2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Christy42

conditioned games wrote: »

He got his message across, all online polls including reputable ones had him destroying Clinton. Mainstream media had Clinton win, these are controlled media corporations owned by wealthy elite people that don't represent the average American. He needs to attack more next time but still his message is powerful and with the crowds his getting I'm confident he can win for the ordinary man and woman.

And polls since the debate have shown Clinton gaining strength. Aside from being proud of not paying his way (I thought Republicans hated those note being able to pay their way) what was his message?

oik

$2.00... $900,000,000.00... sure what's the difference, right?

There's no difference when it comes to matter of principle.

If you'll claim tax back for donating your used underwear you'll claim everything you can.

oik

Hardly. Conspiracy theorists tend to believe conspiracy theories. You have 0 evidence of Hillary's I'll health. You may also note that I chose conspiracy theories that Trump believes (the fact that he leaves his house without a tin foil hat is impressive really).

I have evidence of her collapsing in public. Would you like to see it?

oik

you wanted to claim Trump is 'more transparent' than Clinton

No I didn't. I outlined the various risks of both candidates.

But since you mention it, Trump is extremely transparent. He's transparent to a fault.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

There's no difference when it comes to matter of principle.

If you'll claim tax back for donating your used underwear you'll claim everything you can.

Well then you concede that Trump is no more transparent than Clinton, since it's all a matter of principle. Basically making the one claim you were willing to defend, by your own admission, pointless.

PopePalpatine

If online polls were anything to go by, Ron Paul would be coming to the end of an 8-year stint in the White House.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

No I didn't. I outlined the various risks of both candidates.

You claimed lack of transparency was a risk for Clinton, but not for Trump. So yes, you did. Very, very simple. See, here is it:

oik wrote: »

Risks of a Trump presidency:
**No mention of transparency**

Risks of a HIllary presidency:
Lack of transparency:
Obama has been less transparent than most but Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to a lack of transparency.

There you go. Like I said, simple.

But since you mention it, Trump is extremely transparent. He's transparent to a fault.

So is Clinton then. See, I can make a statement that has no baring on reality also. Back to those tax returns since he's so 'transparent to a fault'... where are they?

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

It utterly baffles me how you can keep bringing this up while singing the praises of Condoleeza Rice. It's inherently hypocritical.

I mentioned Rice many many weeks ago, is she running for the presidency?

Clinton is going for the presidency and is great for the weapons and war industry.
She will bankrupt the country with wars, and when the damage is done, she will be unable to use her stupid reset button.

oik

When you were unable to refute them.

Just because I don't respond to every one of your allegations doesn't mean I can't refute them.

You don't command enough respect for me to worry about your unsubstantiated arguments being out in the ether unchallenged.

oik

You claimed lack of transparency was a risk for Clinton, but not for Trump.

That doesn't mean anything

Trump has never deleted any evidence or instructed an aide to. He has furnished his tax returns to the IRS which is as much transparency as the office of president requires.

And there's a huge difference between someone controlling information about themselves during a hotly contested political campaign and someone deliberately hiding their communications while in office in direct violation of the law.

oik

Yet Trump couldn't competently handle a 90 minute debate with Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt

fixed

dublinsdonal

Trump for president! Killary is not the right woman! I notice alot of women standing for her on the basis she is a woman....ridiculous.
The Irish have been supporting the Clitons for years through their foundation....says it all.
Its about time we as a world group shafted these political lizards....yes lizards

I vote for an international boycott world wide. Every system is corrupt to the core from here to Australia. Nothing changes in Ireland....there should have been a revolution!!!!!!!!!

F FG, F FF, F labour.....

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Did you just admit Trump was incompetent? Just not as bad as Hillary.

I have said both of the main candidates are terrible, but Hillary is a proven warmonger who has shown that voting to destroy one country was not enough for her...I mean a person should learn from their mistakes, a person who repeats the same mistakes again and again is worse than incompetent if they have power, they are dangerous as well as stupid, and no reset button will fix the disasters she has contributed to, and one could argue she contributed to Brexit with her disastrous Middle Eastern policies and the subsequent migrant crisis and increase in terrorism in Europe.
She was a dangerous woman as secretary of state and will be even more so when she has no Obama to put on the brakes like he did with Syria.
One reason the Russians and Assad are going hell for leather right now is to have enough of the country under control before maybe Hillary is in power.
They know she wants to help the terrorists like she did in Libya.

