2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

oik

This is quite a bizarre statement. Obama is a democratically elected president who's duty it is to nominate a supreme courts judge. The GOP controlled Senate are refusing to consider the nominee. Where's the democracy there?

This is a pretty bizarre digression. I don't think 9 people should use their authority to make laws from the bench. I think it's undemocratic. There is an entire school of legal philosophy to back up my position. Your position that the GOP HAVE to consider a nominee is undemocratic is a meaningless talking point. Do you remember how the GOP came to control the Senate? That's right, they were democratically elected.

I hope to god you don't believe that the actions of judges are democratic because they're appointed by the democratically elected president, because you'd get an D in constitutional law for trying that waffle.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

This is a pretty bizarre digression. I don't think 9 people should use their authority to make laws from the bench. I think it's undemocratic. There is an entire school of legal philosophy to back up my position. Your position that the GOP HAVE to consider a nominee is undemocratic is a meaningless talking point. Do you remember how the GOP came to control the Senate? That's right, they were democratically elected.

The Supreme Court have never made law. This is the most wonderful myth perpetuated be the right. Well every time they make a progressive ruling. When they make a ruling conservatives support there is no such outcry.

The GOP control the senate through elections. A fine point indeed. Except the Senate is not democratically elected. It's not one man one vote. You know each state gets 2 senators regardless of population. Alaska and California have equal representation in the senate. This is not democracy.

At least Obama had clear wins in the popular vote, whatever you think of the electoral college carry on.

I hope to god you don't believe that the actions of judges are democratic because they're appointed by the democratically elected president, because you'd get an D in constitutional law for trying that waffle.

You know there are 3 branches of government? Right? The Supreme Court being one branch? Only one branch of government can create law and that's the legislative branch. It's up to the Supreme Court to decide if said laws are constitutional. That's it. That's all they have the power to do. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the power given to them by the constitution.

I never said the decisions of judges was democratic or otherwise. Because it's irrelevant to their role in government.

KingBrian2

Christy42 wrote: »

Why does it take intellegence? It obviously requires a rich white shouty man in the right place. The odds of that man existing were quite high and that man has managed to reach this point. That is the most ridiculous evidence of someone's intellegence I have ever seen. I am aware that voting for anything different is seen as a good idea and is working well (which would speak against Trump being their due to intellegence given Farage won a vote that way) but that does not mean it is a good idea.

I did not say all Trump supporters were racist. I said one was (well and Trump so I said two were racist). I am pretty confident that two is lowballing the number by quite a bit as well. Heck it even lowballs the number of racists in Hillary's side in all likelihood.

Trump is running his campaign on being a rich man and yet it is a mistake for Hillary to have one at the debate? I am sure it is a mistake but only because they seem to be measured on different standards.

This election it has been the left, Democrats that have been emphasizing the White Rich Man stereotype. They copied what the hard right have been saying about African Americans and using it against Trump. The left argument is to slander Trump and let Clinton get away with abuse.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This election it has been the left, Democrats that have been emphasizing the White Rich Man stereotype. They copied what the hard right have been saying about African Americans and using it against Trump. The left argument is to slander Trump and let Clinton get away with abuse.

What left? There's 2 players in this game. The right and slightly less right.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

What left? There's 2 players in this game. The right and slightly less right.

In America the Democrats are as left as they go. Though in reality they are a mixed bag.

B_Wayne

Supreme courts interpreting the constitution is pretty standard in plenty of democracies including Ireland. It frequently stands up for minorities in the US throughout its time. Eg it was far better in terms of striking down unjust laws that were racist and unconstitutional over letting the majority to decide on the rights of others.

Mightn't agree with some decisions but yep, I have a lot of respect for the role it holds in the US. The tyranny of the majority can be a threat to a fair democracy.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

In America the Democrats are as left as they go. Though in reality they are a mixed bag.

What about the American communist party?

