2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

oik

Overheal wrote: »

I disagree.

#combobreaker

A shame.

I always say, "with the exception of Sean Hannity". The man's constant ass kissing does my head in.

gosplan

oik wrote: »

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.

I despair for truth in this election.

I mean I could quote articles showing just how pro trump Fox is but what's the point?

It's like we can just shout whatever lie we want now.

Is it really about shouting the loudest now and trying to get something to stick to your opponent? I mean, where's the truth gone?

oik

Brian? wrote: »

Multiple recounts?

I really recommend reading the full case if that's the extent of your knowledge.

oik

gosplan wrote: »

I despair for truth in this election.

I mean I could quote articles showing just how pro trump Fox is but what's the point?

It's like we can just shout whatever lie we want now.

Is it really about shouting the loudest now and trying to get something to stick to your opponent? I mean, where's the truth gone?

Why is it that when people hear an opposing opinion they need to shout "LIIEEES"

Can't you just accept we different views? Doesn't make me a liar.

Christy42

oik wrote: »

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.

Yup that is why they used online polls with 0 credibility http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/online-polls-declare-trump-debate-winner-despite-media-consensus-for-clinton.html

Trump supporters hate fox because fox wanted a party insider to won the primaries. They are still completely biased towards the GOP.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

I really recommend reading the full case if that's the extent of your knowledge.

Believe it or not, I am intimately familiar with the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota. It was a hum dinger.

But in the end, the result was certified fair after 2 trips court. Of the 12 judges that adjudicated the Coleman appeals, 6 were GOP appointees and 3 were independents appointed bye Jessie "the Body" Ventura.

If you're looking for voter fraud, you need to look elsewhere.

oik

Christy42 wrote: »

Yup that is why they used online polls with 0 credibility http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/online-polls-declare-trump-debate-winner-despite-media-consensus-for-clinton.html

Trump supporters hate fox because fox wanted a party insider to won the primaries. They are still completely biased towards the GOP.

Yup, making an article about online polls proves they're in the tank for Trump :rolleyes:

The reason people think they're not biased is because they're not outright rude to their guests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbvmjMnCj8k

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Even if it means gay teenagers getting electrocuted because the guy doesn't understand science? Also the point of democracy is you don't vote in the guy who believes in the crazy stuff.

I should point out I still don't buy that Hillary opposes gay marriage personally. The emails don't read that way. So that still doesn't help you. Plus even if she didn't she needs to keep it up which means more equality for lgbt people and less shock therapy. Any one want to argue that is a bad thing?

Also while Hillary may have worse trust ratings Trump is by far the most dishonest politician to run for the white house at least in modern times but probably further back.

oik

Christy42 wrote: »

Even if it means gay teenagers getting electrocuted because the guy doesn't understand science? Also the point of democracy is you don't vote in the guy who believes in the crazy stuff.

I should point out I still don't buy that Hillary opposes gay marriage personally. The emails don't read that way. So that still doesn't help you. Plus even if she didn't she needs to keep it up which means more equality for lgbt people and less shock therapy. Any one want to argue that is a bad thing?

Also while Hillary may have worse trust ratings Trump is by far the most dishonest politician to run for the white house at least in modern times but probably further back.

If Clinton opposes gay marriage privately there's nothing to stop her from accidentally on purpose appointing a judge who would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

I don't personally think she would, but then again gay marriage doesn't matter to me one iota so I don't have to trouble myself about it.

VPs don't do much btw, so attacking Trump's VP pick in response isn't going to do much for her.


Trump is a different species of dishonest to Hillary. It's difficult to compare. Clinton lies to get herself out of trouble and has an established pattern of behaviour with this.

I don't think Trump would have lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack, or lie about turning over his emails, or destroy evidence under subpoena.

He can lie about supporting the war in Iraq all he wants as far as I'm concerned.

Koobcam

oik wrote: »

The mask slipped a bit there.

Ok, spo leave out the KKK bit then. But, specifically regarding Clinton, what is the problem? Can you or anyone explain to me how any rational person could choose Trump over Clinton?

oik

Koobcam wrote: »

Ok, spo leave out the KKK bit then. But, specifically regarding Clinton, what is the problem? Can you or anyone explain to me how any rational person could choose Trump over Clinton?

