2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

ebbsy

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'd say a lot of Americans would like to know what Hillary is going to do about the Mexicans. What inducement if any will she provide them to stay in their own country the US can hardly take in around 11 million Mexicans each year. She also wants Syrians, Iraqi's, Libyans, El Salvadorians, Guatemalans, Hondurans & Cubans to arrive so does she have any ideas about what to do with these people perhaps the now routine handing out of American passports.

She will get her opportunity in the debates. No hiding place there.

It will be juicy.

Black Swan

ebbsy wrote: »

She will get her opportunity in the debates. No hiding place there.

It will be juicy.

During the Republican primary debates (and calling them "debates" by accepted debating standards like Robert Rules, etc., was a sad joke), Donald Trump name-called, over-talked, out-talked, and bullied most of the candidates, but exhibited little or no policy content in his talk. Debate moderators on many occasions failed to keep Trump within his time limits, and allowed him to essentially control each session. It's hoped that there will be better moderators conducting the 2016 presidential debates, and that they will adhere to some forum of debating rules, and not let Donald Trump bully his way through them. Methinks that if Donald is allowed to bully and over-talk Hillary, she will lose. If debate moderators enforce debating rules and do their jobs, then Donald will lose, because he has ZERO governance, ZERO US diplomacy, and ZERO preparation to be Commander-In-Chief experiences.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

During the Republican primary debates (and calling them "debates" by accepted debating standards like Robert Rules, etc., was a sad joke), Donald Trump name-called, over-talked, out-talked, and bullied most of the candidates, but exhibited little or no policy content in his talk. Debate moderators on many occasions failed to keep Trump within his time limits, and allowed him to essentially control each session. It's hoped that there will be better moderators conducting the 2016 presidential debates, and that they will adhere to some forum of debating rules, and not let Donald Trump bully his way through them. Methinks that if Donald is allowed to bully and over-talk Hillary, she will lose. If debate moderators enforce debating rules and do their jobs, then Donald will lose, because he has ZERO governance, ZERO US diplomacy, and ZERO preparation to be Commander-In-Chief experiences.

Fox News tried to keep him under control during those debates and instead he dominated the podium. His supporters were very vociferous and you could tell he had universal acceptance at least with the rank and file. A lot of the other candidates struggled to claim much from many of the debates. With Hillary we will get someone who at least in theory has radically different views and her perspective is of an America of many cultures.

Black Swan

The first Clinton-Trump presidential debate is currently scheduled for Monday 26 September 2016 at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. Wright State University in Ohio has withdrawn from holding the First Presidential debate due to budget issues. Rules:

"The first debate will be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the debate. The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Candidates will then have an opportunity to respond to each other. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a deeper discussion of the topic."

If the presidential debate moderators do their jobs, then there should be no problems, but if they do not, then Donald Trump will attempt to dominate the session butting into Hillary's allotted time, talking over her, and attempting to bully her (if Trump's behaviour is a repeat of the Republican primary debates). If the debate mods fail, and Hillary Clinton does not successfully demand her allotted time, then she will lose. Although debate questions will be provided in advance, Donald Trump has ZERO experience in governance, US diplomacy, and CIC prep, so he will appear shallow if he does not divert away from indepth content to superficial bluster.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

The first Clinton-Trump presidential debate is currently scheduled for Monday 26 September 2016 at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. Wright State University in Ohio has withdrawn from holding the First Presidential debate due to budget issues. Rules:

"The first debate will be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the debate. The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Candidates will then have an opportunity to respond to each other. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a deeper discussion of the topic."

If the presidential debate moderators do their jobs, then there should be no problems, but if they do not, then Donald Trump will attempt to dominate the session butting into Hillary's allotted time, talking over her, and attempting to bully her (if Trump's behaviour is a repeat of the Republican primary debates). If the debate mods fail, and Hillary Clinton does not successfully demand her allotted time, then she will lose. Although debate questions will be provided in advance, Donald Trump has ZERO experience in governance, US diplomacy, and CIC prep, so he will appear shallow if he does not divert away from indepth content to superficial bluster.

