2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

It seems you read my post the way way you read momentum in poll numbers.
You ignore it.

There is no momentum for Trump. He's going to lose to a landslide.

There's simply no comparison between the two in aptitude for the job, and everyone knows it.

Overheal

It's a crazy concept, but you can want gun control without infringing on the 2nd amendment.

On Libya, Hillary had the information, Trump didn't. Hillary is the one who went in with her European allies and made things so bad that it is unbelievable it could have gotten so bad.

And had they not?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358761/Libya-protests-Mercenaries-order-200-die-violence.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-protests-malta-idUSTRE71K52R20110221

I just don't relate to this hindsight argument that we can't understand why we intervened.

Maybe I need my morning coffee but I still amn't seeing a link between Kagame and the Obama Administration.

Assange has made no secrets, but the information released was truth given the Debbie Wasserman Schultz resignation.

True, but the selective and timed releases are not without political agenda.

The problem was not the pneumonia, it was the fact she wanted to keep it hidden before being found out, this during a week where she said she would be more forthcoming and open with the media.

Against a candidate who can't keep his story straight from one interview to the next. I agree she's a reserved and hawkish character but I'll engage in tu quoque here, because they're both crooks and liars and I really hate people to be so blinded by hate of one they ally with the other and gloss over the facts.

For many it comes down to a choice between two well documented crooks and liars, but which one would you trust not to fcuk everything the hell up and not change their mind on things at the drop of a hat? Not that I will vote for Hillary, but Trump is the kind of guy who will make the IRS scandal look civil; he'll probably write executive orders to dismantle The View.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump made a valid point about Hillary to show her hypocrisy towards guns. Trump said it would be dangerous if the guns were removed from Hillary's secret service.
Which points out, she wants gun control but she still wants guns to protect herself.
btw I think the gun situation in the US is crazy given one can buy military grade weapons.
I had a row with US gun advocates on twitter a month or so ago, they were obsessed with their guns and believe they have a right to bear arms and if the government became overbearing that they had a right to use them, what surprised me was the amount of support these people had.
I can see what Trump is doing with guns, and with Hillary.

On Libya, Hillary had the information, Trump didn't. Hillary is the one who went in with her European allies and made things so bad that it is unbelievable it could have gotten so bad.

Remember in the 2012 debates and Obama laughed at Romney when it came to Russia, obviously his secretary of state was asleep on the job.
Friends with a war criminal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/opinion/war-crimes-and-rwandan-realities.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/us/politics/rwanda-bill-hillary-clinton-foundation.html



Assange has made no secrets, but the information released was truth given the Debbie Wasserman Schultz resignation.

The problem was not the pneumonia, it was the fact she wanted to keep it hidden before being found out, this during a week where she said she would be more forthcoming and open with the media.

Trumps new Washington DC hotel has a federal ban on guns, did not stop him doing a multi million dollar deal to secure the 60 year lease! The NRA will never be able to have a convention at that hotel.

Also his claim to be on the side of the police, who do you think make up his and Hillarys protection service, what ever about putting her at risk his idea would put serving secret service people at risk. If you can't see that you are just as mad as him. I do not think either party has an issue with serving people being in possession of guns.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

So people weren't going to college or retirng before the recession?

They weren't doing so in as large a number as they are now.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

They weren't doing so in as large a number as they are now.

Correct. See numbers I posted a little earlier

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

It's a crazy concept, but you can want gun control without infringing on the 2nd amendment.

And had they not?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358761/Libya-protests-Mercenaries-order-200-die-violence.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-protests-malta-idUSTRE71K52R20110221

I just don't relate to this hindsight argument that we can't understand why we intervened.

Maybe I need my morning coffee but I still amn't seeing a link between Kagame and the Obama Administration. True, but the selective and timed releases are not without political agenda. Against a candidate who can't keep his story straight from one interview to the next. I agree she's a reserved and hawkish character but I'll engage in tu quoque here, because they're both crooks and liars and I really hate people to be so blinded by hate of one they ally with the other and gloss over the facts.

For many it comes down to a choice between two well documented crooks and liars, but which one would you trust not to fcuk everything the hell up and not change their mind on things at the drop of a hat? Not that I will vote for Hillary, but Trump is the kind of guy who will make the IRS scandal look civil; he'll probably write executive orders to dismantle The View.

