2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Black Swan

RCP's list shows Clinton continuing to lead Trump ranging from 1 to 15 points in the last 29 national polls since 26 July 2016, with the exception of LA Times/USC tracking poll, which varies daily (although today Clinton also leads in the LA Times/USC poll by 2).

Today in the 3 major swing states (where in past decades the nominee who won president carried at least 2 of these 3 states), for Pennsylvania Clinton leads Trump in all 6 most recent polls ranging from 4 to 11 points, in Ohio Clinton leads Trump in all 4 most recent polls ranging from 4 to 6 points, and in the 7 most recent polls taken in Florida, Trump leads in only the Florida Atlantic University poll by 2 points, while Clinton leads in the remaining 6 most recent polls ranging from 1 to 9 points.

Of course, all the cautions regarding polling already made several times in the presidential 2016 election thread apply.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

RCP's list shows Clinton continuing to lead Trump ranging from 1 to 15 points in the last 29 national polls since 26 July 2016, with the exception of LA Times/USC tracking poll, which varies daily (although today Clinton also leads in the LA Times/USC poll by 2).

Today in the 3 major swing states (where in past decades the nominee who won president carried at least 2 of these 3 states), for Pennsylvania Clinton leads Trump in all 6 most recent polls ranging from 4 to 11 points, in Ohio Clinton leads Trump in all 4 most recent polls ranging from 4 to 6 points, and in the 7 most recent polls taken in Florida, Trump leads in only the Florida Atlantic University poll by 2 points, while Clinton leads in the remaining 6 most recent polls ranging from 1 to 9 points.

Of course, all the cautions regarding polling already made several times in the presidential 2016 election thread apply.

Every person I know in my state (PA) that is planning on voting for Trump refuses to take part in any election poll. I have personally turned down at least a dozen phone calls (cell and landline) requesting me to participate in election polls. If it's happening here, it must be happening everywhere. That effect could have major consequences come election day.

edit: I read the effect I refer is known as the ‘Shy Trump Voter” effect. It refers to the theory that there’s a group of voters who won’t admit their support for Trump in phone surveys, but will actually choose him in the election this fall.

Seems that online/internet polls are probably more reflective of how the vote will go because people are more honest and willing to give truthful answers when their identities are unknown.

A shocking ABC poll recently…

http://truthfeed.com/the-shocking-results-of-abcs-online-presidential-poll/16578/

Rather funny poll results. I'm sure Hillary's numbers are much higher, but I don't believe the difference is as high between Clinton and Trump as the polsters claim.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Really? What other politicians held top echelon federal government positions while operating a charitable foundation that could easily be considered an influence peddling slush fund that allowed them to keep their political army intact as they prepared for a presidential campaign?

Every single politician holds meetings with donors to both their political campaigns and favoured charities.

What impropriety occurred as a result of these meetings as a matter of interest? The original AP story tried to make out that this was a bigger story than it was by implying that Clinton only held 154 meetings in her 4 year tenure as Secretary of State when she would have had thousands of meetings in that time. That goes some way to indicating how much of a non-story this is.

The AP found such little evidence of wrongdoing that they had to spend a lot of time detailing Clinton's meetings with Presidential Medal of Freedom holding, Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus.

They also discuss meeting with executives of MAC Cosmetics who were trying to secure funding for a programme to tackle AIDS in Africa. Considering that is an issue that the Clinton Foundation devotes a lot of resources to, it is not surprising that they donated to the Clinton Foundation nor is it surprising that Clinton would meet with them over an issue so close to her heart.

That something as weak as this article is been used to portray Clinton as corrupt then it goes to show just how clean she is.

Igotadose

Amerika wrote: »

Really? What other politicians held top echelon federal government positions while operating a charitable foundation that could easily be considered an influence peddling slush fund that allowed them to keep their political army intact as they prepared for a presidential campaign?

It's the most transparent charity in history, and really, the AP story that the echo chamber's screaming with, is pretty poorly done, which is unsurprising:

Read this for more detail: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting

Some highlights of the detailed rebuttal from Vox: "The AP put a lot of work into this project. And it couldn’t come up with anything that looks worse than helping a Nobel Prize winner, raising money to finance AIDS education, and doing an introduction for the chair of the Kennedy Center. It’s kind of surprising."

