2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

YMMV.

The Republican debates were just a circus of platitudes and insults. The next three are teasing out policy, with proper moderation. Clinton is at her best on policy wonk material, and Trump is hopeless. Even the disinterested will pick up on the gap of ability between them. I've no expectation of his doing any way well.

The other aspect about the debate is both candidates have opposing visions of America, it should be fascinating to see how that plays out. In the past candidates were virtually alike on so many issues. America values it democratic virtues yet time and time again the elitist always get to be in charge.

Suryavarman

K-9 wrote: »

It has been reported by NPR that he hasn't donated anything since 08.

I think we can all hazard a guess as to why he's so reluctant to release his tax returns. Either he brags too much, which isn't really a surprise to anybody or it's a good old fashioned case of fur coat, no knickers!

Perhaps the rumours of him donating large amounts of money to paedophile organisation NAMBLA could be correct.

Suryavarman

I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet but the Ukranian President offered to meet with both candidates when he was in New York. Only Clinton met with him while Trump doesn't seem to have even responded to the offer. This is unsurprising since Trump is well known for his Russophilia.

K-9

Suryavarman wrote: »

Perhaps the rumours of him donating large amounts of money to paedophile organisation NAMBLA could be correct.

Ah here, couldn't possibly be true, more for CT stuff.

I suppose that is an example of what this campaign has descended to, Trump puts out something in a "some people say way" to test the reaction, so the other side has started throwing the same dirt back. Put it this way, i never thought I'd see the national enquirer used as a source in a primary debate.

KingBrian2

gosplan wrote: »

Wow.

The whole charity thing seems s bit of s mess.

It kind of makes me believe the theory that Trump wasn't serious about running initially and never expected to get this far.

When the country is under attack patriots are called upon to serve.

Suryavarman

K-9 wrote: »

Ah here, couldn't possibly be true, more for CT stuff.

I suppose that is an example of what this campaign has descended to, Trump puts out something in a "some people say way" to test the reaction, so the other side has started throwing the same dirt back. Put it this way, i never thought I'd see the national enquirer used as a source in a primary debate.

If it wasn't true then why won't he release his tax returns and prove the rumours to be false? Trump is known to be good friends with sex offenders. This rumour is far from outlandish.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

If it wasn't true then why won't he release his tax returns and prove the rumours to be false? Trump is known to be good friends with sex offenders. This rumour is far from outlandish.

Is there any source for this? I would be surprised it isn't getting more air time if true.

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

When the country is under attack patriots are called upon to serve.

What?

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

When the country is under attack patriots are called upon to serve.

Now there's a meaningless soundbite.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

When the country is under attack patriots are called upon to serve.

I seem to remember the Donald dodged the draft when other patriots had to serve.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I seem to remember the Donald dodged the draft when other patriots had to serve.

Technically he was barred on medical grounds, but valid point nonetheless.

Billy86

gosplan wrote: »

Wow.

The whole charity thing seems s bit of s mess.

It kind of makes me believe the theory that Trump wasn't serious about running initially and never expected to get this far.

The posters on here obsessed over the Clinton Foundation are surely going to be up in arms over this, wanting to know how Trump is using the money to make sure nothing is being misappropriated...........

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Is there any source for this? I would be surprised it isn't getting more air time if true.

The proof is in the pudding. He consorts with people that have sexual relations with underage girls and refuses to release tax records that would either prove or disprove that he donates to NAMBLA. He's also probably attracted to his daughter, and since she was young too. I think it's very worrying that so many people are supporting somebody that's got such strong links to paedophilia.

K-9

Mod:

That's enough Suryavarman, you've made your point!

PopePalpatine

httpete wrote: »

Trump blew all the other Republican candidates out of the water in the earlier debates and many of those would be much more polished speakers than Clinton. He is an extremely proficient communicator whereas Clinton comes across terribly any time she speaks. I really can't see how she has any chance against Trump who is liable to say anything, putting her on the defensive. Trump is a far better performer in front of the camera. I don't agree with a lot of his policies but I would shocked if didn't easily win the debates.

Key word there being "earlier debates". I just looked up the Republican primary debate schedule, the 25 February one in Houston probably stood out as Trump's weakest, where Rubio and Cruz attacked Trump's foreign policy and business record.

Rjd2

httpete wrote: »

I don't know why people act somewhat surprised that Trump may win the debates. Some people on Reddit act as if Clinton will destroy him in the debates, it makes no sense at all.