All the other GOP contenders had plenty of time to cajole, elbow and persuade the grassroots that they were the right person to be chosen as the Nominee and they all lost out to Trump now the Democrats had very few options. Hillary the favourite, Bernie stigmatized as the crazy communist and unfortunately some other bloke that I cannot remember so Trump did do surprisingly well even if he does lose the presidency race he has come very far and lets not forget the Everyone but Trump brigade is still trying to mess with results of GOP contest to get their guy to replace Trump. I will be fascinated to see how these big occasions will be handled by the celebrity.

ECO_Mental

Heres an amazing stat that Fox News are talking about now. Trump has only 1% support with black Americans! yes that's right 1%.

Wow, does not have a hope in November

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

It's hoped that there will be better moderators conducting the 2016 presidential debates, and that they will adhere to some forum of debating rules, and not let Donald Trump bully his way through them. Methinks that if Donald is allowed to bully and over-talk Hillary, she will lose.

If Trump just talks over Clinton, or is seen to shout her down, etc, how does that "play" with centrist voters? Or with women, especially? And come to that, with the "too cool for school" Sanders/Stein crowd that regard the lesser of two evils choice -- AKA the actual election -- as something that would sully their lily-white consciences to even involve themselves.

Presidential debates are rather different from the "throw some red meat to the base" exploding clown car of the primaries.

Inquitus

Trump got a pass in a lot of the GOP debates, as all the candidates tried to tear strips off each other and when he was the focus of attention he just talked over the others or name called. It's hard to see how he will fare in a 1 on 1 debate as no matter how much bluster, talking over, name calling he does, he will still be constantly put on the spot in areas of Policy he know nothing about. I can;t see how these debates do anything but lay bare the fact that he knows nothing about Foreign Policy, Economics or indeed how the American Democracy works. He'd be better off ducking the debates than getting embarrassed by Hillary, and I can't see anything other than embarrassment happening.

AbusesToilets

Any word on whether Johnson or Stein have gained a spot on any of the debates? The last I saw Johnson was polling around 11%, with 15% being the requirement I think to granted a place.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Any word on whether Johnson or Stein have gained a spot on any of the debates? The last I saw Johnson was polling around 11%, with 15% being the requirement I think to granted a place.

9 August 2016 Fox News reported that Johnson may be a 3rd podium, provided that he meets or exceeds the polled 15% threshold in time. Federal judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed the Johnson (also affecting Stein) lawsuit on Friday against the Commission on Presidential Debates alleging violations of antitrust law and the First Amendment. The last 7 national polls reported by RCP show Johnson ranging from 7 to 10% depending upon the polling organisation, and Stein from 2 to 4%.

KingBrian2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Any word on whether Johnson or Stein have gained a spot on any of the debates? The last I saw Johnson was polling around 11%, with 15% being the requirement I think to granted a place.

Third party candidates will be eager to get a spot on those debates. They will get a lot of media attention out of it. That is if they get on the spot.

Black Swan

RCP list of 20 national polls today shows that Hillary Clinton has been ahead of Donald Trump (ranging from 1% to 15%). The most recent national poll listed by RCP with Trump ahead was the LA TImes/USC tracking poll ending 26 July 2016, where Trump was ahead of Clinton by 7%. Today the LA Times/USC tracking poll shows Clinton ahead by 4%, a change of 11 points to benefit Clinton.

eire4

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Any word on whether Johnson or Stein have gained a spot on any of the debates? The last I saw Johnson was polling around 11%, with 15% being the requirement I think to granted a place.

The so called presidential debates is a private company owned and controlled by both the Republican and Democratic Parties that is used by them as part of their efforts to stop any other parties ever emerging to challenge them nationally. They deliberately portray it as if it is some independent body that is a neutral arbiter. When it is anything but and is very much part of the problem and corruption which is preventing the vast majority of Americans from hearing any voices that dissent from the corporate approved line.