Yes you can have gun control without infringing the 2nd amendment, but as I said, I myself was astounded with a debate I had with several people from the US when it came to guns. There was no debating on any gun control with them. I knew when it was time to stop arguing with them for gun control, and that was quickly as I could see how steadfast they were against any.
Trump is playing politics, it may seem stupid what he is doing but what he is saying does appeal to a lot of people.
Not me when it comes to guns, but he is clever enough to keep the NRA onside.

Benghazi was a terrorist zone in Libya before the attack by Clinton and her European idiots. I will never forget the liveleak video I watched which came out of Benghazi before Libya was attacked. Al Qaeda flags on buildings, thousands out in the street and a black Gaddafi mercenary was beheaded on camera. We have to protect Benghazi...
But Gaddafi was going to massacre the city...the public in the west were fed lies, and the usual outcome with lies is a far bigger mess.
Gaddafi had every right to go into Benghazi to take back control.
It would be like arguing when the riots happened in England, that the government had no right to take back control, and say they were rising up against the government/state and we should support them. That is how stupid the Libya war was by the west along with ME countries who hated Gaddafi.
The devil we knew has proven again and again in most cases to have been better than the devil we didn't know.
The irony with Benghazi came September 11th 2011, when terrorists in free Benghazi attacked the US embassy/consulate.
Should be careful who you choose to protect.

Kagame is not an election issue at the moment, but I am just pointing out who the Clintons support, who the Clinton Global initiative gave an award to, who Bill Clinton called a brilliant man.
People would rightly have issues if Trump and his family were close to a man who can now not leave his country without fear of being arrested for crimes against humanity.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

They weren't doing so in as large a number as they are now.

Overheal wrote: »

Correct. See numbers I posted a little earlier

Which says maybe the jobs available were not suitable for the people, which lead to under employment which led to some going to college or retiring early.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Which says maybe the jobs available were not suitable for the people, which lead to under employment which led to some going to college or retiring early.

Make sure you do a thorough warm up before performing mental gymnastics. I'd hate to see you get injured.

Have you come up with a credible means by which Trump could create 25 million jobs yet?

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Trumps new Washington DC hotel has a federal ban on guns, did not stop him doing a multi million dollar deal to secure the 60 year lease! The NRA will never be able to have a convention at that hotel.

Also his claim to be on the side of the police, who do you think make up his and Hillarys protection service, what ever about putting her at risk his idea would put serving secret service people at risk. If you can't see that you are just as mad as him. I do not think either party has an issue with serving people being in possession of guns.

I said it in my previous post, Trump is playing politics with guns. He is saying what he needs for votes in that area.
Though I am sure he is more than happy to have an armed secret service to protect him, and his point was Hillary needs an armed secret service to protect her. He said it would be dangerous...
He is playing politics with guns. It will not affect votes for him saying that. Just keeps the section of his electorate that are gun loving happy and enthused.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Make sure you do a thorough warm up before performing mental gymnastics. I'd hate to see you get injured.

Have you come up with a credible means by which Trump could create 25 million jobs yet?

No, I just don't want Hillary “Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris" Clinton, who is more obsessed with power that she ignores Bill still "d*cking bimbos" so to stay with the plan to get to the White House.

It is an election of who one dislikes the least.
Had a strong dislike of Hillary for years, far more so than Trump.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

There is no momentum for Trump. He's going to lose to a landslide.

There's simply no comparison between the two in aptitude for the job, and everyone knows it.

Again, that is not what the polls say.

RobertKK

Gary Johnson is harming Clinton by the looks of things.

A poll by Quinnipiac University of millennial voters aged 18 to 34 shows the following.

Hillary Clinton 31%
Gary Johnson 29%
Donald Trump 26%
Jill Stein 4%

Guess 10% don't know/not voting.

Overheal

http://bigfootjustice.com/comic/last-president/

Some levity..

Overheal

Under sampling demographics is one way to keep a third party out of the race

https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/presidential-polls/heres-polls-dont-show-gary-johnson-averaging-15-nationally-yet/

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes you can have gun control without infringing the 2nd amendment, but as I said, I myself was astounded with a debate I had with several people from the US when it came to guns. There was no debating on any gun control with them. I knew when it was time to stop arguing with them for gun control, and that was quickly as I could see how steadfast they were against any.

You should ask them if they believe ISIS sympathisers should be allowed to buy automatic weapons. When they say "no", you point out to them that they've just advocated for gun control.

