2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK

Calina wrote: »

But you have posted primarily and mostly complaining about Hillary Clinton. Your comments about Trump are, comparatively, quite limited and really appear to be limited to saying "oh he's awful" when it's pointed out to you that he is guilty of a load of if not most of what you accuse Hillary Clinton of.

From that, I can only conclude that you thoroughly dislike Hillary Clinton and it disappoints you that you have to admit the alternative is actually significantly worse.

Yes the person most likely to be president, and the most dangerous candidate in my opinion.
I think both are terrible choices.
I dislike Hillary the most. If anyone likes either of these people there is something wrong.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump is not going to win.
He is going to lose, he is no threat unless something massive happens to Hillary.

The only agenda I see is people are focused on the loser and seem to think the biggest policy issues in the US is sexual policy, when the country has far bigger issues that affect real people, like the spiralling cost of healthcare for example.
Foreign policy, one can decide who is far more hawkish.

The biggest deflection in this election is the focus on non policy issues by both sides and the media.

I agree the election is devoid of the real policies. My view is that is an issue to be laid solely at the feet of Trump.

Health care has been an issue for years while ACA may be flawed it's a step in the right direction at least Obama has got the issue on the agenda

Christopher Reeve and his serious injury showed even the very rich with the best insurance could end up broke because of health care costs and that was over 20 years ago.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes the person most likely to be president, and the most dangerous candidate in my opinion.
I think both are terrible choices.
I dislike Hillary the most. If anyone likes either of these people there is something wrong.

So it's ok for you to have an opinion but there is something wrong with me (not that I am wrong) but something wrong with me because I disagree with you. Nice to know but I tell you I believe Clinton is a far better choice on all levels.

oscarBravo

So it looks like Donald lied about giving $10k to 9/11 charities.

John Oliver's comments about rock bottom being waaaay above us are ringing very true right now.

Itssoeasy

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes the person most likely to be president, and the most dangerous candidate in my opinion.
I think both are terrible choices.
I dislike Hillary the most. If anyone likes either of these people there is something wrong.

Well Robert it's clear significant groups of Americans appear to like one of the candidates.And the American people will have to make a decision on November 8th as to who is the more electable of two of the worst big party candidates in a presidential election in a long time.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary handed Libya to terrorists including ISIS and didn't bother getting her allies who she talked to in the UK, France and Middle East to do anything to stop it when Gaddafi was removed.
A bomb first then ignore the vacuum left, somehow thousands and thousands of ISIS members replaced Gaddafi.
I will call her pro-woman when she is not a hypocrite on the matter.
The facts have not changed, I would be accused of repeating everything every time if I had to post all the facts all of the time.

There you go again criticising Clinton for doing something Trump supported.

I love how you somehow think that Clinton herself started the Arab Spring and that there was no war there until America intervened.

I do think the basket of deplorables and these people being irredeemable was a huge mistake by Hillary, while lying at the same time she will be a president for all of the people.
The irredeemable comment was possibly worse than deplorable.
I find people who attends her rallies just as offensive as those who attend Trump's rallies.
One would have to be stupid enough to care that much for the respective candidate and it would say you are a pawn in their chess game, as both only care about themselves and not the people.
The people are just a means to an end goal.

Anyone who supports Trump at this stage is an irredeemable, deplorable person. The man is a narcissist and is openly misogynistic and racist. It is likely that he has sexually assaulted many women and has bragged and joked about it on multiple occasions.

Trump is only a better choice than Clinton if you think that women, Muslims, Hispanics and black people should be treated like second class citizens.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So it's ok for you to have an opinion but there is something wrong with me (not that I am wrong) but something wrong with me because I disagree with you. Nice to know but I tell you I believe Clinton is a far better choice on all levels.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, sure it is what we all do every day.

The next four years will show who is right on Hillary. It would be nice for me to be wrong, but I see disaster written all over her presidency.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

There you go again criticising Clinton for doing something Trump supported.

I love how you somehow think that Clinton herself started the Arab Spring and that there was no war there until America intervened.



Anyone who supports Trump at this stage is an irredeemable, deplorable person. The man is a narcissist and is openly misogynistic and racist. It is likely that he has sexually assaulted many women and has bragged and joked about it on multiple occasions.

Trump is only a better choice than Clinton if you think that women, Muslims, Hispanics and black people should be treated like second class citizens.

Did Trump support abandoning Libya to terrorists? Which is what the policy towards Libya ended up being?

