2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Side Gate

One way or another it's not good for democracy to see the media so cosy with one political party in this election. CNN in particular has been an embarrassment.

Calina

Side Gate wrote: »

One way or another it's not good for democracy to see the media so cosy with one political party in this election. CNN in particular has been an embarrassment.

Fox is a bigger embarrassment and has been for years.

Christy42

Side Gate wrote: »

One way or another it's not good for democracy to see the media so cosy with one political party in this election. CNN in particular has been an embarrassment.

On the bright side we have fox for neutrality?
Seriously how is media bias only an issue when they are biased towards the left? Don't just reply that you think fox are just as biased. They are far far far more biased than cnn and yet you still picked cnn as your example. Heck Breitbart is effectively part of the Trump campaign at this point but no cnn is still the problem.

gosplan

oik wrote: »

I'll leave it to Donald Trump to explain what he meant by his own tweets

Useful.

So 'check out the sextape' meant something else.

Also clean coal doesn't actually exist yet.

And he can't seem to get numbers right

And the rape thing




It seems very strange that you'd argue for the truthfulness of Trump.

I mean, come on. Bash HRC all you want but you're just showing yourself up with that.

Trump is decisive, impulsive, inexperienced, lacks disclipine and lies a lot.

Now you might still want him, that's up to you.

But pretending he's not those things just ruins whatever else you have to say.

Peist2007

Phoebas wrote: »

Talks with the Russians? When did he announce that as his ISIS policy?
Here's what we said last night in relation to Russia and ISIS.

Does this amount to what you believe to be an actual policy? And will he also be opening talks with Iran on ISIS?

Trump has repeatedly referred to talking to Russia rather than the current status quo. Not sure how you cannot see that is directly linked to the ISIS situation given that is exactly what Russia and America are currently at loggerheads about. Not making the simple blatant connection should be worrying on your part.

Not sure why you're asking me questions on what Trump will do with Iran. What has Hillary done with Iran? Oh, yeah, awkward.

Peist2007

Side Gate wrote: »

One way or another it's not good for democracy to see the media so cosy with one political party in this election. CNN in particular has been an embarrassment.

100%, it's a joke. The emails show how far it goes with the media and the DNC. Trump has not had as similarly easy a ride as Clinton.

Let's face it, Clinton will win this election more votes or not.

cowboyBuilder

<snip>

Not so constructive here.

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

100%, it's a joke. The emails show how far it goes with the media and the DNC. Trump has not had as similarly easy a ride as Clinton.

Let's face it, Clinton will win this election more votes or not.

The only way Clinton will win the election is by getting more votes.

By crying foul and claiming the election is rigged, Trump is preparing his excuses for losing all of the swing states. It's looking like he may even lose some red states now.

johnnyskeleton

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

http://www.infowars.com/busted-bill-clintons-face-when-trump-brings-up-the-rape-allegations-is-priceless/


Bills Face

Mod note:

There have been many on thread warnings about below standards posts/ one liners of this nature. These types of comment are not serious political debate.

TheDoctor

Side Gate wrote: »

One way or another it's not good for democracy to see the media so cosy with one political party in this election.

Agreed, Donalds connections to Fox have been embarrassing.

Hannity advising his campaign and then having interviews on his Fox News show every other day.

And disgraced former Fox boss Roger Ailes also one of Trumps top advisers.

PopePalpatine

Speaking of Trump's ties to media organisations, has anyone heard of Robert Mercer?

Overheal

Peist2007 wrote:

What has Hillary done with Iran? Oh, yeah, awkward.

Are you referring to stuxnet? I thought it was rather clever though she can't take all the credit.

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

The only way Clinton will win the election is by getting more votes.

By crying foul and claiming the election is rigged, Trump is preparing his excuses for losing all of the swing states. It's looking like he may even lose some red states now.

I really don't know how you can say the above given what has come out about the Democratic primaries. Severely blinkered if you think it isnt past them. The US has form for this crack too with Bush Jnr and the Florida controversy.

I agree that Trump will cry foul after the election and will never accept defeat, its just not in his nature. However, that doesnt mean that the election isnt rigged. If they would do it to Sanders you can be sure they will do it to Trump.

Peist2007

TheDoctor wrote: »

Agreed, Donalds connections to Fox have been embarrassing.

Hannity advising his campaign and then having interviews on his Fox News show every other day.

And disgraced former Fox boss Roger Ailes also one of Trumps top advisers.

