2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Count Dooku

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The State Department. Not Hillary Clinton. Now you might think that's being pedantic, but you said she was an arms dealer. And the inference seems to be that the State Department is a mere puppet that can be persuaded to make deals regardless of their merits merely because the Sec. of State thinks so? If she thinks so and there's provable evidence that she made the running on it.

I also like "Yes, Minister", but it was about Britain, not USA
Do you have any evidences that clerks in the State Department can do everything they want?

CMOTDibbler

Count Dooku wrote: »

I also like "Yes, Minister", but it was about Britain, not USA
Do you have any evidences that clerks in the State Department can do everything they want?

Clerks! lol

There's a very complex and much overseen system for deciding on arms deals. The very first step comes from the Department of Defence, not the State Department:

Foreign Military Sales are one of two methods through which a country can purchase new military equipment from the United States; the other is Direct Commercial Sales, which are managed by PM/DDTC. FMS is a government-to-government program through which the U.S. Government sells conventional military weapons, equipment, and services to allied and friendly nations to assist them in meeting their legitimate defense requirements. Although the Department of Defense, through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), is responsible for implementing individual FMS cases, the Department of State must first review and approve them. DSCA forwards all FMS cases to PM/RSAT, which is responsible for ensuring that they are properly reviewed within the Department for consistency with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. In close coordination with other Department bureaus and offices, PM/RSAT officers provide recommendations to PM leadership on whether to approve the potential sale of military equipment to foreign governments through FMS.

Lots of acronyms there, but PM is the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs in the State Department. But you'll note that the sales requests come from the Department of Defence and after review and approval by the State Department, they then go to House and Senate committees.

So it's not like selling sweets to your pals in the schoolyard as you seem to imply, but a heavily overseen and multi-stage process. As you would expect.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Ever heard of the Carlyle Group?

Look it up. It's very interesting. Especially the bit about the Bin Laden family's connection to GHW Bush through it. But that's just light reading. The interesting stuff is how the Bush's profited from wars. And guess how many wars they started got involved in?

So conspiracy theories is all you got?

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The State Department. Not Hillary Clinton. Now you might think that's being pedantic, but you said she was an arms dealer. And the inference seems to be that the State Department is a mere puppet that can be persuaded to make deals regardless of their merits merely because the Sec. of State thinks so? If she thinks so and there's provable evidence that she made the running on it.

And please don't quote Breitbart as a source. I have to have a scalding hot shower every time I visit that website and I still never feel clean.

Do you have anything to say regarding the content of the Breitbart piece? Is there any information in the article that is inaccurate?

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

So conspiracy theories is all you got?

The irony of you denouncing 'conspiracy theories'.

The links have been widely reported from way way back.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Do you have anything to say regarding the content of the Breitbart piece? Is there any information in the article that is inaccurate?

Breitbart? The outlet that ran such stories as "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" or "Climate expert: Marxist, global warming extremists control Vatican.”

And of course the very recent: "No Debates, No Open Press Events, Declining Fox News: Paul Ryan Running Scared in Final Days Ahead of Primary Election". Which was so far off the mark, it made them even more of a laughing stock than they already were.

TLDR: No, I didn't read the Breitbart link and never will. I have some self respect.

Pro Hoc Vice

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Breitbart? The outlet that ran such stories as "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" or "Climate expert: Marxist, global warming extremists control Vatican.”

And of course the very recent: "No Debates, No Open Press Events, Declining Fox News: Paul Ryan Running Scared in Final Days Ahead of Primary Election". Which was so far off the mark, it made them even more of a laughing stock than they already were.

TLDR: No, I didn't read the Breitbart link and never will. I have some self respect.

Just for giggles from the Irish Times

"Ryan, who ran unsuccessfully for vice president in 2012, had roughly 84 percent of the vote compared with challenger Paul Nehlen’s 16 percent, with 87 percent of voting areas reporting results, the Journal Sentinel reported this morning."

But bet Nehlen will say the polls biased against him.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/paul-ryan-easily-wins-primary-election-for-congressional-seat-1.2751355

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Breitbart? The outlet that ran such stories as "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" or "Climate expert: Marxist, global warming extremists control Vatican.”