Because they think Trump is better.


There's no way for anyone to be rational about this. We all make value judgements.

gosplan

oik wrote: »

Why is it that when people hear an opposing opinion they need to shout "LIIEEES"

Can't you just accept we different views? Doesn't make me a liar.

Very telling.

You see it's not about 'views'.

Some things are true and some aren't.

Fox News either are or aren't biased.

Trump either did or didn't say 'check out the sextape'

HRC either is or isn't going to tax the middle class.

Opinion has FCUK ALL to do with reality.

Your opinion might be that you like the sound of everything Brietbart says but that doesn't make it true.

My opinion may be that the republican machine is capable of spinning all those allegations against Bill but that doesn't make it true.

There are truths we like to be right about and then there are truths we may not like.

Stop ignoring the latter.

Reality is important in politics

Amerika

Koobcam wrote: »

Can you or anyone explain to me how any rational person could choose Trump over Clinton?

It’s really quite simple, Trump’s pro-growth economic policies and his choices for the Supreme Court are far better than what Clinton offers.

oik

gosplan wrote: »

Very telling.

You see it's not about 'views'.

Some things are true and some aren't.

Fox News either are or aren't biased.

Trump either did or didn't say 'check out the sextape'

HRC either is or isn't going to tax the middle class.

Opinion has FCUK ALL to do with reality.

Your opinion might be that you like the sound of everything Brietbart says but that doesn't make it true.

When you're finished your quest for "truth" feel free to come back and enlighten us all. Tell us all what to think.

oscarBravo

oik wrote: »

Because they think Trump is better.


There's no way for anyone to be rational about this. We all make value judgements.

If you're making value judgements about things that are objectively true or false, you're doing it wrong. If you're saying that it's acceptable to make value judgements about things that are true or false, you're enabling irrational behaviour.

Yes, people behave irrationally. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that irrational behaviours are every bit as acceptable as rational behaviours. This GOP-nurtured idea that people can get to make up their own facts to suit their beliefs is actively harmful.

oik

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're making value judgements about things that are objectively true or false, you're doing it wrong. If you're saying that it's acceptable to make value judgements about things that are true or false, you're enabling irrational behaviour.

Yes, people behave irrationally. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that irrational behaviours are every bit as acceptable as rational behaviours. This GOP-nurtured idea that people can get to make up their own facts to suit their beliefs is actively harmful.

That's a lot of "if's"

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

It’s really quite simple, Trump’s pro-growth economic policies and his choices for the Supreme Court are far better than what Clinton offers.

What pro growth policies specifically?

Amerika

If this election were based on value judgements, both candidates would have already disappeared down the rabbit hole. So what do we have left... Policies and goals.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

What pro growth policies specifically?

I’ve answered questions like this over and over again here. Rather than have to once again type it all out, I’ll just point you to his specific vision for economic growth. They all look good and sound to me.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/08/12/trump-pro-growth-plan-simplifies-tax-code-steers-economy-to-greater-opportunity-for-all/#19ec7ad6cf6a

TheDoctor

Peist2007 wrote: »

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.

I don't need to send links to these shocking revelations.

The world and his dog knows that the man who ran the network up to two months ago and one of their main talk show hosts are top advisors on the Trump campaign.

oik

oscarBravo wrote: »

This GOP-nurtured idea that people can get to make up their own facts to suit their beliefs is actively harmful.

I know you like to rely on stereotypes to get a feeling of superiority, but chances are your opposition has got the measure of you better than you have of them.

You can promote all the stereotypes you want, but there have been studies done that show that conservatives understand how liberals see the world and can accurately roleplay them but liberals are utterly oblivious when it comes to conservatives point of view. They are incapable of conceptualising them as anything other than the caricature they carry in their own minds.


I'll remind you of this any time you make some stupid generalisation like the above.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/13/confirmed-conservatives-understand-liberal-positions-better-than-liberals-understand-conservative-positions/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3520939/

oik

More Podesta emails out today.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve answered questions like this over and over again here. Rather than have to once again type it all out, I’ll just point you to his specific vision for economic growth. They all look good and sound to me.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/08/12/trump-pro-growth-plan-simplifies-tax-code-steers-economy-to-greater-opportunity-for-all/#19ec7ad6cf6a

And you've been told over and over again that those are talking points. There is a severe lack of specificity to Trump's plans.