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This election it has been the left, Democrats that have been emphasizing the White Rich Man stereotype. They copied what the hard right have been saying about African Americans and using it against Trump. The left argument is to slander Trump and let Clinton get away with abuse.

Quoting someone is not slandering them. I take it you don't think Cuban going is a mistake for Hillary then? That is what Robert was getting at (but somehow he forgot that the same thing applies to Trump)

PopePalpatine

oik wrote: »

Do you think he'll actually implement a plan that everyone (including him presumably) knows won't work, you do you think he'll moderate his plan down to something more workable?

Thing I like about Trump is that typically politicians who talk about cutting taxes or raising spending don't like to talk about the deficit and vice versa. When did Bernie Sanders ever address the deficit? Trump occupies both sides of the fence, which makes me think that when in office he will have the mandate to do whatever works rather than what he's promised to do, because he has promised to do both. That means he doesn't waste much political capital doing things he needs to do with the budget and can use it on more reforms.

Ah shure that's grand, we'll just totally disregard his own stated policy and hope a man who's bankrupted his companies SIX times (Trump Taj Mahal Casino in 1991, Trump Castle Casino in 1992, Trump Plaza & Casino in 1992, Plaza Hotel in 1992, Trump Hotels & Casinos Resorts in 2004 and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009) knows what he's doing.

oik

Ah shure that's grand, we'll just totally disregard his own stated policy and hope a man who's bankrupted his companies SIX times (Trump Taj Mahal Casino in 1991, Trump Castle Casino in 1992, Trump Plaza & Casino in 1992, Plaza Hotel in 1992, Trump Hotels & Casinos Resorts in 2004 and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009) knows what he's doing.

Oh, the bankruptcy meme. I know you've never run a business.

It is better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all.

Quin_Dub

oik wrote: »

Do you think he'll actually implement a plan that everyone (including him presumably) knows won't work, you do you think he'll moderate his plan down to something more workable?

Thing I like about Trump is that typically politicians who talk about cutting taxes or raising spending don't like to talk about the deficit and vice versa. When did Bernie Sanders ever address the deficit? Trump occupies both sides of the fence, which makes me think that when in office he will have the mandate to do whatever works rather than what he's promised to do, because he has promised to do both. That means he doesn't waste much political capital doing things he needs to do with the budget and can use it on more reforms.

But the question remains - "What works" for whom??

Everything Donald Trump has done thus far in his life has been for one purpose only - What works for him.

It's an absolutely legitimate concern that he'll continue to do just that from the White house , just on a grander and far more damaging scale..

conditioned games

oik wrote: »

Oh, the bankruptcy meme. I know you've never run a business.

It is better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all.

He succeeded in reforming bankrupt companies then he might succeed in reforming a bankrupt country.

K-9

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

So Sky News will show this live ?

Channel 4 seem to have it as well.

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This election it has been the left, Democrats that have been emphasizing the White Rich Man stereotype. They copied what the hard right have been saying about African Americans and using it against Trump. The left argument is to slander Trump and let Clinton get away with abuse.

Clinton said something "abusive" once in this campaign AFAIK which she got criticised.

What was the other abuse?

oik

But the question remains - "What works" for whom??

Everything Donald Trump has done thus far in his life has been for one purpose only - What works for him.

It's an absolutely legitimate concern that he'll continue to do just that from the White house , just on a grander and far more damaging scale..

It's a legitimate concern, but considering Bill and Hillary earned about 230 million since leaving the White House and Trump makes that from his businesses in a year, going into politics seems like a less effective way to self-serve the richer you get. Surely he would be better to stay on the outside and influence it with money like all the other billionaires if that was his goal.

The life of a president is a serious drop in living standards for a billionaire, the pressure, the lack of freedom, etc. I can't see past that when assessing his true motivations.

oik

He succeeded in reforming bankrupt companies then he might succeed in reforming a bankrupt country.

Indeed.

