2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

oik

Black Swan wrote: »

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.

Again, missing the point. What does the closeness of the election have to do with the differences in philosophy of the candidates?

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

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.

How jesuitical of you. 'You see guys its not that I'm wrong its just that I meant what I said in this very specific way that means exactly what I want it to and therefor I'm right'.

A bit like saying you molest women... then saying but you see I mean molest as in respect.

Kudos again Oik.

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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.

She didn't compliment him on his parenting skills. She complimented his children. She knew the difference

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

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

Ah here your candidate can't even focus on his own political beliefs.

Pro abortion. Punish the women. No I didn't mean that.

Ban muslims... no ban people from terrorist countries... BAN MUSLIMS.

Is there one issue that Donald trump hasn't flip flopped on?

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

She didn't compliment him on his parenting skills. She complimented his children. She knew the difference

What's wrong with that. To many to compliment the children of a person who finds family import is a high compliment.

aloyisious

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.

So should one think the leak disclosures assist in making for a level playing field between Hillary and Donald?

oik

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What's wrong with that. To many to compliment the children of a person who finds family import is a high compliment.

She didn't intend it as a compliment, that's what's wrong with it.

She didn't say, "clearly Donald is a great parent, just look at his kids."

She was asked to "say" something nice about him and she wouldn't because she knows it would burst the boogyman bubble she has created around him.

If she called him passionate, it would undermine her argument that he's only out for himself.

Basically her premise is there's nothing good about Donald Trump the person and she can't come down from that.

oik

aloyisious wrote: »

So should one think the leak disclosures assist in making for a level playing field between Hillary and Donald?

Except the MSM isn't reporting on them so only the hardcore supporters know about them

Wikileaks doesn't have the platform of NBC and CNN

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

She didn't compliment him on his parenting skills. She complimented his children.

Hillary Clinton: 'His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald.'

That's a compliment any parent would be thrilled to receive. As was Donald.

oik wrote: »

She knew the difference

Really? Because apparently he didn't.

Donald Trump: 'Well, I consider her statement about my children to be a very nice compliment. I don’t know if it was meant to be a compliment, but it is a great — I’m very proud of my children. And they’ve done a wonderful job, and they’ve been wonderful, wonderful kids. So I consider that a compliment.'

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

She didn't intend it as a compliment, that's what's wrong with it.

She didn't say, "clearly Donald is a great parent, just look at his kids."

She was asked to "say" something nice about him and she wouldn't because she knows it would burst the boogyman bubble she has created around him.

If she called him passionate, it would undermine her argument that he's only out for himself.

Basically her premise is there's nothing good about Donald Trump the person and she can't come down from that.

Her exact words as you must have listed to a different quote

"Well, I certainly will, because I think that’s a very fair and important question. Look, I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald. I don’t agree with nearly anything else he says or does, but I do respect that. And I think that is something that as a mother and a grandmother is very important to me."

I repeat the important bit "His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald"

To me the above is indeed high praise. Americans like many cultures put a lot of store in how a person raises children.

aloyisious

oik wrote: »

She didn't compliment him on his parenting skills. She complimented his children. She knew the difference

For what it's worth, I personally thought Hillary was referring to Don's daughter, Ivanka, following on from the reported remarks Don had made. I thought Hillary might have being making a subtle political play for Ivanka's vote and Don understood it instantly, which is why he queried it instantly on the spot live on air.

frostyjacks

I've never seen an election with such bias in the media, save for North Korea. All these reports about sexual assault claims against Trump, and when you actually read the details it's all, 'He tried to kiss me' or 'He put a hand on me'. Seriously? We all know how certain women behave around the rich and famous.

At worst it's clumsy flirting, a miscommunication, nothing more. We've only heard one side of the story too, I'm sure the actual version, if any of these events did indeed happen, would be very different.

No wonder people are calling this election rigged. You knew when Anderson Cooper kept badgering him about assaulting women in the second debate that there would be a slew of allegations made against him. Lo and behold, that's what happened.

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Hillary Clinton: 'His children are incredibly able and devoted, and I think that says a lot about Donald.'

That's a compliment any parent would be thrilled to receive. As was Donald.



Really? Because apparently he didn't.

Donald Trump: 'Well, I consider her statement about my children to be a very nice compliment. I don’t know if it was meant to be a compliment, but it is a great — I’m very proud of my children. And they’ve done a wonderful job, and they’ve been wonderful, wonderful kids. So I consider that a compliment.'