And of course the very recent: "No Debates, No Open Press Events, Declining Fox News: Paul Ryan Running Scared in Final Days Ahead of Primary Election". Which was so far off the mark, it made them even more of a laughing stock than they already were.

TLDR: No, I didn't read the Breitbart link and never will. I have some self respect.

Did Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain fail to get a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by going through normal channels?

Afterwards did his kingdom donate up to $150,000 directly to the Foundation, plus another $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative?

Did he then secure a meeting with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton?

After the meeting did Clinton approve some highly controversial arms sales to Bahrain by significantly increasing arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests?

Did the emails which Clinton’s lawyers deleted without turning them over to the State Department, that exposed these Clinton practices come from the Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, and not our vaunted mainstream media and its investigative reporters?

Seems like excellent Journalism. I haven’t seen anything in the article that is factually incorrect.

I read many articles that come from left leaning media sources. I like to get information from all sides and varying sources. I would never refuse to read something just because their views or style of reporting counters my political viewpoints.

But that’s just me. I respect the truth, no matter where it comes from.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

But that’s just me. I respect the truth, no matter where it comes from.

You do seem to have issues separating fact from conspiracy theory though.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Here’s a list (so far) of our celebrities who have said they’ll leave America if Trump is elected:

Barbra Streisand, Lena Dunham, Samuel L. Jackson, Miley Cyrus, Cher, Jon Stewart, Raven Symone, Natasha Lyonne, Omari Hardwick, Spike Lee, Chloë Sevigny, Eddie Griffin, George Lopez, Al Sharpton, Neve Campbell, Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, and Chelsea Handler.

I remember a similar list who promised to leave the US when GW Bush was running. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of them fulfilled their promises. Whenever I see a new celebrity added to this list of shameless attention seekers I want to yell ‘just shut up and sing/act,’ because I know they'll never go through with it.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/37-people-who-say-theyre-moving-to-australia-if-o?utm_term=.mlREBejoB#.xhpY0red0

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2012/11/republicans-threaten-move-to-canada-after-obama-win.html

not a new thing

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Did Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain fail to get a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by going through normal channels?

Afterwards did his kingdom donate up to $150,000 directly to the Foundation, plus another $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative?

Did he then secure a meeting with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton?

After the meeting did Clinton approve some highly controversial arms sales to Bahrain by significantly increasing arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests?

Did the emails which Clinton’s lawyers deleted without turning them over to the State Department, that exposed these Clinton practices come from the Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, and not our vaunted mainstream media and its investigative reporters?

Seems like excellent Journalism. I haven’t seen anything in the article that is factually incorrect.

I read many articles that come from left leaning media sources. I like to get information from all sides and varying sources. I would never refuse to read something just because their views or style of reporting counters my political viewpoints.

But that’s just me. I respect the truth, no matter where it comes from.

Don't make me laugh puke. They may be facts, but they're Breitbart's version of the facts. They can conveniently leave out things like the fact that Bahrain were being supplied arms by the US as far back as 2005 and continuously since then. The one that you refer to was actually stalled for a considerable period of time as pressure was put on them to cease human rights abuses. Amnesty did a very good report on what arms that Bahrain were getting and from where. It might surprise you to find that Breitbart are only filtering the facts that suit their agenda.

And the old chestnut of deleted emails. They're a great source of facts alright. You can say anything you like is in a deleted email. :rolleyes:

So no, I'm not impressed by Breitbart. And I haven't seen you link to Daily KOS or The Huffington Post.

Count Dooku

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Don't make me laugh puke. They may be facts, but they're Breitbart's version of the facts. They can conveniently leave out things like the fact that Bahrain were being supplied arms by the US as far back as 2005 and continuously since then.

You missed the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters during Arab spring in 2011 with serious criticism in US media and arms deal been approved by Clinton in 2012

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/37-people-who-say-theyre-moving-to-australia-if-o?utm_term=.mlREBejoB#.xhpY0red0

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2012/11/republicans-threaten-move-to-canada-after-obama-win.html

not a new thing

I don't know a single person on either of your lists... Do you?

Now my list, I gather you would know almost all of them. They are all celebrities, are influential, and have large followings. Even you must agree comparison between the two are an apples and oranges thing.