AbusesToilets

eire4 wrote: »

The so called presidential debates is a private company owned and controlled by both the Republican and Democratic Parties that is used by them as part of their efforts to stop any other parties ever emerging to challenge them nationally. They deliberately portray it as if it is some independent body that is a neutral arbiter. When it is anything but and is very much part of the problem and corruption which is preventing the vast majority of Americans from hearing any voices that dissent from the corporate approved line.

Surprised that a network such as PBS is allocated a debate by law etc.

Black Swan

USA TODAY/Rock the Vote Poll shows Clinton over Trump 56% to 20% among those under 35. "Trump's weakness among younger voters is unprecedented." Millennials are yet another voter segment that Donald Trump has been losing in the polls, and when this segment is added to the voter segments of women, Hispanics, and Blacks, then Donald Trump's prospects seem to be falling even further. If polling means anything, and some have questioned its merit, then Trump needs to reverse many of these polls in the next 90 days, or game over.

In past decades presidents that won the election typically won at least 2 of the 3 states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

Today RCP listed state polls show:

• Pennsylvania 6 most recent polls all show Clinton ahead ranging from 4 to 11%.
• Ohio 5 most recent polls show Clinton ahead in 3 ranging from 4 to 5%, with 2 polls tied with Trump.
• Florida 5 most recent polls all show Clinton ahead ranging from 1 to 6%.

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

If polling means anything, and some have questioned its merit, then Trump needs to reverse many of these polls in the next 90 days, or game over.

Its even more urgent than that. Early voting in some states starts in mid September.

There was a story today about the possibility that the GOP might cut off funds to trump if he doesn't show some improvement by the middle of next month. They need the funds to put into congressional races that are becoming more vulnerable now.

On Monday apparently trump will be making a speech presenting his plans to combat terrorism. So that's sure to be interesting.

ECO_Mental

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/us-election-2016/donald-trump-says-hed-be-beating-hillary-clinton-by-20-if-it-wasnt-for-disgusting-and-corrupt-media-34965658.html

Trump tweeting again about all this "biased" media and "disgusting and corrupt media" I am getting sick of this, does he really think there is a global media conspiracy against him?

This is another reason for people not to vote for him with all this sh1t. This is dangerous all this talk how corrupt the media are and Fox News are going long with it. Putin got rid of his so call corrupt and biased media so did the Castro's in Cuba North Korea, China, Turkey etc need I go on? All these places are pillars of freedom and speech after all now that the biased media are gone and arrested:mad:

The press will follow the best story to sell papers and have to freedom to do so, if the Trump doesn't want negative stories about him stop being a racist, chauvinistic, ego maniac who cant keep him mouth shut and say stupid things....its really simple.

Saying that Obama is the founding member of ISIS and going after a family whose son died for American is going to grab the headlines not "emails"

RobbingBandit

Will either candidate be a two termed President and when is the last time an elected Democrat followed a Democrat as POTUS.

TheDoctor

It will be interesting who the Republicans have run against Clinton in 2020 following the farce this year.

Really need to get away from the Tea Party element of the party and go moderate. And they really should have won this election.

TheDoctor

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Will either candidate be a two termed President and when is the last time an elected Democrat followed a Democrat as POTUS.

The most recent instance of a Democrat being elected to succeed a two term Democrat President was in 1836. Martin Van Buren to follow Andrew Jackson.

RobbingBandit

TheDoctor wrote: »

The most recent instance of a Democrat being elected to succeed a two term Democrat President was in 1836. Martin Van Buren to follow Andrew Jackson.

Thought it was pre civil war era, thanks for confirming, gonna be an interesting run in period, doubt either will be a two termer myself things are just two chaotic for any one party to hold on in the present IMO. Whom ever does get in is in for a bumpy ride.

Nody

TheDoctor wrote: »

Really need to get away from the Tea Party element of the party and go moderate. And they really should have won this election.