I think people who support any of these people are simply stooges, because the candidates are the real deplorables and irredeemables, and one of them will be president.

RobertKK

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well Robert it's clear significant groups of Americans appear to like one of the candidates.And the American people will have to make a decision on November 8th as to who is the more electable of two of the worst big party candidates in a presidential election in a long time.

Yeah Americans have to decide which body part they want amputated in most cases.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, sure it is what we all do every day.

The next four years will show who is right on Hillary. It would be nice for me to be wrong, but I see disaster written all over her presidency.

Maybe yes maybe no, if Clinton follows some of her examples while First Lady and senator maybe just maybe there maybe some republicans and democrates coming together to try and make society better for all.

I know for a fact Trump does not have the temperament to do that from what he has done over past few years, we do know Clinton may just reach across the aisle. She may be the first president of one of the major parties who has a sizeable number of the other side movers and shakers voting for her.

No matter who is president the very same people calling Clinton a warmonger will be baying for blood at the next attack. America has been divided on the issue of intervention in global conflict for over 100 years.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

Yeah Americans have to decide which body part they want amputated in most cases.

No it does not. For someone who hates both why are you wasting your time on this thread. Usually if a person thinks both are **** he turns off, so I take your claim with a large pinch of salt.

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

Well the wikileaks showed an email which said "the less Bill the better" due to his "sex life".
Hillary plays Tammy Wynette as she stands by her man.
She has been accused by other women of being an enabler of sexual abuse that her husband is accused of.
Her supporters are really supporting death and destruction and are intellectually challenged if they cannot see what a disaster she was as Secretary of State.
Then her hypocrisy and that of the Clintons, accepting money from Saudi Arabia for their foundation, despite in an email saying Saudi Arabia are the most responsible for the spread of extremist ideology in the world.
Then two years ago saying Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS, while her husband accepts $1 million from Qatar.
The morals of Trump and the Clintons are the morals most people would not accept.
These people are an absolute disgrace and I think both Trump and Clinton want the job for the money it brings, the influence and neither should be anywhere near the Irish designed and built White House.
Their supporters are deluded on both sides.

Hell of a lot of truth in your's.

Hillary being a politician know's the rules of the game and how to avoid the **** landing on Pennsylvania Avenue. She'd also know a lot of the players, just still not some-one I'd have in for afternoon tea. She know's War is a continuation of politics by other means and trying to avoid bodybags with US service personnel. Clinton know's she can be held to account and cares.

Don, on the other hand, is playing by his own rules and none other. He trying to introduce his own rules to the White House and US politics. He doesn't (apparently) see the W/W is also the address of a player in the world game and doesn't see that the other players, incl those around the world, have different mindsets. They can't be bullied or cowed by threats of lawsuits from him. He's a businessman not yet suited for the office and probably would never be.

I've no doubt he doesn't care about collateral damage, seeing how he's treated his fellow US citizens in the business world for example, without even mentioning standard social mores. He'd start brush-fires around the world by his standard habit of shooting from the lip and just walk away, leaving career people to clear up the mess. It's because of that that I don't want him in the W/W. Don doesn't give a **** about being held to account.....

Edited since first posted ......and is now being given a lesson in it by his fellows. So far, as far as I know, none of the claims include paternity ones.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Did Trump support abandoning Libya to terrorists? Which is what the policy towards Libya ended up being?

I think people who support any of these people are simply stooges, because the candidates are the real deplorables and irredeemables, and one of them will be president.

Nobody is abandoning Libya to terrorists. US policy with regard to Libya was the same as the EU's and the UN's - support for the transitional government and free elections post Ghadaffi. That's what they pursued, and the civil war that came out of the failure of various factions to adhere to the democratic will of the Libyan people is the consequence of internal fissures, not US policy. Quite what you want of the U.S. with regard to Libya is a mystery - but it sure smacks of propping up the murderous regime of Ghadaffi.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

I do find the airplane story a bit weird, it suggests one could grope and try to kiss in first class which is more open and if unwanted advances were made no one would see or hear the person complain.
One would think the person had some disability and could not move or talk, she was under no obligation to Trump, that particular story one has to make up their own mind if they believe it or not.
It was a public space in an airplane, I don't know, if other passengers who were there came forward who saw it happen it would have more credibility and so far it is a she says/he says and no one else who was there saying anything.

Plenty of victims of sexual abuse or groping just freeze. Trump would have been a big, physically imposing man with a
domineering attitude towards women at the very least. It's very easy to imagine it happening, especially in the 80's.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

So it looks like Donald lied about giving $10k to 9/11 charities.