But I would be more than happy if we kick out the people on my list Trump wins, and we can round up and kick out the ones on your list since Obama won. What say you? :P

CMOTDibbler

Count Dooku wrote: »

You missed the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters during Arab spring in 2011 with serious criticism in US media and arms deal been approved by Clinton in 2012

No I didn't. And I won't pretend to know the intricacies of the Middle East and the forces at play there. What I do know is that the US were supplying arms to Bahrain since 2005 along with the UK, Switzerland, Belgium, France and a host of other countries. In fact the UK supplied more arms than the US did.

I also know that the Sec. of State doesn't supply arms to anybody. The DoD does. And it's not done on a whim, it's overseen by both houses and various departmental committees. If the allegations implied by your post (and by extension Breitbart) are to be believed, that's collusion on the grandest scale possible.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Don't make me laughAnd I haven't seen you link to Daily KOS or The Huffington Post.

I read them, and I also read mediamatters, slate, The Daily Beast, The New York Times (until my free monthly views run out, that is), and other liberal publications. That's why I can debate as effectively as I do.

Anyways... linking them is y'alls job as they almost always support your views. But I still read them and don't ignore their content just because I believe they're wrong, misleading, or biased on most occasions.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The irony of you denouncing 'conspiracy theories'.

The links have been widely reported from way way back.

Then talk about them or make a comment supporting your contention and use them as a source to support it. Don't just say look 'this' up, with no context other than some name, talking point, or conspiracy theory and expect me to try and figure out what you're thinking.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

You do seem to have issues separating fact from conspiracy theory though.

What 'facts' have I mentioned that make you believe them to be a conspiracy theory?

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

I read them, and I also read mediamatters, slate, The Daily Beast, The New York Times (until my free monthly views run out, that is), and other liberal publications. That's why I can debate as effectively as I do.

Anyways... linking them is y'alls job as they almost always support your views. But I still read them and don't ignore their content just because I believe they're wrong, misleading, or biased on most occasions.

Well you would wouldn't you :rolleyes:

There's a post on the media bias thread that shows exactly how misleading and biased all the publications are. You'd be surprised to find that most are not. Except of course Breitbart and Daiy KOS. Neither of which I read.

So when you start referencing the other unbiased outlets, maybe then I'll take what you're saying seriously.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Don't make me laugh puke. They may be facts, but they're Breitbart's version of the facts. They can conveniently leave out things like the fact that Bahrain were being supplied arms by the US as far back as 2005 and continuously since then. The one that you refer to was actually stalled for a considerable period of time as pressure was put on them to cease human rights abuses. Amnesty did a very good report on what arms that Bahrain were getting and from where. It might surprise you to find that Breitbart are only filtering the facts that suit their agenda.

And the old chestnut of deleted emails. They're a great source of facts alright. You can say anything you like is in a deleted email. :rolleyes:

So the facts are right. And you may take notice that I said "significantly increasing arms export authorizations." That statement confirms what you said is left out. And talk about leaving things out to suit an agenda... who stalled those sales (that still happened anyway)? It sure wasn't Clinton, was it?

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

So the facts are right. And you may take notice that I said "significantly increasing arms export authorizations." That statement confirms what you said is left out. And talk about leaving things out to suit an agenda... who stalled those sales (that still happened anyway)? It sure wasn't Clinton, was it?

No the facts are cherry picked to make a point that isn't true. It's easy to do y'know. Just pick the things that suit your argument and leave out the ones that don't. Tie a nice ribbon on it and you've got a story that's completely based on facts. :rolleyes:

Oh and thanks for making my point for me. One person (even the Sec. of State) can't make stuff happen because the system is built on checks and balances.

And since arms deals originate in the DoD, why didn't Breitbart point that out? Because it didn't suit their agenda?

RobertKK

On CNN they showed a national poll.
I know it is only a handful of states that are in play, but they say the race is tightening.
Nationally:
Clinton 41%
Trump 39%
Johnson 9%
Stein 4%
ok they didn't show where that other 7% is.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

So the facts are right. And you may take notice that I said "significantly increasing arms export authorizations." That statement confirms what you said is left out. And talk about leaving things out to suit an agenda... who stalled those sales (that still happened anyway)? It sure wasn't Clinton, was it?