Christy42

oik wrote: »

I have evidence of her collapsing in public. Would you like to see it?

You have evidence of her fainting. Do you have any evidence she has a serious health issue?
Remember she has a statement about her health that reads like it was written by a real doctor and not like a 10 year old attempting to get out of school.

InTheTrees

dublinsdonal wrote: »

I notice alot of women standing for her on the basis she is a woman....ridiculous.

Well a lot of it also has to do with trumps deep rooted misogyny. He seems proud of his sexism and doesn't hold back in showing it.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

Just because I don't respond to every one of your allegations doesn't mean I can't refute them.

You don't command enough respect for me to worry about your unsubstantiated arguments being out in the ether unchallenged.

That's a Donald Trump style excuse for not being able to refute them if ever I heard one.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

fixed

It's funny how immediately after the interview Trump praised Holt's moderation as fair.

Then when he nose dived it in the poles it's time to blame a defective mic and the moderator.

It's almost as if he was too blind to realise he was beaten directly after the debate. Blind and stupid.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything

Trump has never deleted any evidence or instructed an aide to. He has furnished his tax returns to the IRS which is as much transparency as the office of president requires.

Then you missed this, only from earlier this week... actually live during the debate when he lied again, claiming he never said it.



And why do you think he has repeatedly lied about not being able to release his tax returns while under audit? Something Warren Buffet and the IRS themselves called him out for lying about. Now why do you think this is?

And why did he lie again on Monday about them, saying it was "smart" that he pays no taxes during the debate, then claiming he never said that immediately afterwards?

And there's a huge difference between someone controlling information about themselves during a hotly contested political campaign and someone deliberately hiding their communications while in office in direct violation of the law.

There's very little difference between someone lying about deleting emails, and lying about not being able to release their taxes. The sad part is, you know this too. You just can't bring yourself to admit it in a public forum.

InTheTrees

Brian? wrote: »

It's almost as if he was too blind to realise he was beaten directly after the debate. Blind and stupid.

I think that's absolutely correct. A narcissist will always think they've won. They have to be told what people think about them and even then they probably won't believe it.

oik

Well a lot of it also has to do with trumps deep rooted misogyny. He seems proud of his sexism and doesn't hold back in showing it.

>being male
>caring about sexism

oik

It's funny how immediately after the interview Trump praised Holt's moderation as fair.

I don't care what Trump said.

https : //i . gyazo . com/762357742677137ad28aaea6bca6f29d . png

This speaks for itself.

The Clinton directed questions were total softballs.

oik

http : //www . zerohedge . com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump

Clinton caught using the same tax avoidance scheme as Trump.

This won't get nearly as much coverage now.

Count Dooku

Clinton supporters are getting more desperate in swing states
More than 1,000 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, have been free to vote illegally in Virginia.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

I don't care what Trump said.

Oh I can believe that. Nothing Trumps says seems to phase you either way, yet somehow you support him.

https : //i . gyazo . com/762357742677137ad28aaea6bca6f29d . png

This speaks for itself.

The Clinton directed questions were total softballs.

That URL proves something?

Holt was a very restrained moderator IMO. He allowed Trump his verbosity and didn't ask him to stop his childish interruptions.

Lester Holt didn't make Trump look bad. Donald Trump made himself look bad. He interrupted, lied and attempted to bully Hillary. She remained calm and actually said very little. Trump repeatedly talked himself into trouble.

oik

That URL proves something?

It proves he went easy on Clinton.

Hardest question she got was "he mentioned your emails would you like to address that?"

If you deny he went easy on her having seen this list of questions then you're too dishonest to even talk to.

At least pretend the list is fake or something.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

It proves he went easy on Clinton.

Hardest question she got was "he mentioned your emails would you like to address that?"

If you deny he went easy on her having seen this list of questions then you're too dishonest to even talk to.

At least pretend the list is fake or something.

The link isn't actually a link. I can't open it with a tap. Calm your britches.

