2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK

I would guess here inAustin it will vote a majority for Clinton.
I went for a long walk On a record hot day for October, up to 34C, saw some Clinton/Kaine posters on lawns, saw none of Trump.
Just saw one campaign ad on TV, wasn't watching much TV, a Trump ad with a woman saying she is voting for Trump so she can carry her gun to protect herself.
I have chosen not to talk about the election so far but tomorrow night it is unavoidable.

Trump has invited Obama's half brother to the debate, who is a Trump supporter.

RobertKK

Double post so will add this.

I don't think most Americans want to talk about the election openly, which could be good news for Trump who is more embarrassing than Hillary.
Though neither would have one shouting from the rooftops.

frostyjacks

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

B_Wayne

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

It might simply be that as informed voters, they are not willing to support Trump. You've made it into a conspiracy theory the fact they have common sense.

alastair

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

Complete nonsense. Journalists are under no obligation to be impartial, just accurate in what they report. Likewise, media organisations are not expected to be impartial, and most are quite transparent in their editorial positions. Perhaps if Trump made a better case for his candidacy, he might have done better with contributions from journalists, who last I heard, were pretty unlikely members of any 'globalist cabal'.

I love however, the notion that freedom of political expression needs to be 'stopped', once it doesn't tally with your man. Is this a new GOP take on protecting the constitution?

Christy42

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

The media does not consider all views equal nor is it expected to by anyone. For instance someone who believed murder should be legal would not be given equal weight by our media as the saner view that it should not be legal.

Likewise the media is under no obligation to suggest that racism and sexism are just as valid as believing people are equal which is what has happened in this election.

CMOTDibbler

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

Journalists have been attacked and threatened at Trump's rallies. He has been cheerleading his supporters to do this with his 'crooked media' talk and as a result, I'm not surprised that they'd be more in favour of Clinton.

The most stupid part of this is that Trump was getting free air time from TV media and even boasted about it. Estimates put his 'free' airtime at about $3 billion.

He had Fox News in his corner until recently. He's got Breitbart, InfoWars and Roger Ailes in his camp. How long before he alienates them I wonder.

All this is the logical extension of Trump's own rhetoric and actions. For all the talk of 'crooked media', the best his supporters can come up with is vague and woolly statements about 'cabals' and 'globalists'. The fact is that the media are largely reporting exactly what he's saying.

oscarBravo

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

I guess that means that the people with their finger most on the pulse of what's going on in the world would prefer to see Clinton as president.

Do you have a problem with journalists supporting a candidate for president? Is there anyone else that you feel shouldn't be supporting a candidate for president? Would you have a problem with them supporting a candidate if it happened to be the candidate you preferred?

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society.

Wow, so many dog whistles to unpack.

They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

How?

frostyjacks

alastair wrote: »

Complete nonsense. Journalists are under no obligation to be impartial, just accurate in what they report. Likewise, media organisations are not expected to be impartial, and most are quite transparent in their editorial positions. Perhaps if Trump made a better case for his candidacy, he might have done better with contributions from journalists, who last I heard, were pretty unlikely members of any 'globalist cabal'.

I love however, the notion that freedom of political expression needs to be 'stopped', once it doesn't tally with your man. Is this a new GOP take on protecting the constitution?

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

Christy42

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

You going to provide evidence for any of these illnesses? Or anything to convince that Trump is in it "for the little guy" and not just himself. Or why you consider admitting to sexual assault the equivalent as a rude word?

They are rallying around Clinton because Trump is entirely unfit. Morally bankrupt. Incredibly corrupt (even in comparison to Clinton). Volatile, has shown no knowledge of how the economy is run or how foreign affairs works. He is by quite some distance the worst candidate in at least my living memory. It is also hard to criticise Hillary while showing the difference in just how much worse Trump is.