Trump blew all the other Republican candidates out of the water in the earlier debates and many of those would be much more polished speakers than Clinton. He is an extremely proficient communicator whereas Clinton comes across terribly any time she speaks. I really can't see how she has any chance against Trump who is liable to say anything, putting her on the defensive. Trump is a far better performer in front of the camera. I don't agree with a lot of his policies but I would shocked if didn't easily win the debates.

I watched them all and I see your POV. He ran riot in the first few and yeah it was a beatdown of Jeb.

However that line I bolded, I don't quite agree. I know Cruz was in the debate team at Harvard and clearly an articulate man, however without sounding childish, he is an incredibly obnoxious smug man who has pissed of people his whole career. Its hard for Joe Soap to root for him.

Rubio? He was to scared to properly attack Trump as he wanted to keep on the good side of him as like so many he expected Trump to crash and burn and he wanted his voters. When he finally realised Trump was here to stay and went after him, it was to late and he looked desperate and Trump could push him away easily enough.

Kasich is an articulate guy, but his campaign never got going and like Carson and other also rans really struggled for air time as he was an after thought in the Trump show.

Next week its one on one, Hilary won't have the obvious desperation of Rubio or the sneer of Cruz, if she avoids the play ground stuff and turns it into a debate about policy he will struggle as Hilary is the type of women that can talk policy until the cows come home.

She if she does that and sneaks in a few burns "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." etc, will win the debates.

However its Trump so who the **** knows:o

Rjd2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Is there any source for this? I would be surprised it isn't getting more air time if true.

I assume he is referring to this story.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html

Billy86

Suryavarman wrote: »

If it wasn't true then why won't he release his tax returns and prove the rumours to be false? Trump is known to be good friends with sex offenders. This rumour is far from outlandish.

Its really not that surprising, he has reportedly had papers served for raping a child and threatening to murder them if they told,too.

conditioned games

Suryavarman wrote: »

The proof is in the pudding. He consorts with people that have sexual relations with underage girls and refuses to release tax records that would either prove or disprove that he donates to NAMBLA. He's also probably attracted to his daughter, and since she was young too. I think it's very worrying that so many people are supporting somebody that's got such strong links to paedophilia.

I like how the pro Clinton camp have resorted to making false allegations Trump is a paedophile and rapist. Shows how desperate they have become. He has had a loving family united behind his march to the white house for all to see. Given Clinton is falling apart in a way it's understandable why her camp have become sad and desperate.

Christy42

conditioned games wrote: »

I like how the pro Clinton camp have resorted to making false allegations Trump is a paedophile and rapist. Shows how desperate they have become. He has had a loving family united behind his march to the white house for all to see. Given Clinton is falling apart in a way it's understandable why her camp have become sad and desperate.

Says the camp that has diagnosed Clinton with every disease under the sun without the aid of any doctor who has actually examined her.

Cosby also has a loving family. Billy is right. The accusation has been made and Trump is to be taken to court over this. This isn't something you can settle out of court either. This is pretty serious stuff. I am curious as to how you know they are false accusations though? I imagine Trump's defense will be interested in you helping their case if this is true.

Remember that his last rape case was settled by paying the victim a lot of money to not say anything bad about him (as well as the last attempted rape he was accused of being settled in a similar manner).

oscarBravo

Apparently Trump's proposed answer to the strained relationships between police and black communities is... (wait for it...)

...expanding stop-and-frisk nationwide.

It really is hard sometimes to avoid the feeling that his entire campaign is one long parody.

fran17

Suryavarman wrote: »

The proof is in the pudding. He consorts with people that have sexual relations with underage girls and refuses to release tax records that would either prove or disprove that he donates to NAMBLA. He's also probably attracted to his daughter, and since she was young too. I think it's very worrying that so many people are supporting somebody that's got such strong links to paedophilia.

Clinton is married to and has stood by,for decades,a man who has had a litany of rape and sexual assault allegations made against him.He has also flown dozens of times on Epsteins "Lolita Express".People in glass houses etc..?

Christy42

fran17 wrote: »

Clinton is married to and has stood by,for decades,a man who has had a litany of rape and sexual assault allegations made against him.He has also flown dozens of times on Epsteins "Lolita Express".People in glass houses etc..?

How about we throw stones at both their glass houses? Seems like a much better idea to me especially given the seriousness of the allegations. Seriously by protecting our less hated candidate we let both away with their crimes.

I still feel that Hillary Clinton's actions are not as bad as Trump's (accusedly given neither have been found guilty). Hillary Clinton has stood by an accused rapist.