But is this not normally the case? It's not a case of one party winning but one party going totally bananas and handing the election over to the other side by electing a really bad candidate. The election of a party candidate is about swinging as far right/left respectively as possibly (without sounding to much like a lier) and winning the election is all about swinging back to the middle voters while throwing enough bones at your core voters to get them out to vote in swing states.

Skylinehead

TheDoctor wrote: »

The most recent instance of a Democrat being elected to succeed a two term Democrat President was in 1836. Martin Van Buren to follow Andrew Jackson.

Does FDR to Truman not count? I know it wasn't two terms, rather 4 (and Truman serving as president for most of that fourth) but Truman did get elected afterwards. Certainly, that's a much later example of a Democrat being elected after a multi-term Democrat.

TheDoctor

Skylinehead wrote: »

Does FDR to Truman not count? I know it wasn't two terms, rather 4 (and Truman serving as president for most of that fourth) but Truman did get elected afterwards. Certainly, that's a much later example of a Democrat being elected after a multi-term Democrat.

Technically Truman was never elected to follow FDR since we took over in FDRs fourth term and then was re-elected.

Nody

Also surprised no one has posted the information listed in New York Times that Trump's Campaign chief was being bribed to support Russia and pro Russian opinions in Ukraine to the tune of $12.7 million.

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

I guess that explains why Trump is favored by Putin as well; he expects one of the key people in the White house is already bought if Trump wins.

Skylinehead

TheDoctor wrote: »

Technically Truman was never elected to follow FDR since we took over in FDRs fourth term and then was re-elected.

He wasn't re-elected because he wasn't elected in the first place. Roosevelt was elected in 44, Truman in 48.

InTheTrees

Nody wrote: »

Also surprised no one has posted the information listed in New York Times that Trump's Campaign chief was being bribed to support Russia and pro Russian opinions in Ukraine to the tune of $12.7 million.
I guess that explains why Trump is favored by Putin as well; he expects one of the key people in the White house is already bought if Trump wins.

The story only comes out in the times today and its only 8am so I expect it will gather steam as the day goes on.

Of course manafort's ties with russia have been well known but this latest corruption probe takes it further.

TheDoctor

Skylinehead wrote: »

He wasn't re-elected because he wasn't elected in the first place. Roosevelt was elected in 44, Truman in 48.

He was re-elected as he was the President when the previous term ended.

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/us-election-2016/donald-trump-says-hed-be-beating-hillary-clinton-by-20-if-it-wasnt-for-disgusting-and-corrupt-media-34965658.html

Trump tweeting again about all this "biased" media and "disgusting and corrupt media" I am getting sick of this, does he really think there is a global media conspiracy against him?

This is another reason for people not to vote for him with all this sh1t. This is dangerous all this talk how corrupt the media are and Fox News are going long with it. Putin got rid of his so call corrupt and biased media so did the Castro's in Cuba North Korea, China, Turkey etc need I go on? All these places are pillars of freedom and speech after all now that the biased media are gone and arrested:mad:

The press will follow the best story to sell papers and have to freedom to do so, if the Trump doesn't want negative stories about him stop being a racist, chauvinistic, ego maniac who cant keep him mouth shut and say stupid things....its really simple.

Saying that Obama is the founding member of ISIS and going after a family whose son died for American is going to grab the headlines not "emails"

Right... ignore the elephant in the room. The media doesn’t attempt to hide their bias against Trump anymore. Just last week The New York Times admitted that journalists are biased against Donald Trump. But in true NYT fashion... it’s Trump’s fault. Give me a break. Trump has been exposing most journalists for the partisan hacks they really are, and should keep on it. Yes, old news here, but still, at least it's real news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

And today the Los Angles Times publishes a piece that notes in order to fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-media-bias-20160802-snap-story.html

And no, this is a reason for more people to vote for him. Before voters were just being told from Republicans that the media is biased, now they're hearing from the media themselves. And people here demand a fair fight.