I took that as a sign that he knew what she was getting at. He wasn't enough of a tit to let that one go without passing a subtle remark.

jobbridge4life

aloyisious wrote: »

For what it's worth, I personally thought Hillary was referring to Don's daughter, Ivanka, following on from the reported remarks Don had made. I thought Hillary might have being making a subtle political play for Ivanka's vote and Don understood it instantly, which is why he queried it instantly on the spot live on air.

You mean you deliberately re-imagined what she had just said as some bizarre political ploy for one woman's vote, apropos of?

Those 'reported' comments are on tape available to listen to with your own ears not merely 'reported'. And by the way would that be the comments where he says she has always been voluptuous or that its okay to refer to her as a piece of ass?

oik

aloyisious wrote: »

For what it's worth, I personally thought Hillary was referring to Don's daughter, Ivanka, following on from the reported remarks Don had made. I thought Hillary might have being making a subtle political play for Ivanka's vote and Don understood it instantly, which is why he queried it instantly on the spot live on air.

Exactly.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

I took that as a sign that he knew what she was getting at. He wasn't enough of a tit to let that one go without passing a subtle remark.

...

And saying it was a very nice compliment and then confirming again that it was a compliment.

Akrasia

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What's wrong with that. To many to compliment the children of a person who finds family import is a high compliment.

She didn't mean it as a compliment. It was a way of avoiding saying anything nice about Donald.

It's called damning with faint praise

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You mean you deliberately re-imagined what she had just said as some bizarre political ploy for one woman's vote, apropos of?

Those 'reported' comments are on tape available to listen to with your own ears not merely 'reported'. And by the way would that be the comments where he says she has always been voluptuous or that its okay to refer to her as a piece of ass?

He's not the first person who said that.

You're the one who's missing the subtly here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lb1hJs1Kro

Listen to the groan of the audience when she says "I respect his children" and his knowing smile behind her.

Akrasia

frostyjacks wrote: »

I've never seen an election with such bias in the media, save for North Korea. All these reports about sexual assault claims against Trump, and when you actually read the details it's all, 'He tried to kiss me' or 'He put a hand on me'. Seriously? We all know how certain women behave around the rich and famous.

At worst it's clumsy flirting, a miscommunication, nothing more. We've only heard one side of the story too, I'm sure the actual version, if any of these events did indeed happen, would be very different.

No wonder people are calling this election rigged. You knew when Anderson Cooper kept badgering him about assaulting women in the second debate that there would be a slew of allegations made against him. Lo and behold, that's what happened.

If you think putting a hand up a strangers skirt is 'clumsy flirting' then that says an enormous amount about what kind of person you are

oik

Akrasia wrote: »

If you think putting a hand up a strangers skirt is 'clumsy flirting' then that says an enormous amount about what kind of person you are

Where's the evidence he did that?

jobbridge4life

Akrasia wrote: »

She didn't mean it as a compliment. It was a way of avoiding saying anything nice about Donald.

It's called damning with faint praise

Sorry but when someone says that your children are incredibly able and devoted and that this reflects well on you. Then doubles down on that by saying it is especially important to her as a mother and grandmother that is a compliment. In everyway.

Meanwhile Donald said that she had tremendous evil in her heart. Then again he did previously say that she was a good friend and was doing a tremendous job so... in fairness who knows with the Donald.

Akrasia

oik wrote: »

Where's the evidence he did that?

The statements of the women who say he did it, and his own statement saying he just grabs women 'by the pussy'

Pro Hoc Vice

Akrasia wrote: »

She didn't mean it as a compliment. It was a way of avoiding saying anything nice about Donald.

It's called damning with faint praise

In your opinion in mine it is high praise. Unless you can read minds?

oik

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

In your opinion in mine it is high praise. Unless you can read minds?

Well now I know you're incapable of conceding a point even when you know you're wrong.

oik

Akrasia wrote: »

The statements of the women who say he did it, and his own statement saying he just grabs women 'by the pussy'

His own statement is evidence of nothing.

Those statements are fairly shoddy evidence of anything other than there's an election on.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

His own statement is evidence of nothing.

So I'll take that as admission that you don't believe him when he denies these allegations?

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

Well now I know you're incapable of conceding a point even when you know you're wrong.

No I don't think I'm wrong you will not accept the words actually spoken if they don't fit your narrative.

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So I'll take that as admission that you don't believe him when he denies these allegations?