Did Fox News collude with the Republican party to help secure the primaries for Trump? Have you a link to such shocking revelations? Surely wikileaks were all over this?

I hate Fox News and blame them principally for there being a candidate such as Trump in this election. But they are not on the level of what has taken place over on the other side in this race.

Peist2007

Overheal wrote: »

Are you referring to stuxnet? I thought it was rather clever though she can't take all the credit.

Do you ever know what anyone on this thread is referring to?

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

I really don't know how you can say the above given what has come out about the Democratic primaries. Severely blinkered if you think it isnt past them. The US has form for this crack too with Bush Jnr and the Florida controversy.

I agree that Trump will cry foul after the election and will never accept defeat, its just not in his nature. However, that doesnt mean that the election isnt rigged. If they would do it to Sanders you can be sure they will do it to Trump.

The democratic primaries are basically private vote. It's up to the DNC how it's run. It's not supposed to be democratic. Not that I agree with how it was done. But the Dems don't even need to have primaries if they want to find a nominee.

The general is a whole different ball game. It's a federal election overseen by the Federal Election Comission.

How do you think they'll rig it?

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

The democratic primaries are basically private vote. It's up to the DNC how it's run. It's not supposed to be democratic. Not that I agree with how it was done. But the Dems don't even need to have primaries if they want to find a nominee.

The general is a whole different ball game. It's a federal election overseen by the Federal Election Comission.

How do you think they'll rig it?

I know how the US election processes work, many thanks.

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

I know how the US election processes work, many thanks.

Great, it didn't appear you did. So how do you think the Dems will rig the election?

K-9

Akrasia wrote: »

Nate Silver hasn't been performing that well this time. He has been introducing his own bias into his predictions and not following the raw Data. Nate didn't see Trump winning the GOP primary until late in the game because he kept inventing reasons to not trust the data that showed Trump steamrolling through his competition.

That said, he does seem to have learned from this, and is back to following the numbers and leaving his own opinion on the sideline. But even that aside, this election is very different to every other election in living memory. And the crazy can sometimes rise to the top (see brexit, which was way behind in the polls until the last minute when they snuck ahead)

Nate's main reasoning was he expected Trump to be the usual early front runner in the primaries who then fizzles out. Which was a fair enough prediction but as he said himself, he was ignoring the poll data.

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

Great, it didn't appear you did. So how do you think the Dems will rig the election?

Can you point out where i showed i dont know how this election process works please? Pretty poor behaviour from a Mod otherwise. You related to Hillary? Or just a sad person feeling invested at their keyboard in Ireland?

To answer your trolling question, I never professed to have a theory on mechanics of election fraud. However, it is simple logic to assume it possible given it has happened in this race already and in previous general elections. They aren't above it over there, on either side.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Seems like a reach. Saying they believe it could be belief in gay marriage (which they have stated many times at this point). Shrugs. I don't think it is a smoking gun in that regard. Plus Trump can't use it to attack with given his choice of VP. Hillary is obviously happy enough to not fight against gay marriage while Pence would. The pro LGBT choice is still obvious.

Talk of shy voters is hopeful. If anything Trump could struggle to match poll numbers. His ground game is dependent on the Republican party who could well focus on elections lower down the ballot leaving him without his voters actually voting.

Hillary will do or say whatever she thinks will get her votes and support. She did it with the trade agreements flip flop, she stands for nothing except gaining power.
She probably supports DOMA but knows the votes in the Democrat electorate are for gay marriage.
She is the worse type of politician.

Duck Soup

There's a lot of credit being given to Trump for pulling a candidacy that seemed dead and buried on Friday out of the hole and was back viable and snarling by the end of the second debate on Sunday.

Sorry but I don't buy it. Everyone says he re-energized his base, but that wasn't the job of work to be done.

His base will vote for him no matter what. He can wave his wang on top of the Statue of Liberty and his base will still vote for him. So the red meat - lock up Hillary, Bill's a bar steward etc. - that he threw to the base may have created noisy whoops, sold some more Chinese-made 'Make America Great Again' hats and led people to say that Trump won the debate, but it was precisely the wrong move.

He played to and pandered to people who were already going to vote for him and turned off the undecideds, independents and moderates he needs. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary will do or say whatever she thinks will get her votes and support. She did it with the trade agreements flip flop, she stands for nothing except gaining power.
She probably supports DOMA but knows the votes in the Democrat electorate are for gay marriage.
She is the worse type of politician.

I am still going with Mike Pence as worse by an insane order of magnitude on this issue.