People also don't understand the difference between chapter 7 bankruptcy and chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

One involves actually going out of business, the other involves restructuring the business so it can continue operations and debt repayments. To my knowledge Trump has only ever sought the latter. You cannot say that someone who filed for bankruptcy protection "went bankrupt" because it's a contradiction in terms.

I know some people on this thread understand the difference but still use it as an attack hoping no one will notice.



I wonder how the honesty brigade appreciate Clinton's constant misrepresentations about Trump's filing for bankruptcy protection. Either she doesn't know the difference or is deliberately misleading people.

Rjd2

K-9 wrote: »

Channel 4 seem to have it as well.

Will be on BBC new channel also

ancapailldorcha

Gary Johnson's image as a pragmatic, liberal centrist has just taken a slight knock:

CNN wrote:

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson offered an outta this world solution on Sunday to the planet's environmental crises.

"We do have to inhabit other planets. The future of the human race is space exploration," Johnson said on ABC's "This Week."
Johnson was responding to a question about comments he made in 2011 at the National Press Club when he said people should think about global warming in the long term, because one day in the distant future, "the sun will engulf the Earth."
The third-party candidate waved off his past remarks, calling them a joke.

Source

Igotadose

oik wrote: »

It's a legitimate concern, but considering Bill and Hillary earned about 230 million since leaving the White House and Trump makes that from his businesses in a year, going into politics seems like a less effective way to self-serve the richer you get. Surely he would be better to stay on the outside and influence it with money like all the other billionaires if that was his goal.

The life of a president is a serious drop in living standards for a billionaire, the pressure, the lack of freedom, etc. I can't see past that when assessing his true motivations.

Proof? Totalling (roughly) what's in his FEC filing using the high-end for the income sources as many are just a range, got around $200M for his income.

Trump might not earn anything close to that. There's no data either way till the returns come out. FEC filings are vague things.

oik

Proof? Totalling (roughly) what's in his FEC filing using the high-end for the income sources as many are just a range, got around $200M for his income.

Trump might not earn anything close to that. There's no data either way till the returns come out. FEC filings are vague things.

Okay, so according to you he makes 200 million, not 230 million. That's also not including his Apprentice salary which is massive.

I'm not interested in the details, the point is he'll make more money out of politics than inside. Unless he's going to engage in corruption, which with the spotlight that will be on him will be incredibly difficult. Whatever Clintons got away with it was because no one was keeping an eye on that foundation of theirs. Do you think for a second the media will cut him any slack? I don't think he does either.

K-9

Mod:

3 posts moved to the Presidential debate thread.

Please use that thread for discussion about tonight's debate.

KingBrian2

K-9 wrote: »

Clinton said something "abusive" once in this campaign AFAIK which she got criticised.

What was the other abuse?

Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump. She lied for the arms dealers and continues to distort the truth. Perhaps more importantly than the lies if we set them aside, she has no plans to change her conservative views. Russia is still the big enemy that America should concentrate on to berate. I mean talk about hypocrisy. It is up to America to decide who to become the next president but for me Trump is the better candidate.

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump. She lied for the arms dealers and continues to distort the truth. Perhaps more importantly than the lies if we set them aside, she has no plans to change her conservative views. Russia is still the big enemy that America should concentrate on to berate. I mean talk about hypocrisy. It is up to America to decide who to become the next president but for me Trump is the better candidate.

You stated the left let Hillary away with abuse. I asked you for examples, I can only think of one.

The above doesn't answer my question whatsoever.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump. She lied for the arms dealers and continues to distort the truth. Perhaps more importantly than the lies if we set them aside, she has no plans to change her conservative views. Russia is still the big enemy that America should concentrate on to berate. I mean talk about hypocrisy. It is up to America to decide who to become the next president but for me Trump is the better candidate.

No she isn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

oik

No she isn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

They are different types of dishonest.

When Trump speaks I know if he's lying or not and I know why. Eg. the Iraq war lie. His lying is transparent and therefore not as dangerous or unnerving.