That's what gun control means: being careful who gets to buy guns. Not the hysterical shrieking from the NRA numbskulls about "destroying the Second Amendment"; just being pragmatic about the fact that a constitutional right to bear arms doesn't mean that literally anyone can own literally any weapon.

The idea that someone who is in favour of pragmatic gun control should therefore not be allowed to have armed bodyguards is kindergarten-grade logic. In other words, it's exactly the level of careful analysis we've come to expect from Trump, who doesn't appear ever to have a thought he considered too stupid to say out loud.

Pro Hoc Vice

oscarBravo wrote: »

You should ask them if they believe ISIS sympathisers should be allowed to buy automatic weapons. When they say "no", you point out to them that they've just advocated for gun control.

That's what gun control means: being careful who gets to buy guns. Not the hysterical shrieking from the NRA numbskulls about "destroying the Second Amendment"; just being pragmatic about the fact that a constitutional right to bear arms doesn't mean that literally anyone can own literally any weapon.

The idea that someone who is in favour of pragmatic gun control should therefore not be allowed to have armed bodyguards is kindergarten-grade logic. In other words, it's exactly the level of careful analysis we've come to expect from Trump, who doesn't appear ever to have a thought he considered too stupid to say out loud.

Stop with you logic will you!

Drumpf

Trump on the events last night, in New York

Drumpf wrote:

Nobody knows exactly what’s going on, but boy, we are living in a time,” he said. “We better get very tough, folks.

Akrasia

ISIS would way prefer Trump to win over Clinton. Not because Clinton would be good at stopping Isis, it's that Trump would be so much easier to goad into reacting and fuelling the conflict that drives recruitment into their ideology.

I have a feeling that there will be a spate of bombings and attacks in the lead up to the election which will boost the demagogue populist over the establishment

RobertKK

New LA Times poll in a two horse race.

Trump 47.2%
Clinton 41.2%


18 to 34 year age group
Trump 46.8%
Clinton 38.4%

35 to 64 age group
Trump 47.4%
Clinton 41.3%

65 years +
Trump 49.3%
Clinton 43.2%

High school education or less
Trump 55.9%
Clinton 35.3%

Some college education
Trump 49%
Clinton 38.6%

College grad or more
Clinton 48.7%
Trump 38.3%

Income less than $35k
Clinton 47.6%
Trump 39.2%

Income $35k to $75k
Trump 53.1%
Clinton 36.2%

More than $75k
Trump 48.7%
Clinton 40.7%

Race/ethnicity:

White
Trump 56%
Clinton 32.7%

Black
Clinton 70.9%
Trump 20.1%

Latino
Clinton 55.1%
Trump 31.6%

Other
Trump 46.8%
Clinton 40%

Gender:
Female
Clinton 47.5%
Trump 40.3%

Male
Trump 55.3%
Clinton 34.4%

Who do voters think will win:
Clinton 49.7%
Trump 45.1%

Do you intend to vote:
Trump supporters 82.7%
Clinton supporters 81.9%

The most noticeable thing from the poll is if one goes and looks at the graphs, Clinton has been continuously losing support to Trump.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

The most noticeable thing from the poll is if one goes and looks at the graphs, Clinton has been continuously losing support to Trump.

That trend should start reversing by the time the first polls come out after the debate.

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

ISIS would way prefer Trump to win over Clinton. Not because Clinton would be good at stopping Isis, it's that Trump would be so much easier to goad into reacting and fuelling the conflict that drives recruitment into their ideology.

I have a feeling that there will be a spate of bombings and attacks in the lead up to the election which will boost the demagogue populist over the establishment

ISIS thrived when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
She gave them Libya to train in and supported people in Syria like the Free Syrian Army, who in the past week said they would kill Americans if they want to fight with them. They also said they would kill Christians.
This is how bad Hillary has been, along with the other leaders in Europe and elsewhere who supported these extremists against Assad.
I prefer the devil we know who did not massacre minorities, or want strict Sharia law.

Russia last night accused the White House of losing power to the Pentagon. Given Obama and Kerry were telling them one thing, then the massacre of Syrian soldiers by the US happened.

Suryavarman

One of Clinton's campaign proposals is to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. This working paper concludes that doing so would cost 1% of GDP per year at most. This cost would fall if there are large improvements in power storage or if there was a larger reliance on nuclear power.