Look at his website. Under "Jobs": I'll be the president who creates the most jobs ever. Nothing about how it'll happen.

oik

Brian? wrote: »

And you've been told over and over again that those are talking points. There is a severe lack of specificity to Trump's plans.

Look at his website. Under "Jobs": I'll be the president who creates the most jobs ever. Nothing about how it'll happen.

A corporation tax cut isn't specific enough?

Feline Grabber

Brian? wrote: »

What pro growth policies specifically?

Trickle down economics and a boom in the automation industry as engineers and programmers are hired to replace those manufacturing jobs.

gosplan

oik wrote: »

When you're finished your quest for "truth" feel free to come back and enlighten us all. Tell us all what to think.

Whatever.

As long as you think facts are a matter of opinion, there isn't much point engaging you.

Sad that in the Information Age, this is what people choose to do.

You should put that in your sig BTW. It would save a lot of people a lot of time.

oik

gosplan wrote: »

Whatever.

As long as you think facts are a matter of opinion, there isn't much point engaging you.

Sad that in the Information Age, this is what people choose to do.

You should put that in your sig BTW. It would save a lot of people a lot of time.

As long as you think that bias is a matter of fact...

gosplan

oik wrote: »

A corporation tax cut isn't specific enough?

The tax policy centre said he'd reduce the GDP by about 9tn.

Are they worth listening to?

gosplan

oik wrote: »

As long as you think that bias is a matter of fact...

So I can decide that the Irish times is pro emmmmm.......Gary Johnson.

Are you serious? Media bias is a matter of opinion? Jesus, think for a minute there.

Amerika

First we find out she despises almost a quarter of the population as deplorable and irredeemable, and now per WikiLeaks from Clinton's campaign guru John Podesta: Hillary hates everyday Americans. So I have to wonder… Why is anyone, unless you’re part of Wall Street, 'With Her?"



Jennifer Palmieri, Director of Communications for Hillary’s presidential campaign, apparently agreed with Podesta’s analysis and responded with “Truth.”

Chips Lovell

I think you may be misreading that email

Quin_Dub

Polls show sharp increase in Clinton lead..

The collapse in Trumps support since the beginning of October is fairly startling..

Whilst he's had peaks and troughs before , given that voting has already started any recovery is likely to be too little too late..

Clinton had a 2.7 point gap in the Average of the polls on October 1st , the gap is now 6.5

RCP has Clinton on 260 EC votes to Trumps 165 so she just needs to win one of the Battlegrounds. Trump effectively has to win them all

Of the 6 key states with enough EC votes to get to 270 you have the following

Clinton Leads Florida by 2.4 points (29 EC votes)
Cinton leads by 0.5 points in Ohio
Trump leads by 5 points in Georgia (16 EC Votes)
Clinton leads by 2.6 points in North Carolina (15 EC Votes)
Trump leads Arizona by 1 point (11 EC Votes)
Clinton leads by 4.3 points in Minnesota (10 EC Votes)


I just don't see a viable scenario where Trump wins every single one of the battlegrounds , Clinton just needs to bring any one of the above over the line and she wins...

oik

gosplan wrote: »

The tax policy centre said he'd reduce the GDP by about 9tn.

Are they worth listening to?

You're not worth listening to because you have no clue what you're talking about.

If you reduced GDP by 9tn that would be shrinking the US economy by half.

What they actually said is if it's not accompanied by spending cuts it would increase the national debt by 9tn over the course of 10 years.

That's a lot different to reducing GDP by half.

TheDoctor

Is there any mails that Hillary actually sent?

All I'm seeing is emails going around her team and people firing the blame at her.

Be like someone blaming her for Bills infidelity.....

Amerika

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think you may be misreading that email

I don't believe there is anyway to misread "I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans"

TheDoctor

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Polls show sharp increase in Clinton lead..

The collapse in Trumps support since the beginning of October is fairly startling..

Whilst he's had peaks and troughs before , given that voting has already started any recovery is likely to be too little too late..