When Clinton speaks I have no idea what the truth is. I can't even believe her when she says she has pneumonia. That level of untrustworthiness in a president is hard to achieve. It takes a lifetime of lying to earn that much skepticism. It makes my uncomfortable to think that I won't be able to believe anything that comes out of the Clinton administration and that a friendly media will cover for her if needed.

Suryavarman

oik wrote: »

They are different types of dishonest.

When Trump speaks I know if he's lying or not and I know why. Eg. the Iraq war lie. His lying is transparent and therefore not as dangerous or unnerving.

When Clinton speaks I have no idea what the truth is. I can't even believe her when she says she has pneumonia. That level of untrustworthiness in a president is hard to achieve. It takes a lifetime of lying to earn that much skepticism. It makes my uncomfortable to think that I won't be able to believe anything that comes out of the Clinton administration and that a friendly media will cover for her if needed.

Just going to post this again in case you didn't see it before:



And could you learn to quote a post properly, it's very easy to do and it makes it much easier to follow a thread.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump.

Especially since Donald Trump released his tax returns like all presidential candidates have for decades. By releasing them, he showed America that he has nothing to hide.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Why does it take intellegence? It obviously requires a rich white shouty man in the right place. The odds of that man existing were quite high and that man has managed to reach this point. That is the most ridiculous evidence of someone's intellegence I have ever seen. I am aware that voting for anything different is seen as a good idea and is working well (which would speak against Trump being their due to intellegence given Farage won a vote that way) but that does not mean it is a good idea.

I did not say all Trump supporters were racist. I said one was (well and Trump so I said two were racist). I am pretty confident that two is lowballing the number by quite a bit as well. Heck it even lowballs the number of racists in Hillary's side in all likelihood.

Trump is running his campaign on being a rich man and yet it is a mistake for Hillary to have one at the debate? I am sure it is a mistake but only because they seem to be measured on different standards.

Can't stand Farage, but he delivered a message to win. He then admitted the lies about the NHS money when the vote was over and he on the winning side.
The intelligence is in winning an election. The intelligence is reading what people want and then saying you will deliver it.
All candidates will lie to win.

I know you weren't saying all were racist but I just wanted to make sure and also to make it clear I do not support Marine le Pen.

The difference is the message.
Clinton with all her billionaires supporting her, and then celebrities. I don't see what these endorsements do apart from say 'I have privileged people supporting me'.
Then she decides to bring one of her privileged friends to the debate, it says 'out of touch'.
Do people in Ireland say 'Oh Denis O'Brien is supporting FG, I must support FG, and he is also a friend of the Clintons, I really must support them and FG'?
No, they see a privileged man, who does not relate to the average Irish person.
Trump may be a billionaire but he has focused on the rust belt and the average Joe Soap, billionaires giving out about him - which ironically is good for Trump.
People see two rich people, one who goes to California to get mega rich celebrities fund raise for her, and who has billionaires endorsing her, the other who is raising a lot of money from small donors and who the polls show has a voter base who are more enthusiastic about him.
Do people really think it is good for a candidate to bring along a billionaire friend who does not relate to the American people?

oik

And could you learn to quote a post properly, it's very easy to do and it makes it much easier to follow a thread.

Trustworthiness can't be quantified in a graph. Pretty laughable attempt to do so.

I've already explained why Trump is more trustworthy, if you can't understand it that's on you.


It won't let me use the reply feature, perhaps because I haven't got enough posts.

oik

Especially since Donald Trump released his tax returns like all presidential candidates have for decades. By releasing them, he showed America that he has nothing to hide.

Yes Donald, release your tax returns. We won't spend the next 2 months chasing down red herrings from your tax returns to help Hillary run out the clock.

Even if he has nothing to hide releasing them is stupid.

oscarBravo

oik wrote: »

I've already explained why Trump is more trustworthy...

Because you think you can tell when he's lying, and that makes his lies acceptable. It doesn't matter that he lies more than pretty much any candidate in history; he's "trustworthy" because you've decided that his lies are acceptable.