Hilary Clinton did not sell arms to anyone. That's a Department of Defence matter. She may have influenced the decisions. How many genocidal dictatorships were supplied?

You throw this stuff at Hilary as a reason she shouldn't be president, yet you place Ronald Reagan on a pedestal. If she involved in selling arms, she may have been, at least it was to allies, not enemies like Iran.

Reagan sold arms to Iran and funnelled the money into far right groups to overthrow democratic elected governments, he's a hero and one of the greatest presidents ever.

Clinton may have used her influence to grease the wheels and sell arms to allies, she's not fit to be president and should be in jail.

The double standard here would be comical if it wasn't so upsetting.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

On CNN they showed a national poll.
I know it is only a handful of states that are in play, but they say the race is tightening.
Nationally:
Clinton 41%
Trump 39%
Johnson 9%
Stein 4%
ok they didn't show where that other 7% is.

I'd stop reading polls if I was you. They're giving you false hope.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-election

Chips Lovell

On the subject of the wall, there's a piece in the Economist this week discussing how illegal immigration impacts wages in the US. There's an interesting digression, where it notes that the time for a wall, if there every was one, has long passed:

The latest bout of Trumpian immigrant-bashing fits the mould in one respect: it comes on the heels of an economic downturn. But it is also strange, because the undocumented population levelled off after 2007. In 2015 there were just 188,000 apprehensions of Mexicans at the border, down from 1.6m in 2000 (see chart). This is partly because the recession reduced the magnetism of America’s labour market. But it also reflects a much more secure border—the number of border agents quintupled between 1992 and 2010—and changing demography in Mexico, where the birth rate has been falling since the early 1970s.

Indeed, ironically, were Trump to launch the immediate deportation drive he's promising, the need might decline further, since a shrinking economy depresses illegal inflows.

Were a President Trump to deport all illegal immigrants, the economy would suffer greatly. Just ask Arizona, where a crackdown on illegal immigrants in 2007 shrank the economy by 2%, according to a private analysis by Moody’s, a ratings agency, for the Wall Street Journal. The incomes of most workers would fall. Yet strangely enough, those best placed to benefit from a mass deportation would be those who had crossed the border legally.

Paleface

RobertKK wrote: »

On CNN they showed a national poll.
I know it is only a handful of states that are in play, but they say the race is tightening.
Nationally:
Clinton 41%
Trump 39%
Johnson 9%
Stein 4%
ok they didn't show where that other 7% is.

The phrasing of the question asked and the demographic of those polled have a huge influence on the eventual outcome.

I'm not saying news agencies rig polls but they definitely structure them make this kind of result more likely. Its in their interest to tell you the race is tight right up until election time. Otherwise people will lose interest and then they make less money from viewing figures etc.

Suryavarman

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

On the subject of the wall, there's a piece in the Economist this week discussing how illegal immigration impacts wages in the US. There's an interesting digression, where it notes that the time for a wall, if there every was one, has long passed:



Indeed, ironically, were Trump to launch the immediate deportation drive he's promising, the need might decline further, since a shrinking economy depresses illegal inflows.

That all the evidence suggests that immigration is good for the economy is an inconvenient truth often ignored by Trump and his supporters.

Count Dooku

Suryavarman wrote: »

That all the evidence suggests that immigration is good for the economy is an inconvenient truth often ignored by Trump and his supporters.

This is what faith of liberalism says
In reality only controlled immigration might have a chances and don't remember Trump objecting it

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

That all the evidence suggests that immigration is good for the economy is an inconvenient truth often ignored by Trump and his supporters.

Corporations making a profit is also good for the economy not necessarily for society. We have seen a huge income inequality in recent decades. Wages in America has stagnated and the cheap labour force from Mexico is a contributing factor in that along with abusive practices by the big bosses.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Corporations making a profit is also good for the economy not necessarily for society. We have seen a huge income inequality in recent decades. Wages in America has stagnated and the cheap labour force from Mexico is a contributing factor in that along with abusive practices by the big bosses.