John Oliver's comments about rock bottom being waaaay above us are ringing very true right now.

Wasn't there a story about him claiming money from a relief fund a bit improperly too?

Interesting his only big donation was when he was up against Cruz in the primary.

He didn't donate anything personally to the Trump Foundation after 08.

K-9

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No it does not. For someone who hates both why are you wasting your time on this thread. Usually if a person thinks both are **** he turns off, so I take your claim with a large pinch of salt.

A lot of people posting against Trump aren't really Hillary supporters, myself included. Robert is free to do the same in the other direction.

K-9

Mod:

Keep on topic and stop discussing other posters views on the marriage referendum.

Pro Hoc Vice

K-9 wrote: »

A lot of people posting against Trump aren't really Hillary supporters, myself included. Robert is free to do the same in the other direction.

There is a difference between a politically interested person who takes a side and not really liking one or both sides, and a person who claims to hate both but only posts negative comments about one.

I have not stopped any poster posting I have simply stated my opinion and the weight I give their posts which is zero.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is a difference between a politically interested person who takes a side and not really liking one or both sides, and a person who claims to hate both but only posts negative comments about one.

I have not stopped any poster posting I have simply stated my opinion and the weight I give their posts which is zero.

I think you will find I have posted negative posts about both.
I think both are really bad when it comes to accusations of sexual assualt, one is accused of it, the other is married to a person accused of it and accused of being an enabler of sexual abuse.
For me they are both as bad as each other in this area, as there is likely to some truth in all cases.
I was shocked at what Trump said and he is probably like Bill Clinton whom Hillary sticks by, Bill lied and Trump is probably too. You would not trust any of these people as far as you could throw them.
I think Trump is right when it comes to Corporation tax.
I think Hillary is right when it comes to taxing the very well off people.
I think both want the presidency for personal gain and to use that fame to make money, the Clintons were said to be not that well off when Bill left the White house, and claimed to be in debt and near broke, now they are said to have well over $100 million in wealth, and both want the presidency for this reason, it comes from a sense of greed and selfishness.
I think Trump is wrong with the wall and more being put into other means of border security would be better.
I think black people who look towards the Democrats who control many big cities should be asking what have the Democrats done for them giving all the violence from within their own community and then the police shootings - both them shooting and being shot at. 8 years of an Obama presidency and it could be argued that racial relations are near worse than when he started.
Hillary flipping on trade agreements, even trade agreements she call the gold standard, Trump is nearly as bad, as both will lie to win.

I have interested in politics since I was a young child and would be sitting on the sofa with my parents watching things like the news, Today Tonight and listening to the radio always had an interest in politics.
If I dislike both candidates in an election it is how it is. I felt the same about the Irish presidential election to a lesser degree and at least their power is like a fleck of dust in comparison to the US presidency.
The thing about the US presidential election is, the more I watch both, the more I learn about each of the main candidates, the more I dislike them.
Then there is Gary Johnson who asks 'what is Aleppo?' and doesn't seem to know Kim Jong Un is the leader of North Korea and Jill Stein whom there is an arrest warrant out for from the state of North Dakota for graffiti.
Then there is an independent candidate in Utah whose name I have forgotten who could win that state.
I have a big interest in politics, I don't have to like the candidates to post about them. I don't think the world is made up whoever wins, but it does matter as we will be stuck with whoever wins.
I never question why people post in a thread, as I would feel I would be trying to silence someone by doing so.
I end up having to explain as disliking both but posting more about one of the candidates is a problem for you.
It is not for me, I know where I stand.
I wanted Paul Ryan but he didn't run.

Overheal

Do we all need to hashtag our signatures so people don't confuse who's for/against whom. Kinda silly at this point.

K-9

True enough, the thought of Donald or Bill near the White House isn't enticing on the dirty old man front, but that's the choice we are left with. Which is best? One as the first gentleman or the actual President?

Unfortunately it seems most ex pm's get paid enormous fees for speeches, Blair and Bertie closer to home examples. I suppose the Clintons will say they give a fair bit to charity.

Will be interesting to see how Obama deals with it. I like to think he just as too much class on a personal level but we'll see. I suppose if it can be put to some good...

Call Me Jimmy

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is a difference between a politically interested person who takes a side and not really liking one or both sides, and a person who claims to hate both but only posts negative comments about one.

I have not stopped any poster posting I have simply stated my opinion and the weight I give their posts which is zero.