It's hard to see that as anything other than Kool-aid, frankly.

conditioned games

Black Swan wrote: »

Especially since Donald Trump released his tax returns like all presidential candidates have for decades. By releasing them, he showed America that he has nothing to hide.

He decided against releasing his tax returns as it takes away from the message he is given about America. He speaks his mind and tells it as it is. Clinton has special minders telling her what to say. She tells lies and never owns up to been wrong. Trump is alot more trustworthy than Clinton by a long shot.

oik

Why have they only rated one of Trump's statements as true and dozens of Hillary's? Has Trump said only 1 true thing in his campaign and did Hillary's statements really need to be fact-checked or are they just filler?

Anyone with even a secondary school knowledge of statistics can see the problem with making any inferences from that graph right off the bat, but anti-Trump idiots will continue to post it as though it's evidence of anything. You need something to confirm your bias I suppose.

oik

Because you think you can tell when he's lying, and that makes his lies acceptable. It doesn't matter that he lies more than pretty much any candidate in history; he's "trustworthy" because you've decided that his lies are acceptable.

It's hard to see that as anything other than Kool-aid, frankly.

I know when he's lying because he's easily fact checked. Hillary hides every bit of info about herself and doesn't make herself accessible to the media. If she gets elected, expect it to be the least transparent White House ever. It's not hard to understand. Even for a mod.

K-9

oik wrote: »

Trustworthiness can't be quantified in a graph. Pretty laughable attempt to do so.|/QUOTE]

What?

I've already explained why Trump is more trustworthy, if you can't understand it that's on you.


It won't let me use the reply feature, perhaps because I haven't got enough posts.

Evidence always beats opinion though!

K-9

oik wrote: »

I know when he's lying because he's easily fact checked. Hillary hides every bit of info about herself and doesn't make herself accessible to the media. If she gets elected, expect it to be the least transparent White House ever. It's not hard to understand. Even for a mod.

That's the third or 4th go at a mod in the last few days.

Enough. Attack the post, not the poster.

oscarBravo

oik wrote: »

I know when he's lying because he's easily fact checked.

So you're OK with him being a pathological liar because it's obvious that he's lying.

Remove the Trump-tinted glasses for a second, and think about what you're saying: you're saying that it's OK to be an appalling candidate as long as it's obvious that you're an appalling candidate.

You're saying that the fact that someone is apparently emotionally incapable of telling the truth makes him a better candidate than someone about whom you don't know every single aspect of their lives.

Hillary hides every bit of info about herself and doesn't make herself accessible to the media. If she gets elected, expect it to be the least transparent White House ever.

This makes her a terrible candidate in your eyes. But when Trump hides his tax returns, that's something you applaud.

Admit it: the reason it's OK for Trump to conceal something about himself is because he's not Clinton. It's not like you're espousing a blatant double standard, or anything.

It's not hard to understand. Even for a mod.

Oh, I understand it alright. Clinton bad, Trump good, even when they do the same thing.

Kool-aid. And I'm not a mod here. If you need me to explain that to you in short words, let me know.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Can't stand Farage, but he delivered a message to win. He then admitted the lies about the NHS money when the vote was over and he on the winning side.
The intelligence is in winning an election. The intelligence is reading what people want and then saying you will deliver it.
All candidates will lie to win.

I know you weren't saying all were racist but I just wanted to make sure and also to make it clear I do not support Marine le Pen.

The difference is the message.
Clinton with all her billionaires supporting her, and then celebrities. I don't see what these endorsements do apart from say 'I have privileged people supporting me'.
Then she decides to bring one of her privileged friends to the debate, it says 'out of touch'.
Do people in Ireland say 'Oh Denis O'Brien is supporting FG, I must support FG, and he is also a friend of the Clintons, I really must support them and FG'?
No, they see a privileged man, who does not relate to the average Irish person.
Trump may be a billionaire but he has focused on the rust belt and the average Joe Soap, billionaires giving out about him - which ironically is good for Trump.
People see two rich people, one who goes to California to get mega rich celebrities fund raise for her, and who has billionaires endorsing her, the other who is raising a lot of money from small donors and who the polls show has a voter base who are more enthusiastic about him.
Do people really think it is good for a candidate to bring along a billionaire friend who does not relate to the American people?