Should read the entire AP story, not the cherry picked twaddle from the Post et al.

Also, this link is good reading for a 'reasonableness filter' to be applied to the endless litany of Clinton 'shocking news' and 'exposes' and the other noise that's been generated by the Limbots over the decades: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Every person I know in my state (PA) that is planning on voting for Trump refuses to take part in any election poll. I have personally turned down at least a dozen phone calls (cell and landline) requesting me to participate in election polls. If it's happening here, it must be happening everywhere. That effect could have major consequences come election day.

Only Trump supporters refuse to take part in polls. Clinton supporters ring the polling companies asking to take part in their polls.

The mental gymnastics you engage in to pretend that Trump isn't going to lose this election in a landslide is incredible.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Every person I know in my state (PA) that is planning on voting for Trump refuses to take part in any election poll. I have personally turned down at least a dozen phone calls (cell and landline) requesting me to participate in election polls. If it's happening here, it must be happening everywhere. That effect could have major consequences come election day.

Did you refuse to take part of them in the primaries?

Is there a reason this effect didn't show in the primaries?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Every person I know in my state (PA) that is planning on voting for Trump refuses to take part in any election poll. I have personally turned down at least a dozen phone calls (cell and landline) requesting me to participate in election polls. If it's happening here, it must be happening everywhere. That effect could have major consequences come election day.

Your Pennsylvania claims here are anecdotal and not empirically based, so I would exercise great caution accordingly. Generally speaking, survey (and poll) saturation effects have been occurring in the US for many years (not just during US presidential 2016 national and state polls), which has prompted survey and polling organisations to incorporate sampling and modeling strategies with varying levels of validity and reliability when attempting to predict outcomes. Surveys (and polls) have methodological limitations in that they are descriptive and cross-sectional, and attempts at being inferential (to account for explained and unexplained variances) should be viewed with caution. But in any case, such surveys (and polls) generally have been more useful than anecdotal claims made by individuals regarding their friends, associates, etc., in Pennsylvania or other states or nationally.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Your Pennsylvania claims here are anecdotal and not empirically based, so I would exercise great caution accordingly. Generally speaking, survey (and poll) saturation effects have been occurring in the US for many years (not just during US presidential 2016 national and state polls), which has prompted survey and polling organisations to incorporate sampling and modeling strategies with varying levels of validity and reliability when attempting to predict outcomes. Surveys (and polls) have methodological limitations in that they are descriptive and cross-sectional, and attempts at being inferential (to account for explained and unexplained variances) should be viewed with caution. But in any case, such surveys (and polls) generally have been more useful than anecdotal claims made by individuals regarding their friends, associates, etc., in Pennsylvania or other states or nationally.

Perhaps. Only the actual election results will help to determine these things. And as I recall the 'stay' voters were destined to win the Brexit vote according to traditional polls.

edit: You can call them anecdotal, but I look at it more as a private poll. Just about everyone I talk to that plans on voting for Trump I ask if they participate in presidential polls. Almost unanimously the answer I get is they refuse to participate int these polls. Granted my samplings are small, but they could be reflective of what is actually happening.

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps. Only the actual election results will help to determine these things. And as I recall the 'stay' voters were destined to win the Brexit vote according to traditional polls.

Just before the vote, a narrow win for Leave was predicted.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Just before the vote, a narrow win for Leave was predicted.

Therefore perhaps we should ignore all current polls and just wait until November to see what is actually going on?

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Therefore perhaps we should ignore all current polls and just wait until November to see what is actually going on?

No. Polls are never going to be 100% accurate and obviously the closer to the election date the more accurate they are.

However early polls show the current state of play - they show Hillary has the advantage. They are also useful for showing when the swings come.

They should always be taken with a pinch of salt, especially this early. There is no guarantee that Hillary will win right now but it would be silly to ignore them entirely and say that they don't show she is the favourite.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

No. Polls are never going to be 100% accurate and obviously the closer to the election date the more accurate they are.

However early polls show the current state of play - they show Hillary has the advantage. They are also useful for showing when the swings come.