I mean come on. The guy funded conversion therapy ffs.
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

Do you ever know what anyone on this thread is referring to?

Mod:

Cut it out.

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

Can you point out where i showed i dont know how this election process works please? Pretty poor behaviour from a Mod otherwise. You related to Hillary? Or just a sad person feeling invested at their keyboard in Ireland?

You theorised that Hillary would win, whether she got the most votes or not. This is a fair indication that you don't understand the electoral system.

I don't mod this forum and even if I did, i don't see how it's relevant.

To answer your trolling question, I never professed to have a theory on mechanics of election fraud. However, it is simple logic to assume it possible given it has happened in this race already and in previous general elections. They aren't above it over there, on either side.

I'm trolling by asking you for some sort of back up to a spurious accusation of election rigging.

The democratic primaries aren't an election. They are a mish mash of systems to choose a candidate. Controlled by a private organisation. So no election has been "rigged" this year.

I'll ask again, if you think this election will be rigged, how do you think it'll be done?

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

I am still going with Mike Pence as worse by an insane order of magnitude on this issue.

I mean come on. The guy funded conversion therapy ffs.
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/

Yes, but you know what you are getting.

Hillary has the worst trust poll ratings in the election, even worse than Trump. When you can't believe a politician because they lie, it makes them far worse than a politician who tells you what they believe even if unpopular.
I always prefer a genuine person other a fake person. You know where you stand, someone who is prepared to tell you something unpalatable and honestly to your face is far less likely to backstab you than someone who tells you what you want to hear.

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

You theorised that Hillary would win, whether she got the most votes or not. This is a fair indication that you don't understand the electoral system.

Are you insinuating that there has never been electoral fraud in the history of mankind? If so, then your argument makes a little sense. In reality, you're talking nonsense.

Maybe stick to talking about pecs and stuff?

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

Are you insinuating that there has never been electoral fraud in the history of mankind? If so, then your argument makes a little sense. In reality, you're talking nonsense.

Maybe stick to talking about pecs and stuff?

I'm sure there have been many instances of election fraud. I'm not the one predicting it'll happen this year and allow Clinton to win, you are. So how do you think the election will be rigged?

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

I'll ask again, if you think this election will be rigged, how do you think it'll be done?

Hillary will be declared the winner and she will not have received the most votes. That is how i imagine electoral fraud will work here, if it does transpire. Good question.

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

Hillary will be declared the winner and she will not have received the most votes. That is how i imagine electoral fraud will work here, if it does transpire. Good question.

That's not the "how", that's the result. How will it be rigged so Hillary is declared the winner without receiving the most votes? What will be the mechanism for the fraud?

There is a mechanism where she can win with fewer votes, thanks to the electoral college. But that's incredibly unlikely given Trump's implosion last week.

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not the one predicting it'll happen this year

It has already happened this year.

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

It has already happened this year.

Again, the Democratic Party primaries are not supposed to be free and fair elections. Unlike the general, which is overseen by the FEC.

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

What will be the mechanism for the fraud?

Counting.

Any other stupid questions?

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

Again, the Democratic Party primaries are not supposed to be free and fair elections. Unlike the general, which is overseen by the FEC.

So you admit that fraud has happened this year. Well done!

Varik

Peist2007 wrote: »

Hillary will be declared the winner and she will not have received the most votes. That is how i imagine electoral fraud will work here, if it does transpire. Good question.

That's how the US system can work, when it's working right. It's down to electoral votes, which for all bar 2 states will all go to the wining candidate only. So if you get 51% of the peoples votes in a state then you get all their states electoral votes so it is possible for the president to win fairly and still have less votes.

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

Counting.

Any other stupid questions?

Counting? You believe the votes will be counted incorrectly in favour of Hillary.

This is incredibly unlikely. Such a coordinated conspiracy would be next to impossible to pull off.

Since you refuse to be polite, I'll leave this here.

Peist2007

Varik wrote: »

That's how the US system can work, when it's working right. It's down to electoral votes, which for all bar 2 states will all go to the wining candidate only. So if you 51% in a state you get all their votes so it is possible for the president to win fairly and still have less votes.

Agreed.

gosplan

HRC doesn't need fraud to win this.

She doesn't need a biased media.

She doesn't need any further scandals.

Just let trump be trump.

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

Counting? You believe the votes will be counted incorrectly in favour of Hillary.

This is incredibly unlikely. Such a coordinated conspiracy would be next to impossible to pull off.

Since you refuse to be polite, I'll leave this here.