You claimed earlier that there are 11 million Mexicans living in the US. It's hard to believe that this is a major factor in a country of well over 300 million people. Globalisation has meant that most low-skilled manufacturing jobs have moved to China leaving an abundance of low skilled people who don't have jobs. Demand for jobs in the service sector has surged while the number of jobs available has remained more or less static. Trump won't be able to reverse globalisation no matter what he claims.

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You claimed earlier that there are 11 million Mexicans living in the US. It's hard to believe that this is a major factor in a country of well over 300 million people. Globalisation has meant that most low-skilled manufacturing jobs have moved to China leaving an abundance of low skilled people who don't have jobs. Demand for jobs in the service sector has surged while the number of jobs available has remained more or less static. Trump won't be able to reverse globalisation no matter what he claims.

President Obama has already deported huge numbers of Mexicans back across the border. The figures show the numbers are beginning to drop but that is not going to stop the problem. 11 million is the most recent figure to be released. Their is plenty of reasons to believe further Mexicans in the millions will enter America illegally without better immigration system being put into place.

The trends must be reversed if Americans in those border regions can live happier lives. The situation is more acute in those areas beside Mexico. Corporations snap up the migrants while the rest of country loses jobs, economic productivity & eventual become bankrupt like Detroit or derelict like other mid west towns and cities.

Suryavarman

Count Dooku wrote: »

This is what faith of liberalism says
In reality only controlled immigration might have a chances and don't remember Trump objecting it

Nope. That's what all the research on immigration says.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Corporations making a profit is also good for the economy not necessarily for society. We have seen a huge income inequality in recent decades. Wages in America has stagnated and the cheap labour force from Mexico is a contributing factor in that along with abusive practices by the big bosses.

The literature on immigration shows that immigration boosts the wages of locals. You should try reading some of the literature on immigration sometime, you might learn something.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

President Obama has already deported huge numbers of Mexicans back across the border. The figures show the numbers are beginning to drop but that is not going to stop the problem. 11 million is the most recent figure to be released. Their is plenty of reasons to believe further Mexicans in the millions will enter America illegally without better immigration system being put into place.

You haven't really backed any of this up. You can't just assume that millions will enter illegally. A wall won't prevent this in any case. It'd be better to set up a work visa program as advocated by Gary Johnson to turn them into taxpayers.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The trends must be reversed if Americans in those border regions can live happier lives. The situation is more acute in those areas beside Mexico. Corporations snap up the migrants while the rest of country loses jobs, economic productivity & eventual become bankrupt like Detroit or derelict like other mid west towns and cities.

Again, can you back this up? Why would corporations prefer Mexicans to Americans? Illegals, sure. But the answer again is to make it easier to obtain entry legally.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

President Obama has already deported huge numbers of Mexicans back across the border. The figures show the numbers are beginning to drop but that is not going to stop the problem. 11 million is the most recent figure to be released. Their is plenty of reasons to believe further Mexicans in the millions will enter America illegally without better immigration system being put into place.

There are not 11 million Mexicans in the US. It's barely half that number.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The trends must be reversed if Americans in those border regions can live happier lives. The situation is more acute in those areas beside Mexico. Corporations snap up the migrants while the rest of country loses jobs, economic productivity & eventual become bankrupt like Detroit or derelict like other mid west towns and cities.

Corporations do not snap up illegal immigrants. They can't afford to be caught with illegals on their books. The majority of illegals are in small companies and seasonal work because they can be kept 'off the books'. You clearly know nothing about how business works.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

I'd stop reading polls if I was you. They're giving you false hope.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-election

I was watching The Five on Fox news, it was funny.
They had a poll which summed up how I feel about the US candidates.
66% of the people believe both of the main candidates are awful.
A majority in the Fox News poll also said both candidates would do anything to get elected, while 31% believe Clinton is honest, 35% believe Trump is honest.
The US could have done a lot better than the two who will fight it out to be President, but I do believe Clinton is the most dangerous due to being too close to the Saudis and has shown as secretary of state to have went after countries that the Saudis also had a hate of.

CMOTDibbler

RobertKK wrote: »

I was watching The Five on Fox news, it was funny.
They had a poll which summed up how I feel about the US candidates.
66% of the people believe both of the main candidates are awful.
A majority in the Fox News poll also said both candidates would do anything to get elected, while 31% believe Clinton is honest, 35% believe Trump is honest.
The US could have done a lot better than the two who will fight it out to be President, but I do believe Clinton is the most dangerous due to being too close to the Saudis and has shown as secretary of state to have went after countries that the Saudis also had a hate of.