They should always be taken with a pinch of salt, especially this early. There is no guarantee that Hillary will win right now but it would be silly to ignore them entirely and say that they don't show she is the favourite.

I'm not saying ignore them, but rather there are possible factors in play, that are not being given proper analysis, that might greatly affect current poll accuracy.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Did you refuse to take part of them in the primaries?

Is there a reason this effect didn't show in the primaries?

I never take part in polls.

A primary is different than a general election. Trump's demise was predicted almost ever other week in the primary. And therefore in the GOP primary you weren't characterized as being the devil's spawn by the media, as you are today, if you planned on voting for Trump, IMO.

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

Seems that online/internet polls are probably more reflective of how the vote will go because people are more honest and willing to give truthful answers when their identities are unknown.

A shocking ABC poll recently…

http://truthfeed.com/the-shocking-results-of-abcs-online-presidential-poll/16578/

Rather funny poll results. I'm sure Hillary's numbers are much higher, but I don't believe the difference is as high between Clinton and Trump as the polsters claim.

I find it hard to believe only 63,000 people visiting ABC's website would answer such a poll, unless it was up for about an hour or so. I don't suppose you know what "brigading" is in the context of online polls, do you?

Suryavarman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I find it hard to believe only 63,000 people visiting ABC's website would answer such a poll, unless it was up for about an hour or so. I don't suppose you know what "brigading" is in the context of online polls, do you?

Online polls are well known for their predictive power. They correctly called Ron Paul's landslide victory months before the 2012 election.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I find it hard to believe only 63,000 people visiting ABC's website would answer such a poll, unless it was up for about an hour or so. I don't suppose you know what "brigading" is in the context of online polls, do you?

Yes I do, and that is why I noted that the results of the poll was funny and that Hillary should have fared much better. Apparently in this poll Hillary's peeps were asleep at the wheel and Stein's peeps were working overtime.

Calina

Amerika wrote: »

Every person I know in my state (PA) that is planning on voting for Trump refuses to take part in any election poll. I have personally turned down at least a dozen phone calls (cell and landline) requesting me to participate in election polls. If it's happening here, it must be happening everywhere. That effect could have major consequences come election day.

edit: I read the effect I refer is known as the ‘Shy Trump Voter” effect. It refers to the theory that there’s a group of voters who won’t admit their support for Trump in phone surveys, but will actually choose him in the election this fall.

So what you are saying is that Trump voters haven't got the guts to stand over their votes to polling companies, yet they are happy to be seen in public turning out to his rallies.

Look, I really think Trump is so far through the bottom of the bucket in terms of scraping the bottom of it that the Republicans have reached a layer of magma. If his supporters don't have the guts to admit to their desire to vote for him that suggests they're kind of ashamed of it.

Btw - there are a couple of issues with the Brexit polls. a) they were broadly in favour of exit in the run up to the poll and b) UK polls in general have been bloody awful in the last few elections.

The polls supporting Trump for the primaries were not inaccurate. Why would they become inaccurate for the general? Why have Trump voters, according to you, got all bashful and shy and unwilling to admit the support him now that he is an actual presidential candidate as opposed to in the primaries where god forbid but the Republicans might have identified a remotely intelligent candidate but didn't?

KingBrian2

I wonder how many polls predicted the extinction of the British Liberal Party or the enormous gains of the National Front or Free Democrats in France & the Netherlands. Polls can and do change. I'd hold off casting any forecasted results until the debates start. That's when the clever money starts to talk.

TheDoctor

Amerika, as a resident of PA give a % prediction of how the state will go in the general. For extra credit you can include Johnson and Stein!

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

Amerika, as a resident of PA give a % prediction of how the state will go in the general. For extra credit you can include Johnson and Stein!

It’s too early to tell as of now. If the election were held today I think Hillary would win (unscientific prediction) PA by about 7 points. But if more and more devastating news comes out indicating Hillary’s corruption (as it recently has), and if Trump stays on message and refrains from the bluster and buffoonery, I think he could carry the state. It all depends on how the suburbs of Philadelphia go IMO.

