-trumps-speech-matters/492038/

If the Trump campaign violated federal campaign laws then it should be investigated... Right after they are done investigating Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Philippe Reines, Jake Sullivan, Patrick Kennedy, and a host of others involved in the State Department/Clinton Foundation/Clinton Campaign, and now Julian Castro (at the top of the list of Clinton's VP choices) for violating the Hatch Act.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

The latest RCP poll averages from 7/2 to 7/18 show Clinton’s lead over Trump down to only 2.7 points, within the margin of error. Previously, I thought this election would simply be a coronation for Hillary Clinton. But her missteps and negative trust factor has changed things. Now, I not only think Trump might win, but by a significant margin. Over and over again I keep hearing people talk (off the record) that they will be voting for Trump but would never say so to a pollster or anywhere in public out of fear of being demonized. Polls don’t factor in the fear of telling the truth (unless we start to see the margin of error increase). With all that is going on nationally and internationally I believe it’s now going to be a national security election, and in that area Trump trumps Clinton.

You would expect this scared Trump supporter to show in the primaries but it didn't. He wasn't consistently beating the polling estimates as you would expect in this case. I see no reason for this effect to appear now.

Akrasia

Amerika wrote: »

If the Trump campaign violated federal campaign laws then it should be investigated... Right after they are done investigating Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Philippe Reines, Jake Sullivan, Patrick Kennedy, and a host of others involved in the State Department/Clinton Foundation/Clinton Campaign, and now Julian Castro (at the top of the list of Clinton's VP choices) for violating the Hatch Act.

I know you are, but what am I?

Any and all candidates who violate the law should be investigated.

Shouldn't you be supporting a candidate who isn't a criminal instead of picking someone who is (possibly) slightly less criminal than the other candidate?

Trump is a terrible terrible candidate, so is Clinton. So the voters should reject them both, and pick someone better.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

If the Trump campaign violated federal campaign laws then it should be investigated... Right after they are done investigating Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Philippe Reines, Jake Sullivan, Patrick Kennedy, and a host of others involved in the State Department/Clinton Foundation/Clinton Campaign, and now Julian Castro (at the top of the list of Clinton's VP choices) for violating the Hatch Act.

BUT BUT BUT... THE LEFT!!!!

Is this really your only tactic? Please try actually addressing point laid out.

Black Swan

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Quick question re the Melania Trump speech, and the allegations of plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech.....

If MOB's speech was written for her by a team of writers, then how could MT possibly plagiarize MOB? The work never belonged to MOB in the first place?

Plagiarism in schools, colleges, and universities in America has been a serious problem, and if a student copied several portions of a speech given by another person years before as in this case, no matter if it had been ghost written or whatever, if they did not give credit for quoting or paraphrasing, I would give them an F for "cheating," and they would be run into my department head and dean for dishonourable conduct. Whether Melania Trump claims "I wrote it" during the NBC interview before delivering it at the convention, or if she lied and had a speech writer write it, it's still plagiarizing a speech given by another, and should suffer the consequences. Melania the potential First Lady is certainly not sending the right message to millions of American students about honesty, whether she "I wrote it" or it was dishonestly written by another, suggesting that "Let's make plagiarism great again!"