That's interesting. What countries did the state department go after and how?

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You haven't really backed any of this up. You can't just assume that millions will enter illegally. A wall won't prevent this in any case. It'd be better to set up a work visa program as advocated by Gary Johnson to turn them into taxpayers.



Again, can you back this up? Why would corporations prefer Mexicans to Americans? Illegals, sure. But the answer again is to make it easier to obtain entry legally.

Mexican labour standards and American labour standards in parts of the US are very poor. Easy to fire cheap labour. Plenty more lining the streets looking for jobs. Many people are overlooked by certain professions so a lot these Mexicans are left doing the unskilled work. Americans are priced out of the market when trying to acquire work.

PopePalpatine

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Mexican labour standards and American labour standards in parts of the US are very poor. Easy to fire cheap labour. Plenty more lining the streets looking for jobs. Many people are overlooked by certain professions so a lot these Mexicans are left doing the unskilled work. Americans are priced out of the market when trying to acquire work.

Do you really think Trump and the Republicans will do anything to reduce that? They're the party which came up with "right to work" laws!

KingBrian2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do you really think Trump and the Republicans will do anything to reduce that? They're the party which came up with "right to work" laws!

Trump is despised by the est. It was legislation from Washington that allowed the situation to deteriorate to the level it has now reached. Trump employs more people than those Washington politicians and they have presided over the abusive practices of exploiting Mexican Labour in the US.

The large corporations lobby in Congress, surround the President & call for free trade deals across the world in order to pursue the policy of Globalization. Trump gains nothing for speaking for the American West. The Democrats have not stemmed the illegal immigration that has taken place all across the Continent.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump is despised by the est. It was legislation from Washington that allowed the situation to deteriorate to the level it has now reached. Trump employs more people than those Washington politicians and they have presided over the abusive practices of exploiting Mexican Labour in the US.

The large corporations lobby in Congress, surround the President & call for free trade deals across the world in order to pursue the policy of Globalization. Trump gains nothing for speaking for the American West. The Democrats have not stemmed the illegal immigration that has taken place all across the Continent.

You've already conceded that the number of immigrants has decreased in the last four years. Under a democratic president.

Why are you lying like this when the truth is right here on this thread? And you know it.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump is despised by the est. It was legislation from Washington that allowed the situation to deteriorate to the level it has now reached. Trump employs more people than those Washington politicians and they have presided over the abusive practices of exploiting Mexican Labour in the US.

The large corporations lobby in Congress, surround the President & call for free trade deals across the world in order to pursue the policy of Globalization. Trump gains nothing for speaking for the American West. The Democrats have not stemmed the illegal immigration that has taken place all across the Continent.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/02/donald-trump-workers-hotel-international-las-vegas?client=safari

Black Swan

The only national poll listed by RCP that has shown Trump ahead of Clinton since 26 July 2016 was the unique LA Times/USC tracking poll that varies daily. The general lead in national polling that Clinton held has been narrowing as the 8 November 2016 election draws closer, which has been a trend in past presidential election year polling. The LA Times/USC tracking poll was new and uses a different model, so it will be interesting if it comes closer to what happens GE day.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Billy86 can post again.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Hilary Clinton did not sell arms to anyone. That's a Department of Defence matter. She may have influenced the decisions. How many genocidal dictatorships were supplied?

You throw this stuff at Hilary as a reason she shouldn't be president, yet you place Ronald Reagan on a pedestal. If she involved in selling arms, she may have been, at least it was to allies, not enemies like Iran.

Reagan sold arms to Iran and funnelled the money into far right groups to overthrow democratic elected governments, he's a hero and one of the greatest presidents ever.

Clinton may have used her influence to grease the wheels and sell arms to allies, she's not fit to be president and should be in jail.

The double standard here would be comical if it wasn't so upsetting.

Reagan took full responsibility for the actions Iran/Contra deal. Several independent investigations took place by Congress and the Tower Commission. None found any evidence that Reagan knew of the extent of the programs. What has Hillary taken responsibility for... Heck, not even wiping her server clean with a cloth? I’m was not a fan of the Iran/Contra deal when it publicly came to light, and have never supported it.