Donald Trump is an accused paedophile. The difference is obvious to me. Even if it is a pretty bad choice.

B0jangles

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apparently Trump's proposed answer to the strained relationships between police and black communities is... (wait for it...)

...expanding stop-and-frisk nationwide.

It really is hard sometimes to avoid the feeling that his entire campaign is one long parody.

He's got this guy's vote anyway!

https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/778809933840076801?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

fran17

Christy42 wrote: »

How about we throw stones at both their glass houses? Seems like a much better idea to me especially given the seriousness of the allegations. Seriously by protecting our less hated candidate we let both away with their crimes.

I still feel that Hillary Clinton's actions are not as bad as Trump's (accusedly given neither have been found guilty). Hillary Clinton has stood by an accused rapist.

Donald Trump is an accused paedophile. The difference is obvious to me. Even if it is a pretty bad choice.

I think it's indicative of the entire presidential election this time round,a nasty race to the bottom.Most heinous allegations that Trump will have to address however Clinton running on the "cracking the glass ceiling" rethoric,given her husbands infidelity and numerous sex abuse allegations,is an insult to all women seeking equality.The thoughts of those two grifters back in the white house abusing the presidential office,as the state department was,for financial gain really would be sad.

alastair

fran17 wrote: »

I think it's indicative of the entire presidential election this time round,a nasty race to the bottom.Most heinous allegations that Trump will have to address however Clinton running on the "cracking the glass ceiling" rethoric,given her husbands infidelity and numerous sex abuse allegations,is an insult to all women seeking equality.The thoughts of those two grifters back in the white house abusing the presidential office,as the state department was,for financial gain really would be sad.

A theory not actually supported by any actual evidence. And Bill Clinton was very well liked in office, so this whole 'grifter' notion is really at odds with the reality of how their return to the white house will be received. People can't warm to Hillary, but they have no such problem with Bill.

B0jangles

https://twitter.com/tomtomorrow/status/778583670760345600/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Will Donald surprise us all and release his tax returns today?

He will not

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apparently Trump's proposed answer to the strained relationships between police and black communities is... (wait for it...)

...expanding stop-and-frisk nationwide.

It really is hard sometimes to avoid the feeling that his entire campaign is one long parody.

Stop and frisk works. Democrats have ruled over cesspool inner cities for decades, so thank them for doing nothing. Trump might be the person to change things around. In the long term a job is the most effective way to stop a bullet.

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

Stop and frisk works. Democrats have ruled over cesspool inner cities for decades, so thank them for doing nothing. Trump might be the person to change things around. In the long term a job is the most effective way to stop a bullet.

No it doesn't.

Under Bloomberg, NYPD stops grew from 100K (2002) to 550K-700K. Under de Blasio, down to 23K (2015).
Crime rate stable

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/778681001585152000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

No it doesn't.



https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/778681001585152000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

How does all crimes relate to Stop And Frisk? The main purpose of Stop And Frisk was the targeting of guns.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cops-seek-sweatsuit-clad-man-shot-bystander-brooklyn-article-1.2242439

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

How does all crimes relate to Stop And Frisk? The main purpose of Stop And Frisk was the targeting of guns.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cops-seek-sweatsuit-clad-man-shot-bystander-brooklyn-article-1.2242439

If the guns seized under stop and frisk policies were going to be used in criminal acts, would you not expect to see a change in the crime rate?

If there is no measurable effect on the crime rate, what is the point?

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

If the guns seized under stop and frisk policies were going to be used in criminal acts, would you not expect to see a change in the crime rate?

If there is no measurable effect on the crime rate, what is the point?

Fair point, but if you were looking at the effectiveness of Stop And Frisk, wouldn't it be better to look at the actual gun voilence statistics?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Stop and frisk works. Democrats have ruled over cesspool inner cities for decades, so thank them for doing nothing. Trump might be the person to change things around. In the long term a job is the most effective way to stop a bullet.

It's irrelevant whether stop and frisk works. The president doesn't have the power to implement the policy at local police levels.

State and city governments direct police policy, not the Whitehouse. This is a nonsense smoke screen.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

It's irrelevant whether stop and frisk works. The president doesn't have the power to implement the policy at local police levels.

State and city governments direct police policy, not the Whitehouse. This is a nonsense smoke screen.

Did Trump say he was going to implement Stop and Frisk, or did he merely call for implementation of Stop And Frisk in Chicago? Candidates have the right to an opinion on whether Stop and Frisk should or should not be utilized.