Whatever the list says, Holt moderated well. You haven't quoted the rest of my post so I assume your are ceding the points therein.

Suryavarman

oik wrote: »

It proves he went easy on Clinton.

Hardest question she got was "he mentioned your emails would you like to address that?"

If you deny he went easy on her having seen this list of questions then you're too dishonest to even talk to.

At least pretend the list is fake or something.

It was very unfair the way he allowed Trump to talk over him and interrupt Clinton 51 times while Clinton only interrupted Trump 17 times. Clinton was blessed to get such a favourable moderator.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything

Trump has never deleted any evidence or instructed an aide to. He has furnished his tax returns to the IRS which is as much transparency as the office of president requires.

And there's a huge difference between someone controlling information about themselves during a hotly contested political campaign and someone deliberately hiding their communications while in office in direct violation of the law.

http://americannewsx.com/hot-off-the-press/donald-trump-destroyed-email-evidence/

I remember advising you on numerous occasions to avoid looking foolish by fact checking your claims :rolleyes:

oik

The link isn't actually a link. I can't open it with a tap. Calm your britches.

Whatever the list says, Holt moderated well. You haven't quoted the rest of my post so I assume your are ceding the points therein.

Just remove the spaces.

Why are you the second person to claim I have ceded the point because I didn't respond? I don't respond to every point because if I did I would argue the same points over and over with everyone.

oik

To Overheal:

I was wondering why you linked to a tiny news site. Now I know because it's a non-story. This is a story about Trump trying to sue someone and finding out that the evidence he needed to sue was deleted automatically by the email service provider.

"Employees testified that they almost all used privately-acquired email accounts like AOL, that there were there no email archiving protocols, and that “every year everything was just wiped out and deleted from pretty much everybody’s computers,” according to transcripts from the case. One relevant Trump employee got a new computer after the original lawsuit was filed."


This is like Clinton how? Trump's automatically employees deleted emails that could HELP him sue his former employee. This was before the emails were considered "evidence" because it was before any improprieties had occurred.

This is not the same as Clinton deleting possibly incriminating evidence AFTER receiving a subpoena.

Your eyes are rolling because your head is spinning.

ancapailldorcha

dublinsdonal wrote: »

Trump for president! Killary is not the right woman! I notice alot of women standing for her on the basis she is a woman....ridiculous.
The Irish have been supporting the Clitons for years through their foundation....says it all.
Its about time we as a world group shafted these political lizards....yes lizards

I vote for an international boycott world wide. Every system is corrupt to the core from here to Australia. Nothing changes in Ireland....there should have been a revolution!!!!!!!!!

F FG, F FF, F labour.....

Use the candidate's proper names please and try to post more constructively.

oik

Use the candidate's proper names please and try to post more constructively.

Why can't I quote posts? How many posts do I need? very annoying.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

Why can't I quote posts? How many posts do I need? very annoying.

You should be able to by now.

oik

Billy

Now why do you think this is?

Because releasing them would be politically damaging. I've said as much. So has his son. It's an open secret that billionaires can legally pay barely any taxes.

It's legal, but it's not popular with an electorate who don't understand the complexities of the situation.

I knew all along that he probably paid less than 15% (Romney's rate) and he learned from Romney's mistake. It cannot help a businessman to release his tax returns when running against a non-business person.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

Billy



Because releasing them would be politically damaging. I've said as much. So has his son. It's an open secret that billionaires can legally pay barely any taxes.

It's legal, but it's not popular with an electorate who don't understand the complexities of the situation.

I knew all along that he probably paid less than 15% (Romney's rate) and he learned from Romney's mistake. It cannot help a businessman to release his tax returns when running against a non-business person.

So a complete lack of transparency from a political perspective then, made considerably worse by lying about not being able to release them (even in the debate, long after he had been called on it) and then lying again about 'never saying' it is 'smart' to not pay taxes.

So basically, just as I said. Just as big a risk as Clinton in terms of transparency, what with it being about the principle and all.