Grasping at straws here

Pro Hoc Vice

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Grasping at straws here

What straw have I grasped?

ancapailldorcha

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Grasping at straws here

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What straw have I grasped?

Post more constructively please.

oik

Overheal wrote: »

Do we all need to hashtag our signatures so people don't confuse who's for/against whom. Kinda silly at this point.

Would be more constructive for people to argue the point on it's own merits rather than criticising other posters. That way it doesn't matter who they support.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

Would be more constructive for people to argue the point on it's own merits rather than criticising other posters. That way it doesn't matter who they support.

Too true Oik. Such a pity in the actual election, your preferred candidate is running to be Insulter-in-Chief.

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Too true Oik. Such a pity in the actual election, your preferred candidate is running to be Insulter-in-Chief.

America politics has always been pretty brutal.

RobertKK

Paul Ryan has dismissed claims by Trump that the election is rigged, by saying he has confidence in the electoral system.
The moat is getting bigger.

oik

RobertKK wrote: »

Paul Ryan has dismissed claims by Trump that the election is rigged, by saying he has confidence in the electoral system.
The moat is getting bigger.

It's not always clear what Trump means when he says "rigged"

When he refers to a "rigged system" it's usually in the context of the media and the establishment conspiring to undermine any real opposition, both himself and Bernie. If anyone's not familiar with the recent wikileaks concerning Hillary receiving debate questions ahead of time in the primaries they should look into it.

He probably is also floating the possibility of genuine fraud, but that's not beyond the realm of possibility. If it was ever going to happen it would happen now.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

America politics has always been pretty brutal.

Are you saying that this election and Trump specifically hasn't been significantly worse?

Today he literally stated that the election was going to be rigged.

He said Hillary Clinton has 'tremendous hate in her heart'.

He said she was in a conspiracy to destroy the sovereignty of the United States.

He alleged that Paul Ryan, the GOP speaker of the house of representative, was in a conspiracy to defeat him.

He insulted and diminished the record of John McCain, veteran GOP Senator and former presidential nominee, and said 'he was not a hero'.

Black Swan

RobertKK wrote: »

Wikileaks show what she said in private, her emails

Why is Julian Assange and Wikileaks only hacking Hillary Clinton and Democratic HQ, and not also Donald Trump and Republican HQ? How can Julian Assange assume the moral high ground when he hacks only one candidate, when doing so obviously benefits the other? If Wikileaks is so grand at hacking, it should be a piece of cake for them to hack Donald Trump's tax returns, which Trump is obviously hiding from the American voter for fear of the damage they would do to his campaign if revealed. Julian Assange and Wikileaks, outsiders, are obviously attempting to influence the outcome of presidential election 2016, which makes them suspect, as it makes the emails that they release suspect. What's their motive, has Julian Assange been promised something by the benefiting side, and what does he stand to gain by trying to help Donald Trump win?

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Are you saying that this election and Trump specifically hasn't been significantly worse?

Today he literally stated that the election was going to be rigged.

He said Hillary Clinton has 'tremendous hate in her heart'.

He said she was in a conspiracy to destroy the sovereignty of the United States.

He alleged that Paul Ryan, the GOP speaker of the house of representative, was in a conspiracy to defeat him.

He insulted and diminished the record of John McCain, veteran GOP Senator and former presidential nominee, and said 'he was not a hero'.

This is the first time in years there's been any real opposition between the two candidates.

Both have very divergent views with very little if anything in common. That has not been the case in recent elections.


But you can't just point the finger at Trump.

Hillary neglected to say anything nice about him at the last debate. She copped out and complimented his kids. He actually complimented her. She's just as nasty as anyone.

8-10

Black Swan wrote: »

Why is Julian Assange and Wikileaks only hacking Hillary Clinton and Democratic HQ, and not also Donald Trump and Republican HQ? How can Julian Assange assume the morale high ground when he hacks only one candidate, when doing so obviously benefits the other? If Wikileaks is so grand at hacking, it should be a piece of cake for them to hack Donald Trump's tax returns, which Trump is obviously hiding from the American voter for fear of the damage they would do to his campaign if revealed. Julian Assange and Wikileaks, outsiders, are obviously attempting to influence the outcome of presidential election 2016, which makes them suspect, as it makes the emails that they release suspect. What's their motive, has Julian Assange been promised something by the benefiting side, and what does he stand to gain by trying to help Donald Trump win?

Wikileaks aren't doing the hacking

ECO_Mental

Its getting tiresome now with the crap the Donald is spouting out he is now saying that Hillary was drugged up at the last debate and that she she take a drugs test like an athlete.