I have been nothing but polite. You began our exchange with an insult and then purposefully attempted to bring the exchange down an irrelevant route. Better luck next time!

dwayneshintzy

I'd also be intrigued as to how you think the Democrats will "rig" this election, Peist2007. Fraudulent voter registrations? Corrupt vote counts?

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

I have been nothing but polite. You began our exchange with an insult and then purposefully attempted to bring the exchange down an irrelevant route. Better luck next time!

This reply actually shocked me enough that I read our entire exchange again. I did not insult you once. I repeatedly asked how you thought the election would be rigged. You then repeatedly insulted me by call me a troll, keyboard warrior and accused me of asking stupid questions. You also threw out a smart Alec remark about my moderation of the fitness forum.

Even now, I won't insult you. But you need to re read our exchange. Enjoy your day. I'm done.

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

Counting.

Any other stupid questions?

Banned for 3 days for repeated posts like this.

oik

Duck Soup wrote: »

There's a lot of credit being given to Trump for pulling a candidacy that seemed dead and buried on Friday out of the hole and was back viable and snarling by the end of the second debate on Sunday.

Sorry but I don't buy it. Everyone says he re-energized his base, but that wasn't the job of work to be done.

His base will vote for him no matter what. He can wave his wang on top of the Statue of Liberty and his base will still vote for him. So the red meat - lock up Hillary, Bill's a bar steward etc. - that he threw to the base may have created noisy whoops, sold some more Chinese-made 'Make America Great Again' hats and led people to say that Trump won the debate, but it was precisely the wrong move.

He played to and pandered to people who were already going to vote for him and turned off the undecideds, independents and moderates he needs. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

You underestimate the importance of morale.

You're half right in the sense that he could have used the opportunity to broaden his appeal, but that leaves him vulnerable when he was already very vulnerable.

BorneTobyWilde

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785608815962099712

Media given orders to destroy Trump

Koobcam

I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but I genuinely can't understand this election. Donald Trump is clearly an idiot and totally unsuitable to hold any sort of position of responsibility. He talks about grabbing women by the pussy and forcing himself on them and yet retains the support of a sizeable number of conserative christians. He hasn't paid taxes in two decades, has presided over numerous bankruptcies and yet is seen by many as a representative of the small guy and a smart businessman. He hangs out with KKK leaders and has a long record of racism and yet Ben Carson and other black Republican leaders apparently have no problem with him. So what exactly is it about Hillary Clinton that is so objectionable to people supporting Trump? I really don't get it.

oik

Christy42 wrote: »

On the bright side we have fox for neutrality?
Seriously how is media bias only an issue when they are biased towards the left? Don't just reply that you think fox are just as biased. They are far far far more biased than cnn and yet you still picked cnn as your example. Heck Breitbart is effectively part of the Trump campaign at this point but no cnn is still the problem.

Fox have been less biased this election than any other outlets.

I have said this numerous times on this thread and others and have got nothing but agreement.

People like Meghan Kelly, Neil Cavuto etc are grilling Trump surrogates in the manner of Andrew Neil of the BBC.

The Fox of 10 years ago is nothing like the Fox of today. Completely different animal.

If you want proof they're not biased, just ask your average Trump supporter what they think of Fox. When both sides don't like you you're doing something right.

Overheal

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785608815962099712

Media given orders to destroy Trump

According to FOX's most venerable narcissist.

Fox have been less biased this election than any other outlets.

I have said this numerous times on this thread and others and have got nothing but agreement.

I disagree.

#combobreaker

oik

Peist2007 wrote: »

To answer your trolling question, I never professed to have a theory on mechanics of election fraud. However, it is simple logic to assume it possible given it has happened in this race already and in previous general elections. They aren't above it over there, on either side.

Look up Al Franken's victory in Minnesota

oik

Koobcam wrote: »

I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but I genuinely can't understand this election. Donald Trump is clearly an idiot and totally unsuitable to hold any sort of position of responsibility. He talks about grabbing women by the pussy and forcing himself on them and yet retains the support of a sizeable number of conserative christians. He hasn't paid taxes in two decades, has presided over numerous bankruptcies and yet is seen by many as a representative of the small guy and a smart businessman. He hangs out with KKK leaders and has a long record of racism and yet Ben Carson and other black Republican leaders apparently have no problem with him. So what exactly is it about Hillary Clinton that is so objectionable to people supporting Trump? I really don't get it.

The mask slipped a bit there.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

Look up Al Franken's victory in Minnesota

Multiple recounts?