Overheal

The electorate understands that they've been sold "trickle down economics" and that people like Trump can lament the fact that people don't pay taxes while still not paying taxes?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/172772609627394049

And that if given a choice that wasn't dressed up the way it has been they would all in majority numbers surely not vote for someone who is part of the problem. The same spin and rhetoric when extended the bush era tax cuts.

In other news, Trump is letting his narcissism and Staminah get to his head, tweeting about beauty pageants and doing stand up comedy in the form of rallies instead of, like Clinton, preparing for the next debate. What good is his "Staminah" if it's powering the attention span of a walnut?

oik

Just as big a risk as Clinton in terms of transparency

Well, no.

Trump has never destroyed evidence under subpoena and his public and private life are two different things.

If you want to argue that his conduct in regards to his tax returns, which are totally confidential and he is under no obligation to release are indicative of how he would behave in relation to subpoenaed evidence you have an uphill struggle

I know from my perspective, I'm not showing anyone my bank statement or my tax returns or even my boards.ie password no matter what office I'm seeking.

But if I received a warrant or subpoena for any of these things I would comply immediately.

You have to establish why both of these scenarios (obligation/no obligation) are the same.

oik

surely not vote for someone who is part of the problem

It's not the people avoiding tax who are the problem. The law is the problem. Who makes the law?

oik

It was very unfair the way he allowed Trump to talk over him and interrupt Clinton 51 times while Clinton only interrupted Trump 17 times. Clinton was blessed to get such a favourable moderator.

Candidates should interrupt one another. They should both be knocked off their scripts.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

Just remove the spaces.

No thanks. I'm on the phone.

Why are you the second person to claim I have ceded the point because I didn't respond? I don't respond to every point because if I did I would argue the same points over and over with everyone.

That's how debate works. If you don't directly address a point made and form some sort of rebuttal, you are conceding on the point by default.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

Candidates should interrupt one another. They should both be knocked off their scripts.

No they shouldn't. A stronger moderator would have snuffed it out. Holt was killing himself being impartial while Trump acted the loud mouth brat.

This may come as a surprise but a moderator is not just there to ask questions, they're there to enforce the rules. Without moderation the whole thing would descend into a shouting match. Which is what you seem to want.

ancapailldorcha

Raise the standard of posting please.

oik

Brian?

What about Clinton's constant interruptions when debating Sanders?

Was that childish, Overheal?


Just note, that they overcounted some of Trump's interruptions.

He said "wrong" a few times while she was bending the truth, but he didn't stop her from talking or cut across her. He just took some of the sting out of her shaky attacks.

She also interrupted him 17 times. Not an insignificant number of interruptions. So you'd have to look at the substance of the interruptions to get the real story. Simply counting them doesn't tell you much of value.

oik

No thanks. I'm on the phone.

Well then. I'm not discussing the debate with you until you've had a chance to look at it.

InTheTrees

oik wrote: »

It's not the people avoiding tax who are the problem. The law is the problem. Who makes the law?

Trump not paying tax for over 15 years after losing nine hundred million dollars is a problem for the electorate.

oik

InTheTrees wrote: »

Trump not paying tax for over 15 years after losing nine hundred million dollars is a problem for the electorate.

So far it's a problem for the talking heads in the media. We'll see if it's a problem for the electorate.

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

So far it's a problem for the talking heads in the media. We'll see if it's a problem for the electorate.

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

Have you been paying any attention to the polls this week?

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote: »

Have you been paying any attention to the polls this week?

In fairness you can't paint that just on his "smartness" in not paying tax. I could have been almost anything he said during the debate.

FISMA.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Trump not paying tax for over 15 years...

Wrong.

Point of fact, he has paid tens of millions in taxes. Maybe, hundreds of millions over those 15 years and still donated to charity.

He has paid: property tax, sales tax, social security tax, state tax, county tax, and local taxes, to name a few.

That's enough for me.

Billy86

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

In fairness you can't paint that just on his "smartness" in not paying tax. I could have been almost anything he said during the debate.

It's definitely a combination of everything, but to suggest that in the current climate of this election (jobs, economy, the whole 99% vs 1% thing more alive than ever, and so on) that the undecideds won't care about someone who claims to have billions bragging about not paying any taxes (then lying about having never said so, right after) is... well I'll be diplomatic and say it's unrealistic.