When the Republicans put forward a candidate who isn't a joke candidate in it for publicity stunts (calling a press conference to advertise his hotel, the women at the last debate, Obama's half brother at the next) then the media will consider them seriously. Essentially Trump doesn't treat his election bid as a serious campaign - why should the mediary

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

There always only one candidate sniffling like a third act Tony Montana through both debates, and it was the older Trump who has a shorter life expectancy, and who has been plagued with health problems his whole life that kept him out of military service (he's far from a pacifist, so this is giving him the benefit of the doubt - otherwise he would have just been a draft dodging coward), and who is noticeably overweight in his old age, before even getting into the fact that he is heavily indebted to both Russians and Saudis

Trump had pretty much lost this election before the pussy video even came around, not to mention the endless accusations of rape and sexual assault from women and children alike, so claiming that is all that did it come over as either disingenuous or a temper tantrum. Then again, that is perfectly in turn with Trump and the vast majority of his supporters - both of whom have played a big a role as each other, and a much bigger role than Clinton herself, in making Hillary Clinton the next president of the US. So congratulations on that, I guess.

CMOTDibbler

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

For a guy who claims that he can see through media bias and political rhetoric, you seem to have a complete blind spot when it comes to Donald Trump.

Just to address some of what you say and compare to Trump. How is it if Hillary is 'in the pay' of 'the big banks', it doesn't show up in her tax returns. But speaking of tax returns...

Anatom

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

They "rally" around the only candidate that is reasonably competent. Can you really imagine being represented by Trump?

Anyway, the sweeping statements ("globalist puppetmasters", "in the pay of the big banks") etc. can equally be levelled at Mr. Trump. Don't forget, they moved in the same circles for years!

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

So the journalists must arrange between themselves to split their fund-raising donations 50/50 between both candidates to prove they are impartial. They can't spend their money the way they have freely chosen. Instead they must fund the campaign of the person they do not want elected, just to satisfy and support your personal choice of candidate.

Would you apply that logic to Hillary if she and Don were in the opposite electoral positions they are in now?

Would you apply that logic as well to the journalists votes as well, or would it be "look at her, somehow I don't think so" ?

Will you be tuning in to watch the last debate tonight?

CMOTDibbler

Anatom wrote: »

They "rally" around the only candidate that is reasonably competent. Can you really imagine being represented by Trump?

Anyway, the sweeping statements ("globalist puppetmasters", "in the pay of the big banks") etc. can equally be levelled at Mr. Trump. Don't forget, they moved in the same circles for years!

He even invited the Clintons to his wedding. And they attended it.

Hande hoche!

See that Obama's half brother will be at the debate. Imagine the third debate will be a bit tamer versus the second one.

http://time.com/4536121/malik-obama-donald-trump-third-debate/

PopePalpatine

Anatom wrote: »

They "rally" around the only candidate that is reasonably competent. Can you really imagine being represented by Trump?

Anyway, the sweeping statements ("globalist puppetmasters", "in the pay of the big banks") etc. can equally be levelled at Mr. Trump. Don't forget, they moved in the same circles for years!

Yep, Trump's tax plan will slash rates for the mega-rich, which strangely enough includes those hedge fund managers he's railed against. Maybe he sees those rumours of his hero Putin amassing billions during his reign and thinks he wants some of that sweet, sweet kleptocracy, along with a muzzled press.

But then again, would you expect any better from a serial tax dodger?

Anatom

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, Trump's tax plan will slash rates for the mega-rich, which strangely enough includes those hedge fund managers he's railed against. Maybe he sees those rumours of his hero Putin amassing billions during his reign and thinks he wants some of that sweet, sweet kleptocracy, along with a muzzled press.

But then again, would you expect any better from a serial tax dodger?

I don't actually care too much about the tax dodging. No one has come up with any illegal manoeuvres yet, so I'd let it drop. But the problem with him is so much more serious, and says something about American politics in general and the GOP in particular. I just don't understand how he got this far. It almost says more about the Republican party that they went from fourteen candidates at the beginning of the year, down to him, than it does about him.