TheDoctor

Absolutely they should be outraged that the news is biased..... as they sit down to watch "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.

Amerika

Nody wrote: »

Also surprised no one has posted the information listed in New York Times that Trump's Campaign chief was being bribed to support Russia and pro Russian opinions in Ukraine to the tune of $12.7 million.

I guess that explains why Trump is favored by Putin as well; he expects one of the key people in the White house is already bought if Trump wins.

Yeah that is news to the media. Yet where are the stories of Hillary Clinton’s 'reset' with Russia? Or the stories of her approval of a deal that gave 20% of US uranium (you know... the stuff to make nuclear bombs) to a company controlled by the Russian government... after a huugge donation was made to the Clinton Foundation? And why is Hillary Clinton’s refusal to hold press conferences not front page news evry day? (It’s just a rhetorical question... deep down we all know the reason).

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

Absolutely they should be outraged that the news is biased..... as they sit down to watch "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.

They should... if for no other reason then to actually add a bit of balance to the biased liberal media.

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah that is news to the media. Yet where are the stories of Hillary Clinton’s 'reset' with Russia? Or the stories of her approval of a deal that gave 20% of US uranium (you know... the stuff to make nuclear bombs) to a company controlled by the Russian government... after a huugge donation was made to the Clinton Foundation? And why is Hillary Clinton’s refusal to hold press conferences not front page news evry day? (It’s just a rhetorical question... deep down we all know the reason).

Mod: If any of this is true then back it up.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: If any of this is true then back it up.

From that rag known as the New York Times..... it's a long read though.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Calina

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

From that rag known as the New York Times..... it's a long read though.

So you're complaining that the media are not reporting something and backing it up with a report from the very media org you're complaining isn't reporting on this?

BoJack Horseman

Calina wrote: »

So you're complaining

Quote my complaint.
Quote or withdraw.

B0jangles

Have you seen the Trump campaign's new poll that is blatantly asking questions in order to elicit the 'correct' answer and which asks for no information which would allow the results to be analyzed in any meaningful way?

https://action.trump2016.com/trump-mms-survey/

It's fairly calm at the start but my goodness, it gets funnier and funnier as it keeps going .

TheDoctor

B0jangles wrote: »

Have you seen the Trump campaign's new poll that is blatantly asking questions in order to elicit the 'correct' answer and which asks for no information which would allow the results to be analyzed in any meaningful way?

https://action.trump2016.com/trump-mms-survey/

It's fairly calm at the start but my goodness, it gets funnier and funnier as it keeps going .

More talking points rather than a survey.

Quin_Dub

B0jangles wrote: »

Have you seen the Trump campaign's new poll that is blatantly asking questions in order to elicit the 'correct' answer and which asks for no information which would allow the results to be analyzed in any meaningful way?

https://action.trump2016.com/trump-mms-survey/

It's fairly calm at the start but my goodness, it gets funnier and funnier as it keeps going .

TheDoctor wrote: »

More talking points rather than a survey.

And if you complete it, you are brought to a page saying

Stop the Mainstream Media

Thank you for standing up to the media’s lies and attacks.

Now take the next step and make a contribution to fight back.

Unlike the Democrats, we don’t have a 24/7 media machine helping us win a presidential election.

That’s why we need your sustained support.

So , even if you disagree with some or all of the loaded questions asked you are thanked for fighting the corrupt media and asked for money..

Nice!

B0jangles

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And if you complete it, you are brought to a page saying


So , even if you disagree with some or all of the loaded questions asked you are thanked for fighting the corrupt media and asked for money..

Nice!

I just tried twice but gave the 'wrong' answers to all of the questions and I didn't get that screen, it just reset to the poll page again. I don't think it liked my answers...

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: If any of this is true then back it up.