Also, how did Reagan personally benefit from the Iran/Contra deal, and where are the Congressional and independent investigations into Hillary’s connection between donations to the Clinton Foundation and her role as Secretary of State including the obscene money paid to Bill for his speeches?

Sorry, but no double standard here, and no need to get upset.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

The only national poll listed by RCP that has shown Trump ahead of Clinton since 26 July 2016 was the unique LA Times/USC tracking poll that varies daily. The general lead in national polling that Clinton held has been narrowing as the 8 November 2016 election draws closer, which has been a trend in past presidential election year polling. The LA Times/USC tracking poll was new and uses a different model, so it will be interesting if it comes closer to what happens GE day.

Not so fast kemosabe. To quote Bob Dylan (which I hate doing as I have a personal grudge with him) ‘the times they are a changin’. Rasmussen Reports latest poll has Trump at 40% to Clinton's 39%.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294099-poll-trump-leads-clinton-by-1-nationwide

PopePalpatine

Alex Jones claims he's been "advising" Trump, specifically on "election fraud".

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Alex Jones claims he's been "advising" Trump, specifically on "election fraud".

Well, In that vein...

“For the KKK, Clinton is our choice,” said Will Quigg the California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights. The Klan claims to have raised more than $20,000 for Hillary, and have donated it anonymously to her campaign. They must really like her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

Quin_Dub

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Alex Jones claims he's been "advising" Trump, specifically on "election fraud".

Amerika wrote: »

Well, In that vein...

“For the KKK, Clinton is our choice,” said Will Quigg the California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights. The Klan claims to have raised more than $20,000 for Hillary, and have donated it anonymously to her campaign. They must really like her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

But that's not in the same vein in any way shape or form..

One is an anonymous donation from a fringe lunatic , the other is direct contact between a candidate and a fringe lunatic.

I don't see how you could conflate the two?

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

Well, In that vein...

“For the KKK, Clinton is our choice,” said Will Quigg the California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights. The Klan claims to have raised more than $20,000 for Hillary, and have donated it anonymously to her campaign. They must really like her.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

You left out this bit:

Josh Schwerin wrote:

"[The KKK claiming they donated $20k] is completely false," Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin told Vocativ. "We want no part of them or their money and vehemently reject their hateful agenda."

I'll concede that Clinton referred to ex-KKK "King Kleagle of West Virginia" Senator Byrd as a friend following his death in 2010, but he publicly disavowed them in 2005 and said he was wrong for joining back in the 1940s.

On top of that, Schwerin was right in calling out the KKK for lying, as at the time the original article on Vocativ was published, the Clinton campaign hadn't even amassed $20k in anonymous donations.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You left out this bit:

I'll concede that Clinton referred to ex-KKK "King Kleagle of West Virginia" Senator Byrd as a friend following his death in 2010, but he publicly disavowed them in 2005 and said he was wrong for joining back in the 1940s.

On top of that, Schwerin was right in calling out the KKK for lying, as at the time the original article on Vocativ was published, the Clinton campaign hadn't even amassed $20k in anonymous donations.

How can the Clinton campaign be so absolutely sure if the donation was made, as claimed, anonymously, as anonymously could refer to individuals who belonged to the KKK, and not from the KKK itself?

Chips Lovell

Speaking of polls, there was an interesting one done by Gallup earlier this month which had parallels with polling during the Brexit referendum, where British people living in areas with few immigrants were most concerned about immigration.

There seems to be a similar phenomenon in America, where Gallup polled 87,000 Trump supporters and found people living in areas relatively untouched by immigration and free trade were more likely to support Trump than those who are exposed to both.

To summarize, the evidence is mixed as to how economic hardship affects Trump’s popularity. It seems that lower social status and material hardship play a role in support for Trump, but not through the most obvious economic channels of income and employment. The evidence is in favor of contact theory is quite clear. Racial isolation and lack of exposure to Hispanic immigrants raise the likelihood of Trump support. Meanwhile, Trump support falls as exposure to trade and immigration increases, which is the opposite of the predicted relationship