He's like a moth drawn to the light. The light in his case is the publicity or attention he gets as he flits from one subject to another, making grand sweeping statements as he goes. The fright he'd get if he were actually elected would be severe and I'm not sure he could handle it. He doesn't look like the sort to compromise or toe a middle line in a dispute, and I just cannot imagine him even wanting to (let alone be able to) give a state of the nation-type speech such as an inauguration or budget speech. He could do serious, generations-long, damage to US foreign relations, not to mention the potential divide in Congress.

marienbad

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

So what ? they are citizens first and foremost .

Overheal

Wasn't Trump going on for the longest time about being very rich and self funding his campaign and not wanting to turn away cheques from nice old ladies?

Wonder what happened to that. Now it's a damn conspiracy that people don't donate to his campaign?

Quin_Dub

Hande hoche! wrote: »

See that Obama's half brother will be at the debate. Imagine the third debate will be a bit tamer versus the second one.

http://time.com/4536121/malik-obama-donald-trump-third-debate/

I doubt it..

The format is 6X15 minute segments around 6 questions/topics

• Debt and entitlements
• Immigration
• Economy
• Supreme Court
• Foreign hot spots
• Fitness to be president.

Given that Trump has invited Obamas step-brother and the Mother of one of the Benghazi victims, one can only assume that Trump is going to aim lower than anyone thought possible in those final sections..

The Trump pandering to his base on topics like Immigration and the Supreme Court (Hillary wants your guns people!!!) will get pretty grim..

But he could really sink to new depths if given free rein on the last 2.. I've no doubt Hillary will also scrape along the bottom on the "Fitness to be President" one but either way I think most normal people are going to be left feeling pretty grimy after this one...

ebbsy

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Obama had a few words to say today about Trump's whining:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpt7-QOGKc

He's doing a great job in Syria.

ebbsy

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

Thank god somebody talking the truth.

dwayneshintzy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Imagine the third debate will be a bit tamer versus the second one./

Why w0ould you think that? It was in Trump's interest to tone things down previously, and he couldn't help himself. It's far too far gone now to even matter, not a hope he stays calm, reasoned or in any way "tame".

alastair

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Given that Trump has invited Obamas step-brother and the Mother of one of the Benghazi victims, one can only assume that Trump is going to aim lower than anyone thought possible in those final sections.

He got precisely zero traction out of rolling out the Bill wimmin last time round, so it looks like no lessons learned there. Obama's half brother isn't really going to provide much of a critique of the Hillary ticket, and if he's known for anything (debatable) it's his differences with Obama (who's not running). I can see his empathy for Trump though - both having married three wives, albeit only one of them in a polygamous context (that's going to go down well with the GOP base!).

The Republicans have tried long and hard to pin anything on Hillary for Benghazi, without any success, so that's unlikely to change now - particularly since making a compelling case for State Dept responsibility for the deaths in Benghazi would involve an involved, articulate argument, without diversion off into red herring territory, or shilling the Trump brand. He's not the man for that job - "Believe me!"

I think Trump is going to be his usual clusterf**k in this debate, and all Hillary needs to do is ride this out and let Trump further bury Trump's candidacy. He's certainly not looking any less unhinged in the last few days, so expect more of the same.

oscarBravo

ebbsy wrote: »

Thank god somebody talking the truth.

I'll ask you the same question, since frosty isn't too fond of answering them: how will Trump stop the "globalist cabal"?

Quin_Dub

alastair wrote: »

He got precisely zero traction out of rolling out the Bill wimmin last time round, so it looks like no lessons learned there. Obama's half brother isn't really going to provide much of a critique of the Hillary ticket, and if he's known for anything (debatable) it's his differences with Obama (who's not running).

The Republicans have tried long and hard to pin anything on Hillary for Benghazi, without any success, so that's unlikely to change now - particularly since making a compelling case for State Dept responsibility for the deaths in Benghazi would involve an involved, articulate argument, without diversion off into red herring territory, or shilling the Trump brand. He's not the man for that job - "Believe me!"