With a statement of “If any of this is true...” it pretty much supports the fact that the media fails to do their job... "IF." Sure the things I noted were reported on briefly by the media, but in this election cycle, why are the media ignoring these things that the smallest amount of journalistic integrity should dictate answers need to be forthcoming to troubling circumstances she was involved in, and scrutiny from the media is needed from someone that could be the next President of the US.

In 2009, shortly after becoming Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red button that is supposed to say 'reset' in Russian. It was intended to symbolize a reset into better relations between Russia and the US. The following shows the dismal failure of the US-Russian reset.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/03/17/the-failure-of-the-u-s-russia-reset-in-9-photos/

Hillary made it possible for the a Russian company, controlled by the Russian government, to take control of the US largest uranium producers, and then sell the uranium to Iran. And the Hillary took the cash for her foundation from Uranium One officials before the she approved the deal as Secretary of State.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/senator-damato-drops-bomb-hillary-allowed-russia-take-ownership-us-uranium-sell-iran-video/

And I can understand why Hillary doesn’t hold press conferences. She doesn’t want to take the chance to have to answer troubling questions the press might ask her... on a day they forget themselves and remember they’re actually journalists. But what is inexcusable is the press continues to give her cover and passes on all this as she refuses to hold any press conferences.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton-yet-to-hold-single-press-conferenc/

Black Swan

B0jangles wrote: »

Have you seen the Trump campaign's new poll that is blatantly asking questions in order to elicit the 'correct' answer and which asks for no information which would allow the results to be analyzed in any meaningful way?

https://action.trump2016.com/trump-mms-survey/

It's fairly calm at the start but my goodness, it gets funnier and funnier as it keeps going .

There are some serious methodological problems with the content and survey item construction of the Trump-Pence Mainstream Media Accountability Survey questionnaire. For example question #7 asks about "positions and actions," which are 2 different things, and represents a classic double-barrelled question that asks 2 questions in one survey item, but provides only one answer, consequently the answer is confounded, unreliable, and invalid. A much worse example is a quadruple-barrelled item. Question #8 asks 4 questions in one survey item with "free pass" and "continues to lie" and "classified information" and "secret server," but only provides one answer to all these 4 questions, and additionally appears to exhibit not-so-subtle confirmation bias in the content of item construction. I could tear this questionnaire apart piece-by-piece quite easily, showing how empirically confounded, invalid, and unreliable it is, which would get an F grade in my Survey Research course. It's what we call GIGO in my research lab at work (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Why didn't Trump hire someone who was qualified to design a survey questionnaire? Is this yet another example of the immaturity of the Trump Celebrity Apprentice Presidency, suggesting that he will hire unqualified folks to work for him should he be elected? Is not the 2016 presidential campaign a reflection of Donald Trump's incompetency for president if elected 8 November 2016?

B0jangles

Just listening to Rudy Giuliani introducing Trump; are my ears broken or did he just say that there were no successful Islamic terrorist attacks in America in the 8 years before Obama was elected?

:eek::eek::eek:

Edit: he bloody well did! https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/765254440085577728

ECO_Mental

Looking at this myself now, I thought he came out very downbeat looked like a beaten man . He is also not lifting his head from the teleprompter he must have been warned

Igotadose

Amerika wrote: »

With a statement of “If any of this is true...” it pretty much supports the fact that the media fails to do their job... "IF." Sure the things I noted were reported on briefly by the media, but in this election cycle, why are the media ignoring these things that the smallest amount of journalistic integrity should dictate answers need to be forthcoming to troubling circumstances she was involved in, and scrutiny from the media is needed from someone that could be the next President of the US.