Not that I don't believe him, it's just not evidence either way.

oik

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No I don't think I'm wrong you will not accept the words actually spoken if they don't fit your narrative.

You are playing pretend.

The audience knows she's insincere and you know it too.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

Not that I don't believe him, it's just not evidence either way.

So in absence of evidence you chose to believe one man when he said he didn't molest women but not when he said he did molest women. While at the same time discounting all the women who have accused him of exactly what he said he did.

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

Not that I don't believe him, it's just not evidence either way.

How many of your post say "what trump actually means is ......." by your own admission he is either saying what he says or he is a bad at getting his point across either way he is toast.

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So in absence of evidence you chose to believe one man when he said he didn't molest women but not when he said he did molest women. While at the same time discounting all the women who have accused him of exactly what he said he did.

We have a thing called the presumption of innocence.



It's curious how before this tape came out, accusations of sexual abuse meant nothing on this thread, now they're all you need.

Black Swan

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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

The IRS is government, and has been hacked more than once, most recently hacked 10 February 2016, so why not now reveal Donald Trump's tax returns, which he continues to keep secret to avoid what he fears they would reveal to the American voters? What's to suggest that Wikileaks has already obtained Donald Trump's tax returns from hackers, as well as more hot mic behind-the-scenes (perhaps from Celebrity Apprentice) Trump bragging about groping young women recordings, or more about Trump going to the dressing rooms of Miss USA, Miss Teen USA, and Miss Universe to do his "inspections" while they were nude? Just one more Trump groping tape like that revealed Friday 7 October 2016 and GAME OVER!

Methinks that Wikileaks is one-sided and biased attacking only Clinton and Democratic HQ because Julian Assange has a very personal motive for doing so, and not a so-called lofty moral reason to pseudo-balance the 2016 American presidential election from the outside so that Donald Trump may win. Rather Donald Trump has spoken before from his political podium asking foreigners like Russian hackers to reveal Clinton's emails, which flies in the face of Donald Trump who claims 8 November is fixed or rigged by Democrats or anti-Trump GOPs, when he asked for such help from foreign hackers too.

Trump: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” This is a clear invitation for a foreign power, its hackers, and Wikileaks to attempt to influence the American presidential elections to Donald Trump's advantage. And Trump claims he's an American and will defend it? Maybe someone should check his birth certificate to see if he was born in New York and not Moscow?

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

We have a thing called the presumption of innocence.

In the court of law but sadly not in the court of public opinion ask Mr. Evans.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

You are playing pretend.

The audience knows she's insincere and you know it too.

And you are deciding what Trump means, what he doesn't mean.

What Hillary means and doesn't mean. When she compliments him she is being insincere when she jokes about bombing an embassy in London she is being deadly serious.


And now you know what Pro really means too.

Is there anyone whose mind you can't read?

jobbridge4life

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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

Maybe they are members of the same sexual assailants support group?

oik

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And you are deciding what Trump means, what he doesn't mean.

What Hillary means and doesn't mean. When she compliments him she is being insincere when she jokes about bombing an embassy in London she is being deadly serious.


And now you know what Pro really means too.

Is there anyone whose mind you can't read?

She's being insincere and you know it.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

She's being insincere and you know it.

Let me assure Oik despite your delusions to psychic abilities to read people's minds, you can't read mine.

I 100% genuinely believe she meant what she said. She was asked what she respected about a man who has dried to destroy her and her husbands legacy. Who has uttered vileness that literally no other politician could and one who had just threatened to imprison her, a difficult task anyone could agree, and so she said she thought his children were great and this reflected well on him.

I believe this because if it were me it is probably what I would have said for want of anything else. However I am not sure I could have said because I don't hold his children in as high esteem.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

Now you know I'm lying right?

Can you tell what I'm wearing?

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

Only because the public is staffed by people like you.

How are the "public staffed" do you even know what you are saying. Yes as a member of the public I am a member of the public so!

Pro Hoc Vice

oik wrote: »

Poetic licence.

Well unlike you I can't read minds and take people statements as what they say. So can you enlighten me what you mean.

oscarBravo

frostyjacks wrote: »

All these reports about sexual assault claims against Trump, and when you actually read the details it's all, 'He tried to kiss me' or 'He put a hand on me'. Seriously?

Seriously. Outside the abhorrent PUA/"alpha male" (code for such an pathetic excuse for a man that you have to degrade women to cover your own insecurities) community, trying to kiss someone or putting a hand up their skirt without their consent is well understood to be sexual assault.