Clinton had a 2.7 point gap in the Average of the polls on October 1st , the gap is now 6.5

RCP has Clinton on 260 EC votes to Trumps 165 so she just needs to win one of the Battlegrounds. Trump effectively has to win them all

Of the 6 key states with enough EC votes to get to 270 you have the following

Clinton Leads Florida by 2.4 points (29 EC votes)
Cinton leads by 0.5 points in Ohio
Trump leads by 5 points in Georgia (16 EC Votes)
Clinton leads by 2.6 points in North Carolina (15 EC Votes)
Trump leads Arizona by 1 point (11 EC Votes)
Clinton leads by 4.3 points in Minnesota (10 EC Votes)



I just don't see a viable scenario where Trump wins every single one of the battlegrounds , Clinton just needs to bring any one of the above over the line and she wins...

Arizona and Georgia are battleground states??

This election is done!

oik

Amerika wrote: »

I don't believe there is anyway to misread "I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans"

I think it means the phrase "everyday Americans"

oik

TheDoctor wrote: »

Arizona and Georgia are battleground states??

This election is done!

They've been battleground states the whole time.

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

Is there any mails that Hillary actually sent?

All I'm seeing is emails going around her team and people firing the blame at her.

Be like someone blaming her for Bills infidelity.....

Are you trying to tell me that her inner circle and closest confidants don't know her?

gosplan

oik wrote: »

You're not worth listening to because you have no clue what you're talking about.

If you reduced GDP by 9tn that would be shrinking the US economy by half.

What they actually said is if it's not accompanied by spending cuts it would increase the national debt by 9tn over the course of 10 years.

That's a lot different to reducing GDP by half.

Sorry, change GDP to revenue.

Out of curiosity, what are his spending cuts?

Amerika

oik wrote: »

I think it means the phrase "everyday Americans"

Absolutely. Those that represent 99% of America.

So, who do you think she'll blame this time for her problems? Abe Lincoln, the Russians, or maybe someone new like George Washington. She hasn't used him yet.

TheDoctor

Amerika wrote: »

Are you trying to tell me that her inner circle and closest confidants don't know her?

If a mate of mine sent a controversial email about me, I'd be annoyed of people were using it to attack me.

oik

Election Commissioner of New York admitting to massive voter fraud.

"They bus people poll site to poll site."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

This is the first of many videos to be released by O'Keefe.

Proof finally that voter ID laws are not racist.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

They've been battleground states the whole time.

This is the first time since LBJ ran that a Dem will win Georgia. Hardly a battleground state. Trump has driven Georgia and Arizona away.

oik

Brian? wrote: »

This is the first time since LBJ ran that a Dem will win Georgia. Hardly a battleground state. Trump has driven Georgia and Arizona away.

They have been battleground states since Trump secured the nomination.

dwayneshintzy

oik wrote: »

More Podesta emails out today.

Yeah, some real good ones; http://europe.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635?rm=eu

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

If a mate of mine sent a controversial email about me, I'd be annoyed of people were using it to attack me.

Okay. But what's your point? This is about a person running for public office and the strategy her campaign uses to combat her perception of the people she is supposed to represent. You don't think it's relevant, or is it just because it came out against Hillary, and not Trump?

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

First we find out she despises almost a quarter of the population as deplorable and irredeemable, and now per WikiLeaks from Clinton's campaign guru John Podesta: Hillary hates everyday Americans. So I have to wonder… Why is anyone, unless you’re part of Wall Street, 'With Her?"



Jennifer Palmieri, Director of Communications for Hillary’s presidential campaign, apparently agreed with Podesta’s analysis and responded with “Truth.”

I'm not so sure that means she hates "everyday Americans" - It's far more likely it means she hates the phrase "everyday americans"..

For example I utterly detest the term "Ordinary Worker" that gets trotted out by the left in Ireland , it's a meaningless nonsensical term , but it doesn't mean I hate ordinary workers..

I mean read the context of the mail - it says " we should use it once early on"

If she hated actually "everyday Americans" why on Earth would she use it in her Campaign, even once????

dwayneshintzy

oik wrote: »

Election Commissioner of New York admitting to massive voter fraud.

"They bus people poll site to poll site."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

This is the first of many videos to be released by O'Keefe.

Proof finally that voter ID laws are not racist.

O'Keefe is a charlatan and a convicted criminal who creates deceptively edited videos that are absolute bull****.

TheDoctor

Donald to get less than 200 in the electoral college might be a nice money maker.