In 2009, shortly after becoming Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red button that is supposed to say 'reset' in Russian. It was intended to symbolize a reset into better relations between Russia and the US. The following shows the dismal failure of the US-Russian reset.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/03/17/the-failure-of-the-u-s-russia-reset-in-9-photos/

Hillary made it possible for the a Russian company, controlled by the Russian government, to take control of the US largest uranium producers, and then sell the uranium to Iran. And the Hillary took the cash for her foundation from Uranium One officials before the she approved the deal as Secretary of State.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/senator-damato-drops-bomb-hillary-allowed-russia-take-ownership-us-uranium-sell-iran-video/

And I can understand why Hillary doesn’t hold press conferences. She doesn’t want to take the chance to have to answer troubling questions the press might ask her... on a day they forget themselves and remember they’re actually journalists. But what is inexcusable is the press continues to give her cover and passes on all this as she refuses to hold any press conferences.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton-yet-to-hold-single-press-conferenc/

Uhh, the reset was going along (WTO membership for Russia, various make-nices by the US government.) Then that pesky Edward Snowden came along, as well as the invasion of the Ukraine. That'll damper anything. And she just had a press conference. Whether that matters is up to you to decide. I'd personally like to see more of them too, though I think we're pretty clear on her policy positions. Unlike her opponent, but hey, he's entertaining.

As for the uranium deal, well, that's a conclusion the 'gateway pundit' reaches. Others disagree, as several government agencies - DoD, Treasury, Justice had veto power over the deal and chose not to exercise it. WaPo has a good piece on this.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/27/back-to-basic-facts-in-latest-hillary-clinton-scandal-story/?utm_term=.97d1323896bd

Summary: Hillary didn't oppose the Uranium One deal, so she's bad.

And the Gateway Pundit is a white supremacist right-wing crank site: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

ECO_Mental

OMG..."To the victors the spoils of war" can't believe he just said that! He said the USA should have kept the oil in Iraq and that would have stopped ISIS..

He now wants to shut down the internet in the middle east

This dude if off the charts crazy

vetinari

How has Manafort not resigned yet?
Being linked to a corruption investigation in Ukraine and having ties to the Russians!
in any normal election, that would be the headline story for the entire election.

BoJack Horseman

vetinari wrote: »

having ties to the Russians!
in any normal election, that would be the headline story for the entire election.

Cos both Trump & Clinton are up to their jowls in oligarch cash.... So throwing shade wouldn't work..

Plus people don't really buy into the 'Russia is bogey man' thing anymore.

Amerika

vetinari wrote: »

How has Manafort not resigned yet?
Being linked to a corruption investigation in Ukraine and having ties to the Russians!
in any normal election, that would be the headline story for the entire election.

Unlike Clinton, I don't think Manafort was actually ever paid anything from Russian surrogates. Some handwritten note in some book doesn't count. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will have the information to support it.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Unlike Clinton, I don't think Manafort was actually ever paid anything from Russian surrogates. Some handwritten note in some book doesn't count. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will have the information to support it.

I cannot attest to the sources used by the New York Times, but they reported 14 August 2016 that Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort consulted for Ukraine’s former ruling political party, picturing an office used by Manafort in Kiev. Manafort’s main client was pro-Russian former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. "Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau."

Today's CNN Politics headlines "Manafort named in Ukrainian probe into millions in secret cash." In reply, Manafort stated: ""My work in Ukraine ceased following the country's parliamentary elections in October 2014." Earlier on 27 April 2016 The Guardian reported "And in 2010, Manafort helped pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych remake his tarnished image and win a presidential election in Ukraine." The Guardian also mention other dictators supposedly consulting with Manafort. So who knows for sure?

Whether there is any merit to these reports by The Guardian, CNN, and NYT is debatable here, but you have to admit that Donald Trump has exercised poor judgement (once again), and not helped himself or his campaign manager Manafort by making such statements as:

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump declared.

I've seen several of the Clinton ads. All her campaign has to do is make video ads showing Donald Trump speak (quoting) past statements like this about women, The Khans, Mexicans, US Judge with Mexican ancestry, Muslims, handicapped Washington reporter, claiming 8 November General Election is fixed, and now with comments about losing the November election, etc., etc. Such Trump quotes were off-message and appear self-destructive in style and content. His base may call it telling it like it is, but if the polls mean anything (which is also debatable), they have not been generally good for Donald Trump lately.