In the grand scheme of things this is a pretty modest sum and wouldn't come close causing the economic devastation Trump supporters seem so afraid of.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

That trend should start reversing by the time the first polls come out after the debate.

No one knows, that is just guessing. We have to wait and see.

Both will have lots of material to use against the other.

Rightwing

gosplan wrote: »

17 million includes the underemployed. It's 17 million of the current labour force that are un- or underemployed.

It's just such a bogus statement. Various people are trying to figure out how to justify it here but it's clear you've thought about the number more than Trump.

Just say 'it's obviously nonsense but I prefer him to Hillary'

People would at least respect that.

You're making it seem as though Trump is supported by idiots and racists ONLY rather than by people who just have no faith left in the established order.

Yes I would prefer Trump to Clinton, but Obama's recovery isn't all it's being made out to be here. Most of these jobs being created are in the services sector i.e low paid.

America needs change. Is Trump capable of making America great again?
Certainly not, but it should make for fun viewing.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

No one knows, that is just guessing. We have to wait and see.

Both will have lots of material to use against the other.

Trump is a terrible debater and a sexist. He will lose the debate and/or say or do something sexist that will get Clinton sympathy as happened during her Senate race many years ago.

Black Swan

Suryavarman wrote: »

Trump is a terrible debater and a sexist. He will lose the debate and/or say or do something sexist that will get Clinton sympathy as happened during her Senate race many years ago.

Methinks that Donald Trump will act just as he did during the Republican primaries, attacking the person, not the content of positions taken by opponents, often overtalking and bullying his opponent if the debate moderator lets him get away with it. When he does take a position like building Trump Wall, he will address it superficially and without any substance or objective evidence. He will also make up so-called facts as he goes along, which his supporters don't seem to notice or care, and if fact checkers challenge his made-up so-called facts after the debate, then he and his advocates will claim Trump-hater fact checkers were biased, or he really meant this and not that, confounding the issue with nonsense. Of course, his supporters will claim that he won the debates. Donald Trump will also claim: "Everyone says Donald Trump won the debates... everyone says so... everyone" (repeated several times at the 4th grade reading level).

B0jangles

Thing is, that kind of trick only really works against multiple opponents at once; you make a snide remark/insult, and while they are reacting you move on to the next target. One-on-one with a very prepared opponent who is not going to lose their cool no matter what you say and it just falls flat.

Also the audience at the debates is silent and Trump only seems to thrive in a situation when he can hear the crowd's reaction and build up their response with a series of increasingly extreme statements. I think he'll really struggle to build any momentum in a situation where he's completely deprived of positive feedback.

Hopefully the debate moderators will remember the widespread condemnation of Matt Lauer's laughably weak moderation and actually challenge him when he tells outright lies.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Trump is a terrible debater and a sexist. He will lose the debate and/or say or do something sexist that will get Clinton sympathy as happened during her Senate race many years ago.

Clinton is open to gaffes as well, the 'basket of deplorables' was awful campaigning.
Attacking the person you are fighting is expected, but attacking the voters is just plain stupid.

K-9

Rightwing wrote: »

Yes I would prefer Trump to Clinton, but Obama's recovery isn't all it's being made out to be here. Most of these jobs being created are in the services sector i.e low paid.

America needs change. Is Trump capable of making America great again?
Certainly not, but it should make for fun viewing.

Low paying jobs are a problem everywhere.

I don't think a Trump presidency would be fun for many people in the US and the ME. Could be be worse than Hillary? A definite yes for me.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Thing is, that kind of trick only really works against multiple opponents at once; you make a snide remark/insult, and while they are reacting you move on to the next target. One-on-one with a very prepared opponent who is not going to lose their cool no matter what you say and it just falls flat.

Also the audience at the debates is silent and Trump only seems to thrive in a situation when he can hear the crowd's reaction and build up their response with a series of increasingly extreme statements. I think he'll really struggle to build any momentum in a situation where he's completely deprived of positive feedback.

Hopefully the debate moderators will remember the widespread condemnation of Matt Lauer's laughably weak moderation and actually challenge him when he tells outright lies.

Hopefully both are challenged on lies.

After all Hillary has worse honesty ratings...

B0jangles

Hillary Clinton is perceived as dishonest largely due to an unrelenting 25 year campaign to destroy her credibility, a campaign which has signally failed to produce any concrete evidence of malicious wrong-doing.