And I don't need no stinkin' extra credit. :P

(And don't get me wrong. Short of something like Hillary pledging allegiance to ISIS I think she will win the general election. She is too big to jail, dontcha know . IMO, there are only 6 states that matter in this election... OH, FL, PA, IA, WI and NH. VA went to Clinton when she picked Kaine as her VP running mate. Actually there is a good chance that if she takes FL it could be all over. She should concentrate on FL and ignore the rest of the country for the remainder of time.)

Amerika

Calina wrote: »

So what you are saying is that Trump voters haven't got the guts to stand over their votes to polling companies, yet they are happy to be seen in public turning out to his rallies.

That sounds about right. People tend to avoid things that cause pain. The truly brave go to his rallies. We aren't all so brave though. Admitting you support Trump here can lead to physical altercations and property damage. (I've posted in this thread before numerous physical attacks made against Trump supporters).

http://wnep.com/2016/04/22/trump-signs-stolen-vandalized-near-berwick/

Quin_Dub

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I find it hard to believe only 63,000 people visiting ABC's website would answer such a poll, unless it was up for about an hour or so. I don't suppose you know what "brigading" is in the context of online polls, do you?

They didn't.. It's a fake poll from a fake site

Amerika

Quin_Dub wrote: »

They didn't.. It's a fake poll from a fake site

I get a 404 error from your link. But that would make sense, though... either brigading or being bogus seems to make the most sense with those low Hillary numbers.

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

I get a 404 error from your link. But that would make sense, though... either brigading or being bogus seems to make the most sense with those low Hillary numbers.

Fixed the link now... Apparently it's a notorious ABC spoof/spammer site

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

I'm not saying ignore them, but rather there are possible factors in play, that are not being given proper analysis, that might greatly affect current poll accuracy.

As far as I can see there is nothing that wouldn't affect polls at this time during any other general election. Polling is not perfect but I see no reason for them to biased towards either party. Every election whoever is behind in the polls talks about the silent voter. There is no serious evidence of that here (I accept your story of not talking to pollsters but that is anecdotal, many people from every party have people who don't participate in polls).

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

It’s too early to tell as of now. If the election were held today I think Hillary would win (unscientific prediction) PA by about 7 points. But if more and more devastating news comes out indicating Hillary’s corruption (as it recently has), and if Trump stays on message and refrains from the bluster and buffoonery, I think he could carry the state. It all depends on how the suburbs of Philadelphia go IMO.

And I don't need no stinkin' extra credit. :P

(And don't get me wrong. Short of something like Hillary pledging allegiance to ISIS I think she will win the general election. She is too big to jail, dontcha know . IMO, there are only 6 states that matter in this election... OH, FL, PA, IA, WI and NH. VA went to Clinton when she picked Kaine as her VP running mate. Actually there is a good chance that if she takes FL it could be all over. She should concentrate on FL and ignore the rest of the country for the remainder of time.)

Care to give examples of such news or any examples of Clinton being corrupt?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Care to give examples of such news or any examples of Clinton being corrupt?

Well, just this week... Just this week!

The Clinton Foundation was a center of influence peddling. 154 citizens (or 55%) of the private people she granted audience to as SoS, had kicked in at least $156 million to her charity. Corruption at its best.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/new-revelations-show-a-nation-for-sale-under-hillary-clinton/

I has come out that Hillary lied to the FBI about Colin Powell’s email advice. Giving false information in the federal investigation is a federal crime, and she should be prosecuted. Hilllary claimed to the FBI that Powell told her to use private e-mail for official business. Powell has had enough of her using him as a scapegoat for illegal behavior, and let it be known she was using her private email server for a year before Powell reached out to her in a memo informing her what he did as SoS.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/19/hillary-to-fbi-colin-powell-told-me-to-use-private-e-mail/

edit... Just out today:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/08/25/Hillary-Lied-Withheld-Evidence-Traded-Power-Money-and-Could-Be-President

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Well, just this week... Just this week!