“I think we should take a drug test. At the beginning of the last debate, she was all pumped up ... but at the end she was,” he told the crowd without finishing his sentence. “Anyway I’m willing to do it.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/15/trump-insists-election-rigged-call-for-drug-test-for-him-clinton-before-debate.html#

Its getting beyond pathetic at this stage has the man any shame?! and just take his beating like a grown man. Study up for the next debate and try and win that instead of crying "its not fair, booo hooo"

Christy42

oik wrote: »

It's not always clear what Trump means when he says "rigged"

When he refers to a "rigged system" it's usually in the context of the media and the establishment conspiring to undermine any real opposition, both himself and Bernie. If anyone's not familiar with the recent wikileaks concerning Hillary receiving debate questions ahead of time in the primaries they should look into it.

He probably is also floating the possibility of genuine fraud, but that's not beyond the realm of possibility. If it was ever going to happen it would happen now.

That is far more thought than Donald has put into this. He is losing and therefore is crying chest. End of. There were plenty of kids who did the same.

If he had put this much thought into it he would he explain it as such. As is there is no point in going into such detail tryang to spin everything from him into a good thing (must be tough when he so clearly hasn't thought about it himself for longer than the time it took him to say it).

oik

Christy42 wrote: »

That is far more thought than Donald has put into this. He is losing and therefore is crying chest. End of. There were plenty of kids who did the same.

If he had put this much thought into it he would he explain it as such. As is there is no point in going into such detail tryang to spin everything from him into a good thing (must be tough when he so clearly hasn't thought about it himself for longer than the time it took him to say it).

Well he has explained it in this way. Any time he talks about the media he reminds people it's a rigged system and he goes from the rigged system straight to Bernie.

So based on that "rigged system" seems to refer to the system as a whole rather than the electoral system.

I've not heard any direct implication from him about voter fraud, as far as I can tell that's the media's interpretation.

Black Swan

8-10 wrote: »

Wikileaks aren't doing the hacking

Then by proxi? Look for this hackers. We want to influence the US election for one side only. The larger point is why are they only releasing emails regarding Hillary Clinton and Democratic HQ, and not Donald Trump and Republican HQ too? They cannot assume the moral high ground for so-called secret journalism if they focus on one side exclusively, and not the other.

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

Well he has explained it in this way. Any time he talks about the media he reminds people it's a rigged system and he goes from the rigged system straight to Bernie.

So based on that "rigged system" seems to refer to the system as a whole rather than the electoral system.

I've not heard any direct implication from him about voter fraud, as far as I can tell that's the media's interpretation.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-voter-id-law-fraud-226832

His words are very clear

oik

Black Swan wrote: »

Then by proxi? Look for this hackers. We want to influence the US election for one side only. The larger point is why are they only releasing emails regarding Hillary Clinton and Democratic HQ, and not Donald Trump and Republican HQ too? They cannot assume the moral high ground for so-called secret journalism if they focus on one side exclusively, and not the other.

Do you think NBC, CNN or ABC have set their interns to digging up dirt on Hillary Clinton?

Do you think the NYT and WP have mudrakers combing the country for women who are willing to make an allegation against Hillary Clinton?

Why only demand balance when it starts to affect one candidate and not the other?

oik

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-voter-id-law-fraud-226832

His words are very clear

Oh well that's pretty standard.

The fact that the US doesn't have voter ID laws is a shambles.

All the claims about black voter suppression are rubbish.

Black turnout in states with voter ID laws is the same as it was before such laws.

The only incentive to not have them is voter fraud.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

This is the first time in years there's been any real opposition between the two candidates.

That is complete nonsense, while the gap may be bigger the idea that there was no real opposition between Obama and McCain, or Obama and Romney is just farcical and undermines your position utterly.

oik wrote: »

Both have very divergent views with very little if anything in common. That has not been the case in recent elections.

They have plenty in common. Both are fabulously rich. Both are white. Both are Boomers... will I go on? As for views both believe in American Exceptionalism, both are pro-military, neither believes marijuana is a gateway drug. There is more. We shouldn't over state the gap in views.

oik wrote: »

But you can't just point the finger at Trump.

Hillary neglected to say anything nice about him at the last debate. She copped out and complimented his kids. He actually complimented her. She's just as nasty as anyone.

That is just patently false, she stated complimented him by saying he had raised good children and that fact reflected well on him. That is one of the greatest compliments any parent could hope for.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

Oh well that's pretty standard.