I think Trump is going to be his usual clusterf**k in this debate, and all Hillary needs to do is ride this out and let Trump further bury Trump's candidacy. He's certainly not looking any less unhinged in the last few days, so expect more of the same.

I'd tend to agree.

No idea what the "plans" behind those invites are to be honest. He obviously intends to make reference to their presence , but Clinton has shown that there's really very little that will phase her in this kind of environment so I fail to see the point.

I think it's beyond doubt that the full on raving conspiracy theorist version of Trump will be on display this evening , the unsubstantiated diatribes on Immigration , the future of the Supreme court will be fairly spectacular..

His base will adore him for it , but he'll do absolutely nothing to change a single persons mind towards him (or even away from Clinton to 3rd party)

Quin_Dub

Interesting Article on RCP about the polls

Basically saying that statistical analysis of polling data for the last 50 years or so shows that the window for Trump to come back is closing fast , if not already closed.

Trump Is Missing His Benchmarks

Past polling data shows that three weeks out from the election, polls usually don’t move more than 3.4 points toward either candidate. Clinton leads Trump by 5.5 points in the RealClearPolitics two-way national average and by 5.7 points in the four-way national average (which includes third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein). Even if Trump moved the polls by about three points in his direction (which isn’t guaranteed, since Clinton could add about three points to her margin) Clinton would still have a two- to three-point national lead heading into Election Day. In that case, the smart money would be on her.

It’s important to note that these benchmarks aren’t ironclad laws. Something unexpected could happen (e.g. Trump could shake off the new sexual assault allegations, have a great final debate performance and find some new damaging piece of information related to Clinton’s emails) that allows the Republican to make up ground faster than the majority of his predecessors. But Trump win scenarios often involve nearly every significant event over the next three weeks breaking his way, which is possible but not the most likely outcome.

.

Billy86

What is really going to be interesting about tonight is FOX. On one hand, they are FOX, on the other this is a presidential debate and not am hour with Hannity or O'Reilly. But then in the other hand, it is a Clinton... and this is FOX! But the on the other, Trump has completely burned bridges with them which cost cost him what may have (only saying MAY HAVE...) been an incredibly biased debate which has never been seen before in the US despite the Trumpeteers claims to the contrary over the last two.

As for the debate itself, meh. It won't make much difference. This election has been finished for weeks.

Billy86

A lesson about crossing John McCain in Arizona, when you've already done so pathetically as to turn it into a toss up state...

CLINTON NOW +5 IN ARIZONA - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6087.html

TheDoctor

Billy86 wrote: »

What is really going to be interesting about tonight is FOX. On one hand, they are FOX, on the other this is a presidential debate and not am hour with Hannity or O'Reilly. But then in the other hand, it is a Clinton... and this is FOX! But the on the other, Trump has completely burned bridges with them which cost cost him what may have (only saying MAY HAVE...) been an incredibly biased debate which has never been seen before in the US despite the Trumpeteers claims to the contrary over the last two.

As for the debate itself, meh. It won't make much difference. This election has been finished for weeks.

Chris Wallace is far more moderate than Hannity or O'Reilly and I don't think he has any love for Trump.

Still though it is FOX so expect far more questions on emails, Benghazi etc than the first two debates.

Overheal

Thing is if anything is in the emails, the Clinton campaign already knows what they might be and is prepared to defend them.

In contrast when Trump was urged to do his own self-opposition research, for whatever reason he refused to do so. Then the sexual assault fiasco happened and his campaign was completely off guard.

The other thing about statistical swing is, it goes both ways. He could just as easily poll high and then lose yuuuge. The outlying models show that, statistically speaking, there's a chance at the current trend that he could completely blow this thing, and give Hillary close to 400 electoral votes. Though most models have him getting up to 200.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/arizona/

In the 538 model over the last few weeks Trump has seen his odds of winning AZ go from 70% to 40%. It's also not the first time the model predicted Arizona would be a swing state.