And the status of Stop and Frisk is in the hands of the courts right now. Shira Scheindlin, a US District Judge for the Southern District of New York and appointed by a Democratic president, ruled in August 2013 that the stop and frisk practice was unconstitutional. Then in October 2013 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked the order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's Stop And Frisk program and removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from the case. The ruling is currently under appeal.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Fair point, but if you were looking at the effectiveness of Stop And Frisk, wouldn't it be better to look at the actual gun voilence statistics?

These analyses find no evidence that misdemeanor arrests reduced levels of homicide, robbery, or aggravated assaults.

Studying New York City’s Crime Decline: Methodological Issues
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2012.752026

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office reviewed data from 2.4 million stops that took place between 2009 and 2012 and found that out of the 150,000 arrests that resulted from those stops, only 1.5% of them ended in jail sentences and only .1% of those arrests ended in convictions for violent crimes.

While supporters of “stop-and-frisk” have argued that the policy has contributed to dropping crime rates in New York City, the Attorney General’s report found that the stops were not actually finding or preventing crimes. 97% percent of stops resulted in no conviction at all, although they did still utitlize city time and resources to reach those outcomes.

The new report also found that the vast majority of crimes were non-violent and primarily drug-related, and that black and Latino arrestees faced harsher punishments than white defendents. The Attorney General’s office also released a report in 1999 that found black and Latino New Yorkers were stopped at far higher rates than white men and women.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/report-finds-stop-and-frisk-does-not

Overheal

Here's a stop and frisk.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/innocent-man-given-anal-cavity-search-colonoscopy-after-rolling-through-a-stop-sign/

I'm going to say "no"...

Peist2007

alastair wrote: »

YMMV.

The Republican debates were just a circus of platitudes and insults. The next three are teasing out policy, with proper moderation. Clinton is at her best on policy wonk material, and Trump is hopeless. Even the disinterested will pick up on the gap of ability between them. I've no expectation of his doing any way well.

Can you point me to some links of Hillary talking in depth about policy? Interested to hear her discuss something like that given all it has been for the last 6 months is tweets that are bitching about Trump. Send me on something where she gets her teeth into a proper policy issue or sets out a policy issue that will be a part of her presidency. Cheers

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Stop and frisk works. Democrats have ruled over cesspool inner cities for decades, so thank them for doing nothing. Trump might be the person to change things around. In the long term a job is the most effective way to stop a bullet.

Treat people like criminals and terrorists and many will act like ones. Many will just get sick of getting stopped 7 or 8 times just because of colour of skin for some strange reason.

I'm always reminded of football hooligans in England, put them behind cages like animals and it make things worse. Change the environment and make it more family friendly and you get one of the richest spring leagues in the world.

Quin_Dub

Peist2007 wrote: »

Can you point me to some links of Hillary talking in depth about policy? Interested to hear her discuss something like that given all it has been for the last 6 months is tweets that are bitching about Trump. Send me on something where she gets her teeth into a proper policy issue or sets out a policy issue that will be a part of her presidency. Cheers

How about this?

Look at the difference in the answers given by both candidates to essentially the same question at the Veterans Townhall a few weeks ago..

Clinton gives a fairly detailed answer (which people can agree or disagree with)..

Trump says "Thanks for the question , everybody loves me, check out those Poll numbers!!"

One answer is debating , the other is bull****ting to be frank and three 2hr+ debates of that I would hope would allow people to see the utter lack of depth that Trump has on any subject other than himself..

Overheal

Peist2007 wrote: »

Can you point me to some links of Hillary talking in depth about policy? Interested to hear her discuss something like that given all it has been for the last 6 months is tweets that are bitching about Trump. Send me on something where she gets her teeth into a proper policy issue or sets out a policy issue that will be a part of her presidency. Cheers

your problem might be expecting information on twitter?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary%20clinton%20policy&eob=m.0d06m5//short

Like you should almost be offended its that simple - but, it is. Google does a bang-up job telling you what her stance/policy is on a breadth of issues. There is also her website

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

I think the insinuation you're reaching for is "she doesn't have any substance" when actually, it appears you just haven't looked.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Studying New York City’s Crime Decline: Methodological Issues
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2012.752026



http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/report-finds-stop-and-frisk-does-not

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman?



The progressive political opportunist and former Democratic State Senator who has publicly denounced Donald Trump? The AG who has displayed vindictiveness toward political foes and is lenient (or conveniently ignorant) towards the suspect activities of political friends? That guy?