When you try to pretend that sexually assaulting women is socially acceptable behaviour, all you're doing is making yourself look bad. Do yourself a favour: stop it. Oh, and have a good hard look at yourself while you're at it.

We all know how certain women behave around the rich and famous.

Go on, tell us they were asking for it. I dare you.

At worst it's clumsy flirting, a miscommunication, nothing more.

No: at worst it's sexual assault.

I mean, ffs. How do you hear stories about someone putting their hand up someone's skirt and decide that "at worst" it's clumsy flirting? If "clumsy flirting" is the worst case you can make yourself imagine, does that mean that you can't conceive of a situation where sticking your hand up a stranger's skirt could possibly be considered sexual assault?

I'm actually pretty boggled by what you're saying. Seriously: what form does behaviour have to take before you consider it beyond the pale?

We've only heard one side of the story too, I'm sure the actual version, if any of these events did indeed happen, would be very different.

Oh, you're sure of that, are you? What makes you so sure? Your inherent certainty as a man that feeble-minded women are too stupid to understand that an alpha male sticking his hand up their skirt is intended as a compliment?

When I read the sort of drivel you've spewed forth here, I find myself wondering: do you even know any women?

oik

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu0ejFMUEAAaAn5.jpg

Clinton not on board with regulation of banks even though it's on her website.

Next time in a debate she says "It's on my website" Trump should point out her website is full of empty promises like this one.

jobbridge4life

oik wrote: »

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu0ejFMUEAAaAn5.jpg

Clinton not on board with regulation of banks even though it's on her website.

Next time in a debate she says "It's on my website" Trump should point out her website is full of empty promises like this one.

Where does she state that she opposes regulation of the banking industry?

Pro Hoc Vice

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Where does she state that she opposes regulation of the banking industry?

But Oik can read her mind and knows exactly what she and we all mean.

aloyisious

Another angle from Don, according to CNN news, which has reported Don has suggested for both him and Hillary to be given drug tests before the next debate on the stated grounds that "Hillary seemed pumped-up at the last debate". The 1st link is from the NY Times, 11 minutes old, the 2nd is Telegraph.co.uk, 4 hours old & 3rd from Fortune about 5 hours ago. The NY Times seem's to be reporting on a story long after it was broken by other media outlets.

I'm assuming CNN has giving serious belief in the reported Donald Trump quote, seeing as it's going to be the host for the 3rd debate, and has checked it out to avoid an error in translation of the reported quote.....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKtMqbhN7PAhXlIcAKHRC1CT4QqQIIIDAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F10%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump-hillary-clinton-drug-test.html&usg=AFQjCNHJ7P2IimUBS6ry6cBUXujydtXKeQ

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKtMqbhN7PAhXlIcAKHRC1CT4QqQIIHjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2016%2F10%2F15%2Fdonald-trump-accuses-hillary-clinton-of-taking-drugs-before-deba%2F&usg=AFQjCNG2VJKPXYAiWol9eROKhGw_xMpLLA


https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKtMqbhN7PAhXlIcAKHRC1CT4QqQIIIjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2016%2F10%2F15%2Fdonald-trump-hillary-clinton-drug-tests%2F&usg=AFQjCNEw_Pl4zyf8iKp_RDF7az28JhUeXA

jobbridge4life

aloyisious wrote: »

Another angle from Don, according to CNN news, which has reported Don has asked for both him and Hillary to be given drug tests before the next debate on the stated grounds that "Hillary seemed pumped-up at the last debate".

If by angle you mean 'baseless ramblings that besmirch American democracy and lower us all' then yes.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

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?

There is a big difference between investigative journalism and hacking though. One is a crime.

The HRC camp equated the hacks to Watergate - which is reasonably true, the same type of information was targeted just on servers instead of in file cabinets. The only difference being it's foreign in nature and not orchestrated by a sitting President

gosplan

What exactly makes Trump a safe bet?

His inability to follow protocol and adhere to legalities?

His bankrupting economic plan?

His near total detachment from reality?

His ability to make enemies and pick fights with people?

The guy can't run a campaign, has lost countless supporters and backers, but he's a safe bet?

Slieve Gullion

Young and naive innocents along with those media gullible brick swallowers will back Clinton. It is such a pity for such honest to goodness regular decent salt of the earth folk from the once greatest nation on earth to have been manipulated and had their hands forced. Trump out of both of them is the better option. Just believe me ok.