Donald Trump lies openly, continuously and incessantly. In one 67 word statement last Friday he managed to finally stop lying about Barack Obama's birthplace and immediately switch to lying about who started the lie in the first place.

That's some seriously efficient lying.

Edit: Potential VP Mike Pence really admires how Dick Cheney fulfilled the role of VP in GW Bush's administration and sees him as a role model for how a VP ought to be.

Yep Dick "Halliburton" Cheney.

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/777497648198782977/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Black Swan

RobertKK wrote: »

New LA Times poll in a two horse race.

The most noticeable thing from the poll is if one goes and looks at the graphs, Clinton has been continuously losing support to Trump.

I assume you were observing the LA Times/USC Dornsife poll? This is a new tracking poll by some researchers at Dornsife/USC on behalf of the LA Times that varies daily, and is very different than other polls in terms of its sampling strategies, weighted averaging, and other methodologies. For example, they do not take a fresh sample of the voter population during each sampling frame as other national polls do, rather they go back to the 3,000 that they originally drew; i.e., each daily tracking sample is a sample of the original sample. If you observe the graph that USC provides, you will see that all the percentages fall within the grey area or the confidence interval, suggesting that caution should be exercised when reading the results. USC states: "Note: Shaded gray area indicates the race is too close to call;" i.e. poll "noise" due mostly to random variability. When daily percentages go outside the grey area, then they may be worth noticing. This poll is also weighted which would affect the percentages shown, but I have not taken time to review their modeling algorithm. It will be interesting to see what this poll does against the other national polling organisations up through 8 November 2016 national elections.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Hopefully both are challenged on lies.

After all Hillary has worse honesty ratings...

Seriously? Who are you trying to fool with that sort of outright fabrication? I hope it's just yourself, because everyone who isn't blinded by irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton is already aware of the objective and indisputable fact that Trump is vastly more dishonest than Clinton.

Call Me Jimmy

B0jangles wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is perceived as dishonest largely due to an unrelenting 25 year campaign to destroy her credibility, a campaign which has signally failed to produce any concrete evidence of malicious wrong-doing.

Donald Trump lies openly, continuously and incessantly. In one 67 word statement last Friday he managed to finally stop lying about Barack Obama's birthplace and immediately switch to lying about who started the lie in the first place.

That's some seriously efficient lying.

Edit: Potential VP Mike Pence really admires how Dick Cheney fulfilled the role of VP in GW Bush's administration and sees him as a role model for how a VP ought to be.

Yep Dick "Halliburton" Cheney.

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/777497648198782977/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It's not a perception of dishonesty with Hillary, she is dishonest. Are you saying you trust the things she says to be true? Donald Trump is an anomaly and I completely understand people wanting anyone but him, but lets no go nuts. It's almost as if supporters of hillary have supported her BECAUSE of her establishment clout, in that it is more of a guarantee to beat Trump. That is at least the position I'd be in if I was voting.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Clinton is open to gaffes as well, the 'basket of deplorables' was awful campaigning.
Attacking the person you are fighting is expected, but attacking the voters is just plain stupid.

That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about debates here, not stump speeches. Clinton is probably the best debater in the entire race apart from maybe Ted Cruz.

RobertKK wrote: »

Hopefully both are challenged on lies.

After all Hillary has worse honesty ratings...

But that's not because Hillary tells lies. It's because voters are idiots. Clinton is the most honest candidate of this election cycle.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

It's not a perception of dishonesty with Hillary, she is dishonest. Are you saying you trust the things she says to be true? Donald Trump is an anomaly and I completely understand people wanting anyone but him, but lets no go nuts. It's almost as if supporters of hillary have supported her BECAUSE of her establishment clout, in that it is more of a guarantee to beat Trump. That is at least the position I'd be in if I was voting.

She isn't dishonest. The facts show her to be honest. The facts show Trump to be one of, if not the most dishonest person to ever run for America's top office.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about debates here, not stump speeches. Clinton is probably the best debater in the entire race apart from maybe Ted Cruz.



But that's not because Hillary tells lies. It's because voters are idiots. Clinton is the most honest candidate of this election cycle.





She isn't dishonest. The facts show her to be honest. The facts show Trump to be one of, if not the most dishonest person to ever run for America's top office.

Except when being questioned by the FBI of course.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Except when being questioned by the FBI of course.

Let's put that whole issue into perspective:

List of things people think Clinton is lying about: 1

List of things Trump is categorically lying about: several hundred.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Let's put that whole issue into perspective:

List of things people think Clinton is lying about: 1

List of things Trump is categorically lying about: several hundred.