The fact that the US doesn't have voter ID laws is a shambles.

All the claims about black voter suppression are rubbish.

Black turnout in states with voter ID laws is the same as it was before such laws.

The only incentive to not have them is voter fraud.

Which countless studies have demonstrated to be virtually non-existent in the United States.

ECO_Mental

This really drives me crazy the president of the evangelical college Liberty University STILL is supporting Trump. You could not get a more selfless godless man than Donald Trump and still this a-hole supports him.

This proves that the Trump campaign is a cult, how can he look his students in their faces and preach all love and hope and giving and sharing etc etc and then support a molester of women like the Donald.

Never trusted or liked evangelicals could never understand their fanatical literal take on the bible and their hatred of the gays/muslims and how we are all doomed to hell when the judgement day comes. arhhhhhhhhh

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/liberty-university-jerry-falwell-jr-donald-trump/

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

Oh well that's pretty standard.

The fact that the US doesn't have voter ID laws is a shambles.

All the claims about black voter suppression are rubbish.

Black turnout in states with voter ID laws is the same as it was before such laws.

The only incentive to not have them is voter fraud.

You said "
I've not heard any direct implication from him about voter fraud, as far as I can tell that's the media's interpretation."

That was a direct allegation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776

If you want to talk about voter fraud and ID set up another thread it's not fair for me to detail this thread.

Pro Hoc Vice

ECO_Mental wrote: »

This really drives me crazy the president of the evangelical college Liberty University STILL is supporting Trump. You could not get a more selfless godless man than Donald Trump and still this a-hole supports him.

This proves that the Trump campaign is a cult, how can he look his students in their faces and preach all love and hope and giving and sharing etc etc and then support a molester of women like the Donald.

Never trusted or liked evangelicals could never understand their fanatical literal take on the bible and their hatred of the gays/muslims and how we are all doomed to hell when the judgement day comes. arhhhhhhhhh

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/liberty-university-jerry-falwell-jr-donald-trump/

Simple answer abortion. The next justice and possibly 2 more. The funny thing is even if Roe v Wade was to be overturned it may not get what they want.

ArmaniJeanss

Black Swan wrote: »

Why is Julian Assange and Wikileaks only hacking Hillary Clinton and Democratic HQ, and not also Donald Trump and Republican HQ? How can Julian Assange assume the moral high ground when he hacks only one candidate, when doing so obviously benefits the other? If Wikileaks is so grand at hacking, it should be a piece of cake for them to hack Donald Trump's tax returns, which Trump is obviously hiding from the American voter for fear of the damage they would do to his campaign if revealed. Julian Assange and Wikileaks, outsiders, are obviously attempting to influence the outcome of presidential election 2016, which makes them suspect, as it makes the emails that they release suspect. What's their motive, has Julian Assange been promised something by the benefiting side, and what does he stand to gain by trying to help Donald Trump win?

Been bugging me as well as I don't see Assange/Trump as a logical 'fit'.

A charitable explanation might be that they don't actually have anything to release on Trump as their sources/methods don't have an 'in' on someone from such a non-political background - might be different if the GOP candidate was someone who'd been in GWBs cabinet or was a career politician who had done three decades on Capitol Hill.

Black Swan

oik wrote: »

This is the first time in years there's been any real opposition between the two candidates.

The 2000 presidential election between GW Bush and Al Gore was so close that at the end it depended upon several recounts of butterfly ballots, dimpled chads, electronic vote flaws, late overseas ballots, etc., that resulted in roughly 500 more votes for GW Bush to win the state and finally determine the presidential election.

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is complete nonsense, while the gap may be bigger the idea that there was no real opposition between Obama and McCain, or Obama and Romney is just farcical and undermines your position utterly.

Well that would depend on what I mean by "real opposition" wouldn't it.

All candidates before now agree fundamentally on the basics. Free trade immigration etc.

Previous elections the disputes were about the "how" of policy, not the what. Trump has come along and challenged the orthodoxy of American politics.

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

They have plenty in common. Both are fabulously rich. Both are white. Both are Boomers... will I go on? As for views both believe in American Exceptionalism, both are pro-military, neither believes marijuana is a gateway drug. There is more. We shouldn't over state the gap in views.

Of course you would focus entirely on the superficial aspects of their personalities rather than their political beliefs.

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

Paul Ryan has dismissed claims by Trump that the election is rigged, by saying he has confidence in the electoral system.
The moat is getting bigger.

Lol, now that's really putting it to Donald.....