The Clinton Foundation was a center of influence peddling. 154 citizens (or 55%) of the private people she granted audience to as SoS, had kicked in at least $156 million to her charity. Corruption at its best.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/new-revelations-show-a-nation-for-sale-under-hillary-clinton/

I has come out that Hillary lied to the FBI about Colin Powell’s email advice. Giving false information in the federal investigation is a federal crime, and she should be prosecuted. Hilllary claimed to the FBI that Powell told her to use private e-mail for official business. Powell has had enough of her using him as a scapegoat for illegal behavior, and let it be known she was using her private email server for a year before Powell reached out to her in a memo informing her what he did as SoS.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/19/hillary-to-fbi-colin-powell-told-me-to-use-private-e-mail/

edit... Just out today:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/08/25/Hillary-Lied-Withheld-Evidence-Traded-Power-Money-and-Could-Be-President

I've already replied to that earlier in the thread. Needless to say you completely ignored it though as per usual.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

I've already replied to that earlier in the thread. Needless to say you completely ignored it though as per usual.

Just because her faithful refuse to accept the obvious, and will find any way to explain away the crimes, corruption and lies... doesn't make them true. Her trustworthy numbers spell that out, pure and simple.

Now I'm hearing from her faithful that if you want the Clintons' to devoid themselves of their Foundation when she becomes president then you're going straight to hell and we'll never find a cure for AIDS.

KingBrian2

I was watching CNN today. It clearly is biased in favour of the Dems the way Fox is biased towards the Republicans. They were having a conversation about Trump and his views on race relations. It was put to the Trump supporter that Mr Trump would not attend the NAACP like he did AIPAC or NRA. Well Trump should go meet those guys. He has nothing to fear going there and it would allay all those who have concerns about his views. I have said on record on this site and Billy and Amerika can corroborate me when I say Trump is not nearly as bad as he is been portrayed by the media.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Just because her faithful refuse to accept the obvious, and will find any way to explain away the crimes, corruption and lies... doesn't make them true. Her trustworthy numbers spell that out, pure and simple.

Now I'm hearing from her faithful that if you want the Clintons' to devoid themselves of their Foundation when she becomes president then you're going straight to hell and we'll never find a cure for AIDS.

Do you have evidence of any corruption then or are you going to retract your claim?

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Just because her faithful refuse to accept the obvious, and will find any way to explain away the crimes, corruption and lies... doesn't make them true. Her trustworthy numbers spell that out, pure and simple.

Now I'm hearing from her faithful that if you want the Clintons' to devoid themselves of their Foundation when she becomes president then you're going straight to hell and we'll never find a cure for AIDS.

Amerika - the AP story has been seriously shredded , do you agree with that ?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Do you have evidence of any corruption then or are you going to retract your claim?

I’ve already provided the backup of the corruption regarding Hillary’s payola from foreign governments and individuals, which the US Constitution bans. I've already provide the information to back up the point that she lied to the FBI. You just don’t like them.

Now I understand Clinton’s defense against corruption charges are the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives (which it doesn't as most of the money is a slush fund used to pay the salaries of her cronies, lavish travel, and a whole lot of what the foundations classifies as 'other expenses' in the gear up for a Hillary run for presidency) . And now if you don’t want to save lives you’re a horrible human being. Give me a break! But the truth is those foreign governments that gave money to the foundation have business with the State Department? Did they seek official action by the State Department? You betcha!

The law was not set up to ban the practice of foreign governments directly bribing government, but support the practice of foreign governments indirectly bribing government officials by paying off their spouses. Come on… Common sense needs to be applied here.

I looked up the guidelines here on boards, and found this interesting.

If you think these rules bind the moderators hands, think again. The moderators have discretion to react and moderate as they see fit, in the best interests of the forum they take care of. You can challenge a decision using the Dispute Resolution Process, but don’t think for a moment you can use the guidelines above to find some semantic loophole to excuse your behaviour (people who do this are known as “rules lawyers” and are seen as a small step above trolls). It’s not going to work. The spirit of the law is more important than the wording of the law on boards.ie and our guidelines can and will change if and when there’s need.