Sofa Spud

Agreed, Wallace is definitely from the more 'saner' side of Fox and is seen as being from the old school of actual journalism (previously anchored Meet the Press and NBC Nightly News among others) and thereby gives Fox some semblance of credibility, as opposed to the opinion led mini-demagogues of Irish extraction that fills their prime time slots. He did say his role was not to fact check, but my guess is that he'll probably focus on giving equal time to the candidates and fact-checking in this post-reality election is probably useless anyway....

Jan_de_Bakker

Pity Trump is being so petty at this stage, wail rigged election all you want when (if) you lose, but not now ... the race is still on !!

robindch

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Pity Trump is being so petty at this stage [...]

Hardly surprising since Trump doesn't have any style beyond petty.

Sofa Spud

It's a cliche at this point, but he's just a narcissist that never thought he'd get this far, never wanted to govern - as illustrated by Kasich leaking that Trump jr approached him about the VP job, saying he would have control over the administration while Trump just focused on the 'making America great again' stuff -and now that he's losing, he had to make it look like he's being cheated to protect his fragile ego. The scary bit is that a lot of people will believe him and will feel cheated when he looses, so Hill will inherit a nation that is more divided than ever before, and Trump does not care. Worse than that, it looks like he's not even self aware of the damage he's doing. He seems incapable of understanding the impact he's having. Who would like to bet that he'll give a gracious and unequivocal concession speech?

TheDoctor

Billy86 wrote: »

A lesson about crossing John McCain in Arizona, when you've already done so pathetically as to turn it into a toss up state...

CLINTON NOW +5 IN ARIZONA - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6087.html

McCain is political royalty in Arizona. Trumps comments towards him and McCains un-endorsement obviously hurting Trump in a big red state.

McMullin for Arizona!!

TheDoctor

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Who would like to bet that he'll give a gracious and unequivocal concession speech?

Would not be surprised if there was no concession speech, or a phone call from the defeated candidate to the winner on the night.

Did they shake hands at the second debate? Don't remember them doing it when they walked out.

Sofa Spud

They had a luke warm handshake at the end, but yeah, nothing at the beginning - would guess that they will tonight - their teams will make sure of it - I think it only (or didn't) happened the last time as they were both on edge, not sure it was deliberate on either part....

Laois_Man

TheDoctor wrote: »

Did they shake hands at the second debate? Don't remember them doing it when they walked out.

Not at the start, but they did at the end.

Anatom

TheDoctor wrote: »

Would not be surprised if there was no concession speech, or a phone call from the defeated candidate to the winner on the night.

Did they shake hands at the second debate? Don't remember them doing it when they walked out.

They didn't at the beginning, but they did shake hands at the end. They had just had the "what's a nice thing about your opponent" question a little before the end, so tensions had lessened somewhat.

I think tonight will go one of two ways;
1) A civilised, issues-based debate, which will follow the agreed format, in which Clinton will easily cope with any questions which will come up (The list of the topics was a few posts earlier) and in which Donald will attempt to portray himself in a professional manner.
2) Trump will obfuscate, bluster and deflect, as he has done in every media encounter and both debates, in order to avoid giving specific answers to specific questions.

I know which way I think its going to go...!

alastair

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Who would like to bet that he'll give a gracious and unequivocal concession speech?

I reckon he will. I'd be less sure that he wouldn't subsequently revert back to the whinging though.

Sofa Spud

Alaistair, I think you could be right - he'll do it for the sake of formality - i.e. because he's told he has to - and then will be back on Twitter come 3 am...

alastair

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Alaistair, I think you could be right - he'll do it for the sake of formality - i.e. because he's told he has to - and then will be back on Twitter come 3 am...

He'll focus on a post-election twitter campaign against Alec Baldwin first - priorities.

Trent Houseboat

Jan_de_Bakker wrote:

Pity Trump is being so petty at this stage, wail rigged election all you want when (if) you lose, but not now ... the race is still on !!