I’m sure he approached Stop And Frisk with an open mind. :rolleyes:

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Treat people like criminals and terrorists and many will act like ones. Many will just get sick of getting stopped 7 or 8 times just because of colour of skin for some strange reason.

I'm always reminded of football hooligans in England, put them behind cages like animals and it make things worse. Change the environment and make it more family friendly and you get one of the richest spring leagues in the world.

Or more accurately IMO... If criminals are afraid they might be stopped and searched for guns, they won't carry guns.

And that family friendly thing doesn't seem to be working... unless you are talking about the Hatfields and McCoys.

Peist2007

Quin_Dub wrote: »

How about this?

Look at the difference in the answers given by both candidates to essentially the same question at the Veterans Townhall a few weeks ago..

Clinton gives a fairly detailed answer (which people can agree or disagree with)..

Trump says "Thanks for the question , everybody loves me, check out those Poll numbers!!"

One answer is debating , the other is bull****ting to be frank and three 2hr+ debates of that I would hope would allow people to see the utter lack of depth that Trump has on any subject other than himself..

No i don't care for transcripts or statements released by her website. I want to see some video of Hillary discussing her policy objectives (in relative depth). I know that is something Trump is definitely unable to do but Hillary is the "serious" candidate of the two so i figure there will be some footage of some questions on policy being answered fully?

ancapailldorcha

Peist2007 wrote: »

No i don't care for transcripts or statements released by her website. I want to see some video of Hillary discussing her policy objectives (in relative depth). I know that is something Trump is definitely unable to do but Hillary is the "serious" candidate of the two so i figure there will be some footage of some questions on policy being answered fully?

This took me seconds to find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KoqciVEysk

Peist2007

Overheal wrote: »

your problem might be expecting information on twitter?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary%20clinton%20policy&eob=m.0d06m5//short

Like you should almost be offended its that simple - but, it is. Google does a bang-up job telling you what her stance/policy is on a breadth of issues. There is also her website

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

I think the insinuation you're reaching for is "she doesn't have any substance" when actually, it appears you just haven't looked.

I have looked. I cannot see any video anywhere of Hillary setting out her policy objectives. Telling people in Michigan that she was going to protect the rust belt would only count if she set out the plan for doing so. All i have heard are meaningless soundbites.

However, she is the real proper candidate so i am sure there is somewhere. Your two links - the first takes me to a google search and the second takes me to her website. Call my cynical but Hillary isnt a web designer and didn't design her website.

I want to see Clinton exhibiting the smarts on policy issues that are going to definitely win her the debates. Can you point me to a video of such?

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Or more accurately IMO... If criminals are afraid they might be stopped and searched for guns, they won't carry guns.

And that family friendly thing doesn't seem to be working... unless you are talking about the Hatfields and McCoys.

Any evidence to back up your statement?

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Or more accurately IMO... If criminals are afraid they might be stopped and searched for guns, they won't carry guns.

And that family friendly thing doesn't seem to be working... unless you are talking about the Hatfields and McCoys.

It seems debatable how successful it is plus it contributed to things like black lives matters which creates even more divide along racial lines.

The family friendly thing works in England compared to what watching a soccer game was like in the 80's.

If you are looking for something that will stop all gun crime well it isn't going to do that, nothing will in a gun loving country like the US. But generally, stop racially profiling people and they won't feel as if they are getting targeted because of just the colour of their skin. Don't treat a Muslim as a suspected terrorist and there's less chance they'll go "feck this, everybody thinks I'm a terrorist so..."

Peist2007

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This took me seconds to find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KoqciVEysk

I saw that speech. Hence why i was able to disregard it. Extremely unimpressive.

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

Or more accurately IMO... If criminals are afraid they might be stopped and searched for guns, they won't carry guns.

And that family friendly thing doesn't seem to be working... unless you are talking about the Hatfields and McCoys.

US conservatives have been spectacularly wrong about guns long enough that I can't afford their opinions any legitimacy.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This took me seconds to find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KoqciVEysk

I can’t watch the video, but looking at the header regarding 'Foreign Policy,' I have to ask... Is she touting undermining the sacrifice of servicemen and women by reaching out to the Taliban in Afghanistan while they were killing American troops? Does she tout supporting the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq which led to the creation of ISIS? Does she tout supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (a designated terrorist organization in Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia) throughout the Middle East and in the United States which undermined American Muslim allies? Did she tout refusing to designate the Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization in Nigeria? Did she tout undermining the democratic Iranian Green Revolution in 2009? And does she tout supporting the Iran Nuclear deal? Quite some foreign policy accomplishments, wouldn't you say?