The spirit of the law here at boards.ie is the same as the spirit of our laws here in the US. Hillary and her supporters are trying to be “rules lawyers.” That tactic isn’t allowed here, and rightly so, and shouldn’t be allowed in our government… finding some little loophole to claim your crime is not a crime… You know.. It depends on what the meaning of the word is is. Unfortunately for us our government is corrupt also. The Attorney General is a political appointee of a Democratic President. Our AG and her DOJ is not going to go after another democratic who's most likely to become the next POTUS. There are several reasons to criminally charge her… Gross negligence with the handling of classified and top secret materials, payola, and lying to the FBI. But nothing will be done by the current administration because she is too big to jail. Our only hope is some person with the power who isn’t afraid to be on the receiving end of the wrath of the Clinton machine, and who puts justice above politics. People here have been prosecuted and jailed for doing far less. Apparently the Clintons feel they are above the law that applies to mere mortals like us, and sadly they are proving it to be true.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Amerika - the AP story has been seriously shredded , do you agree with that ?

No, the AP story hasn't been shredded. What is did do is confirm what everybody has always suspected, that payola was going on.

Here's a flowchart for your enjoyment. It's more a roadmap for a trip to jail, but sadly justice doesn't always prevail.

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/NE3416_hillary_map.pdf

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

No, the AP story hasn't been shredded. What is did do is confirm what everybody has always suspected, that payola was going on.

Here's a flowchart for your enjoyment. It's more a roadmap for a trip to jail, but sadly justice doesn't always prevail.

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/NE3416_hillary_map.pdf

Well then Amerika you are guilty of what you accused other of a few posts back - not willing to accept what doesn't suit your beliefs

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Well then Amerika you are guilty of what you accused other of a few posts back - not willing to accept what doesn't suit your beliefs

Please show me proof, or even a valid argument that the AP story has been seriously shredded.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve already provided the backup of the corruption regarding Hillary’s payola from foreign governments and individuals, which the US Constitution bans. I've already provide the information to back up the point that she lied to the FBI. You just don’t like them.

I've already addressed your points in this post. Which you ignored.

The US Constitution doesn't ban anything of the sort.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Please show me proof, or even a valid argument that the AP story has been seriously shredded.

Don't waste your time Marienbad. He'll only ignore whatever you come up with.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Please show me proof, or even a valid argument that the AP story has been seriously shredded.

Even though you support Trump , I have always suspected you are a reasonable guy behind it all , don't make me begin to doubt you

Even the blurps on that article should have raised your suspicions - what was it - '80 of 158 meetings with HRC resulted in donations' or something like that !

The US Secretary of State had only 150 odd meetings in 4 Years ! She really was asleep on the job if that were true. It has been seriously debunked in the article linked by Suryararman

Suryavarman

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the fact that Trump appears to be turning his back on his biggest policy position and is now considering amnesty for illegal immigrants. It goes to show just how untrustworthy and dishonest Trump is. Hilariously this backtrack happened on the exact same day Ann Coulter released a book entitled In Trump we Trust that contained the below quote:

There’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies

It's going to be hilarious watching Trump's supporters try to defend this backpedalling.

TheDoctor

Ann Coulters meltdown on Trump changing his immigration plans, the day she released her book was extremely satisfying to see.

Pro Hoc Vice

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the fact that Trump appears to be turning his back on his biggest policy position and is now considering amnesty for illegal immigrants. It goes to show just how untrustworthy and dishonest Trump is. Hilariously this backtrack happened on the exact same day Ann Coulter released a book entitled In Trump we Trust that contained the below quote:



It's going to be hilarious watching Trump's supporters try to defend this backpedalling.

They will turn up in a few hours (waiting for the download from HQ) start talking about something different, then when questioned about the immigration policy say the media are being mean and Hillary forced the change as she is behind the selling immigrants babies for donations.

ancapailldorcha

In short, nobody has a clue what they'd be voting for should they opt for Trump. To me, he looks every bit as much an elitist as his main opponent.

Suryavarman

The Wall Street Journal contacted all 45 surviving members of the Council of Economic Advisers. Not a single one of them supported Trump for the Presidency. Their lack of support for Trump is unsurprising considering he has only one economist on his panel of 12 economic advisers.

It seems the belief that Trump's policies would be good for the US economy is completely unfounded.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

edit: I read the effect I refer is known as the ‘Shy Trump Voter” effect. It refers to the theory that there’s a group of voters who won’t admit their support for Trump in phone surveys, but will actually choose him in the election this fall.

Republicans believed this so strongly last time that even Romney was apparently shocked when he lost. The campaign was living in a bubble where everyone believed that the polls and the mainstream press were skewed.