In fairness he's been say that it's rigged for months. And it's been standard Republican fare to complain about voter fraud for the past decade. It's been an obvious attempt to supress votes among minorities and the poor. Republicans know that there has been no voter fraud, they just don't like the votes being cast so they cry fraud. The lie rattled around the Alt Right echo chamber long enough that people actually began to believe it.

The same echo chamber that thinks Clinton is next to death's door, so much so that when the rumours of her demise were put to rest by actually acting like human throughout the first two debates, the only logical conclusion was that she was doped. And it was logical based on the "facts" available to these people. Wait for the "fact" that Clinton is an abuser of drugs to be trotted out sometime soon.
The same echo chamber that believes the polls are skewed and that the media is biased against them. So that when the results come out on (2)9th November, if Trump isn't declared the winner, facts would lead you to believe that the election was rigged.

The Republican party has allowed a lunatic fringe to take over.
The outcome of the post-mortem after the last presidential loss was that they relied too much on whites and men. If they lose this election, it looks as though they'll have burned all other bridges but white and men.

I fail to see what bringing Malik Obama to tonight's debate is supposed to achieve other than show that Trump has at least one black supporter. Maybe if he was debating Barack Obama that might have some effect but, despite Alex Jones' (one of the great amplifiers in the above mentioned echo chamber) predictions, Barack isn't running for a third term(on a personal level I'd like to see someone who speaks was well as Barack Obama debate someone was unhinged as Trump).

CMOTDibbler

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I fail to see what bringing Malik Obama to tonight's debate is supposed to achieve other than show that Trump has at least one black supporter. Maybe if he was debating Barack Obama that might have some effect but, despite Alex Jones' (one of the great amplifiers in the above mentioned echo chamber) predictions, Barack isn't running for a third term(on a personal level I'd like to see someone who speaks was well as Barack Obama debate someone was unhinged as Trump).

The Malik Obama stunt is two-pronged. Malik has said on the record that he thinks Trump sounds good; "says it like it is" (not sure how long ago though) and because Obama had the temerity to call him a whiner in his speech yesterday.

Trump still can't take criticism apparently.

Sofa Spud

The really scary part about the Republicans crying fowl of rigged elections is the deliberate misdirection from their attack on voting rights. I believe some of the voter ID laws that they introduced at State level have been deemed unconstitutional, but a lot are still in place - the fact there seems to be no discussion about that in the media over there speaks volumes, and I am not talking about some tinfoil hat cover up - just that it's not picked up by the media as it's boring and nuanced, it requires too much discussion and factual understanding and can't be diluted down into an easy soundbite or twitter quote....

Trent Houseboat

Right, I know that Malik is a Trump supporter, I just don't get what bringing him achieves. Aside from providing a photo opportunity of Donald shaking a black man's hand.

And I get the feeling that the I'll die before I understand how the man who rambles and breaks from one thought to another couched constantly in weasel words, who needs Rudi Guiliani to be on television 24/7 just to explain what it is he really meant to say, before doubling down on his own nonsense talk is the one believed to "Say it like it is"

K-9

Billy86 wrote: »

A lesson about crossing John McCain in Arizona, when you've already done so pathetically as to turn it into a toss up state...

CLINTON NOW +5 IN ARIZONA - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6087.html

Trump is the antithesis of McCain.

McCain rightly tried to calm down the nuttier elements in the GOP in 08, remember him admonishing a woman for his comments about Obama being a Muslim, threat to the country etc.?

Trump sees these people as his base and is actively counting them.

He has set back race relations 50 years by courting these people as he has legitimized this stuff in their eyes.

K-9

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Agreed, Wallace is definitely from the more 'saner' side of Fox and is seen as being from the old school of actual journalism (previously anchored Meet the Press and NBC Nightly News among others) and thereby gives Fox some semblance of credibility, as opposed to the opinion led mini-demagogues of Irish extraction that fills their prime time slots. He did say his role was not to fact check, but my guess is that he'll probably focus on giving equal time to the candidates and fact-checking in this post-reality election is probably useless anyway....

He did try and take on Trump in the primaries with facts and questions and stuff but as you say, pretty pointless.