Winning an election does not mean you are intellegent. It is not a required trait to do it. Plenty of dumb people have won elections.

Except part of Trump's message is peddling his own wealth. Heck he even called a press conference about the birther issue to advertise his hotel. Trump made his money an issue.

As I said it was a mistake on Hillary's part. No one would care if Trump had done the same thing simply because it so low on the list of his mistakes.

conditioned games

Suryavarman wrote: »

Just going to post this again in case you didn't see it before:



And could you learn to quote a post properly, it's very easy to do and it makes it much easier to follow a thread.

Ah Politifact published by the left wing Tampa Bay Times. Using statements measured against their left wing inaccurate view points to determine if the statement is true or false. Well that settles that then, if Politifact says its false then they must be right.

ECO_Mental

oik wrote: »

They are different types of dishonest.

When Trump speaks I know if he's lying or not and I know why. Eg. the Iraq war lie. His lying is transparent and therefore not as dangerous or unnerving.

I really dont know what to say about this, when you get someone saying that I like a person because he is an honest liar and I don't care what lies he tells me I like his lies...I think you have to give up and stop trying to talk sense into that person because statements like that are unbelievable:eek: and disturbing. Can you not see how crazy a statement like that is.

Akrasia

Okay, I've finally figured it out. Trump fans have confused a brass neck for a working brain.

Con artists can be stupid, but as long as they have a brass neck, they have a good chance of getting their mark

frostyjacks

Trump just has to be himself in this debate and he'll do well. Hilary has to try and keep up an act for 90 mins, which is no mean feat, especially given her ill health.

Trump is the only real option for the Whitehouse. He will rebuild the country, tackle Islamic terrorism abroad and black terrorism at home. Hail victory!

Akrasia

frostyjacks wrote: »

Trump just has to be himself in this debate and he'll do well. Hilary has to try and keep up an act for 90 mins, which is no mean feat, especially given her ill health.

Trump is the only real option for the Whitehouse. He will rebuild the country, tackle Islamic terrorism abroad and black terrorism at home. Hail victory!

Trump has learned enough to know how to play the moderator in these debates. He will lie and lie and lie, and if he gets called on any lies, he will accuse the moderator or his opponent of being a liar or 'treating him unfairly'

I think Trump will do a lot better than Hillary because he will drag the debate into the gutter where he is most comfortable.

Another candidate may have been able to rise above it, but Clinton is so unpopular and distrusted that she's crippled from the start

Peist2007

Both candidates are completely dishonest, that shouldnt even be up for debate. One is dishonest in a narcissistic self aggrandising manner. The other dishonest in a murderous, corporate-pillaging manner. Has to be admired that people have been fooled into supporting the latter.

RobertKK

New poll for Minnesota, moves from Clinton to a toss up

Clinton 43%
Trump 43%

Overheal

Collected polls show I'll take several days to reflect debate changes.

The press is already going a bit mad over Trumps tax gaffe. "That makes me smart" his response to not paying taxes.

He went into the spin room after the debate and complained to journalists that he had been furnished with a defective microphone which as you could see had you watched the debate, is just a pants on fire claim.

This will all surely make the media interesting to eyeball tomorrow. Prepare thyself for cries of media bias.

TheDoctor

Having watched most of last night.

Trump started well, but had a horror show at the end.

Clinton won.

cowboyBuilder

Agreed, Trump did start well, but I fell asleep so didn't see the end, but have seen a recap.

Pity, when is the next debate ?

cowboyBuilder

Listening to SOR here, they are being quite fair to be honest.

TheDoctor

VP Debate - 4 Oct
2nd Pres Debate - 9 Oct
3rd Pres Debate - 19 Oct