Turned out that nope, the polls were broadly correct and Romney was never going to win.

But he will turn out to be a stellar performer next to Trump.

RobertKK

When it comes to the Clinton Foundation which is an issue in this election.
Can the people who defend Hillary and the foundation explain why after Saudi Arabia donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation did the sales of weapons/military equipment increased by 97% under during the tenure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?

According to an International Business Times investigation, arms exports from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia increased 97 percent under Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Around the same time, the Saudi Arabian government donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. The Boston Globe’s editorial board recently called for the Clinton Foundation to freeze donations and shut down, as it is a conflict of interest so long as either Bill or Hillary Clinton are in public office or seeking public office.
The Podesta Group, founded by Clinton’s Campaign Manager, John Podesta, is also being paid $140,000 a month to lobby on behalf of the Saudi Arabian government.
In 2011, Clinton oversaw a $29 billion dollar deal which sent fighter jets to the Saudi Arabian government. Emails released from Clinton’s private server show Clinton’s staff celebrating the sale as “good news,” according to The Intercept.
In a separate batch of emails found on the server, Clinton and her close aide, Cheryl Mills, admitted that they hold Saudi Arabia to a different standard when it comes to speaking out against human rights violations.
During Obama’s first five years in office—four of which saw Clinton as secretary of state—the Obama Administration brokered $30 billion more in arms deals than George W. Bush did during his eight years in office.

http://observer.com/2016/08/hillary-clinton-likely-to-increase-weapons-exports-to-saudi-arabia/

So the chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign has a company in his name that is being paid $140,000 a month to lobby on behalf of Saudi Arabia.
Given the Clinton's past dealing with the Saudi's both as secretary of state and the Clinton foundation, they do seem to be in the pocket of the Saudis, and to have the chairman of the Clinton campaign setting up a company to lobby for the Saudis is really something else.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

When it comes to the Clinton Foundation which is an issue in this election.
Can the people who defend Hillary and the foundation explain why after Saudi Arabia donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation did the sales of weapons/military equipment increased by 97% under during the tenure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?



http://observer.com/2016/08/hillary-clinton-likely-to-increase-weapons-exports-to-saudi-arabia/

So the chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign has a company in his name that is being paid $140,000 a month to lobby on behalf of Saudi Arabia.
Given the Clinton's past dealing with the Saudi's both as secretary of state and the Clinton foundation, they do seem to be in the pocket of the Saudis, and to have the chairman of the Clinton campaign setting up a company to lobby for the Saudis is really something else.

You're citing Trump's son-in-law's news site as a valid source of unbiased information on the Clinton Foundation?

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

You're citing Trump's son-in-law's news site as a valid source of unbiased information on the Clinton Foundation?

I don't know who owns the Observer, but what you are arguing about is the source and not the information.

The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/04/20/saudi-government-has-vast-network-of-pr-lobby-firms-in-u-s/

The Saudi government and its affiliates have spent millions of dollars on U.S. law, lobby and public relations firms to raise the country’s visibility in the United States and before the United Nations at a crucial time.
And some of Washington’s premier law and lobby firms — including Podesta Group, BGR Government Affairs, DLA Piper and Pillsbury Winthrop — have been tasked with the job, according to a review of Justice Department filings. Five lobby and PR firms were hired in 2015 alone, signaling a stepped-up focus on ties with Washington.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't know who owns the Observer, but what you are arguing about is the source and not the information.

The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/04/20/saudi-government-has-vast-network-of-pr-lobby-firms-in-u-s/

The WaPo piece is entirely different; it is about Saudi lobbying in the US in general.

I was pointing out to you that the Observer is owned by Jared Kushner who is Ivanka Trump's husband and who is closely involved with Trump's campaign. It's about as unbiased a source as asking Chelsea Clinton what she thinks about her mother.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

The WaPo piece is entirely different; it is about Saudi lobbying in the US in general.

I was pointing out to you that the Observer is owned by Jared Kushner who is Ivanka Trump's husband and who is closely involved with Trump's campaign. It's about as unbiased a source as asking Chelsea Clinton what she thinks about her mother.

The Podesta group owned by the chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign is still paid by the Saudis to lobby for them.