Yea, I mean perjuring yourself when under investigation for serious violations of the law pertaining to intelligence handling is no big deal.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yea, I mean perjuring yourself when under investigation for serious violations of the law pertaining to intelligence handling is no big deal.

She didn't perjure herself.

K-9

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

It's not a perception of dishonesty with Hillary, she is dishonest. Are you saying you trust the things she says to be true? Donald Trump is an anomaly and I completely understand people wanting anyone but him, but lets no go nuts. It's almost as if supporters of hillary have supported her BECAUSE of her establishment clout, in that it is more of a guarantee to beat Trump. That is at least the position I'd be in if I was voting.

When people ask could it be any worse under Trump than Hillary my answer is yes, it could be considerably worse.

I wouldn't trust Trump in a situation like today with a claimed ISIS attack. Hillary would be cold and calculated whereas Trump would spout verbal diarrhea and get trolled on Twitter. Trump is a dream president for ISIS because he'd make George W. look statesmanlike.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

She didn't perjure herself.

Survey says...No

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/14/hillary-clinton-emails-congress-fact-check-jake-tapper-origwx-fy.cnn

Overheal

Have you examined Trumps behavior under oath? You should..

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Survey says...No

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/14/hillary-clinton-emails-congress-fact-check-jake-tapper-origwx-fy.cnn

"But does that constitute perjury? Not necessarily"

From your own posts. Funny you state something as a fact and support it with a link that does not agree with your own stated fact.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

"But does that constitute perjury? Not necessarily"

From your own posts. Funny you state something as a fact and support it with a link that does not agree with your own stated fact.

Sure, no doubt Hilary accidentally lied under oath. Repeatedly.

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

Thing is, that kind of trick only really works against multiple opponents at once; you make a snide remark/insult, and while they are reacting you move on to the next target. One-on-one with a very prepared opponent who is not going to lose their cool no matter what you say and it just falls flat.

Also the audience at the debates is silent and Trump only seems to thrive in a situation when he can hear the crowd's reaction and build up their response with a series of increasingly extreme statements. I think he'll really struggle to build any momentum in a situation where he's completely deprived of positive feedback.

Hopefully the debate moderators will remember the widespread condemnation of Matt Lauer's laughably weak moderation and actually challenge him when he tells outright lies.

Outrage because Lauer wasn't biased enough against Trump? Yes, media moderators need to follow CNN's lead that they need to revert to hand-to-hand combat against Trump. Sadly, the tactic will probably work.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Sure, no doubt Hilary accidentally lied under oath. Repeatedly.

I have no idea but you claimed as a matter of fact she did so and too back up your claim linked to a source that did not say that. If you think she did fine but those investigating her do not as a matter of fact agree. I believe Trump is a rapist but as he has never been found guilty of that crime then I can not say as a matter of fact that he is a wife rapist.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I have no idea but you claimed as a matter of fact she did so and too back up your claim linked to a source that did not say that. If you think she did fine but those investigating her do not as a matter of fact agree. I believe Trump is a rapist but as he has never been found guilty of that crime then I can not say as a matter of fact that he is a wife rapist.

It's a not question of thinking she lied.

She did, there is video evidence of her doing so. There is confirmation by Comey.

The only area of doubt is whether it was intentional or not. If you think Clinton lied by accident, I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's a not question of thinking she lied.

She did, there is video evidence of her doing so. There is confirmation by Comey.

The only area of doubt is whether it was intentional or not. If you think Clinton lied by accident, I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

My understanding of the event she did not intentionally lie. If she had and it could be proven I would think a whole truck load of prosecutors would be lined up to prosecute her.

Do you think Trump raped his wife or did she lie under oath that he did. Funny one of them telling lies one under oath!

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

My understanding of the event she did not intentionally lie. If she had and it could be proven I would think a whole truck load of prosecutors would be lined up to prosecute her.

Do you think Trump raped his wife or did she lie under oath that he did. Funny one of them telling lies one under oath!

I'm not talking about Trump, he is irrelevant to this subject. Clinton broke the law and lied about it under oath, which directly ties into the public perception of her being dishonest.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Survey says...No

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/14/hillary-clinton-emails-congress-fact-check-jake-tapper-origwx-fy.cnn

So she's been found guilty of perjury in a court of law she has?