2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

KingBrian2

Just watched the debate thought it went well. Trump behaved very presidential and it was really good they concentrated on policy. The standard of the debate by both participates was much better than the last debate. All in all I found it to be very informative.

B_Wayne

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Just watched the debate thought it went well. Trump behaved very presidential and it was really good they concentrated on policy. The standard of the debate by both participates was much better than the last debate. All in all I found it to be very informative.

Very presidential to say that he won't accept the outcome of the election?

KingBrian2

B_Wayne wrote: »

Very presidential to say that he won't accept the outcome of the election?

Given that Hillary should never have been chosen as the Democratic candidate as she has broken numerous laws.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given that Hillary should never have been chosen as the Democratic candidate as she has broken numerous laws.

even if this were true what is the connection ?

B_Wayne

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given that Hillary should never have been chosen as the Democratic candidate as she has broken numerous laws.

Nope, that does not address it in any way. You're diverting from the fact he is refusing to accept the democratic will if he loses... Which he will. "But Hillary" is not a way to address Trump's behaviour.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given that Hillary should never have been chosen as the Democratic candidate as she has broken numerous laws.

What would they be then?

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given that Hillary should never have been chosen as the Democratic candidate as she has broken numerous laws.

Which laws were those?

She's so evil she doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence that is the corner stone of the US justice system?

KingBrian2

B_Wayne wrote: »

Nope, that does not address it in any way. You're diverting from the fact he is refusing to accept the democratic will if he loses... Which he will. "But Hillary" is not a way to address Trump's behaviour.

All I said was that he was presidential and the talk of the commentariat was that this was something that was impossible for him to do. He came across in a friendly manner similarly so did Clinton so I do not detest her. On policy the debate went very well. We got to hear a lot more about what their ideas about America and world are. It came across a lot clearer. Hillary's record as a US senator was often thrown out there by her to show all the major important decisions she made. Her policies down through the years have created more problems than solutions though. I felt Trump came at these policies and her husbands as well indeed he even recalled his frustration at Reagan who we all know was not a saint.

TheDoctor

Billy86 wrote: »

Will try to find it later, up there's an interesting story on their model, its not exactly biased as much as deeply, deeply flawed. One 1 year old black guy in Chicago's vote is worth about 350 standard votes of those participating in it, for example.

Yes with 99% accuracy in the last two Presidential elections I would also describe their model as flawed........

TheDoctor

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_98fe8b3559f64960a573ecad7dc22ec9.pdf


First poll with McMullin leading in Utah.

McMullin for Utah!!!

Overheal

He came across in a friendly manner

Did we watch the same debate??

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-nasty-woman/index.html

"Such a nasty woman!"

*constant interruptions* "WRONG! WRONG! LIES! YOU'RE THE PUPPET!"

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given that Hillary should never have been chosen as the Democratic candidate as she has broken numerous laws.

Trump would be losing against any of the possible Democratic nominations. Hillary is actually the only chance he had to win, but he's too stupid and sociopathic to beat the 2nd least popular candidate ever

B_Wayne

KingBrian2 wrote: »

All I said was that he was presidential and the talk of the commentariat was that this was something that was impossible for him to do. He came across in a friendly manner similarly so did Clinton so I do not detest her. On policy the debate went very well. We got to hear a lot more about what their ideas about America and world are. It came across a lot clearer. Hillary's record as a US senator was often thrown out there by her to show all the major important decisions she made. Her policies down through the years have created more problems than solutions though. I felt Trump came at these policies and her husbands as well indeed he even recalled his frustration at Reagan who we all know was not a saint.

And I asked for clarification on how exactly it is presidential to refuse the democratic will of the people? Trump is setting this election up to end in riots, that's what happens when you claim that it's voter fraud and election rigging that's losing it for you. There's nothing presidential about his behaviour.

TheDoctor

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump would be losing against any of the possible Democratic nominations. Hillary is actually the only chance he had to win, but he's too stupid and sociopathic to beat the 2nd least popular candidate ever

On the flip side a "normal" Republican candidate should have Hillary in trouble in 2020.

CMOTDibbler

TheDoctor wrote: »

On the flip side a "normal" Republican candidate should have Hillary in trouble in 2020.

This is true. Some people suspect that it would be Paul Ryan and if so, he would be very hard to beat imo.

KingBrian2

B_Wayne wrote: »

And I asked for clarification on how exactly it is presidential to refuse the democratic will of the people? Trump is setting this election up to end in riots, that's what happens when you claim that it's voter fraud and election rigging that's losing it for you. There's nothing presidential about his behaviour.

His exact words were "we'll wait and see." Trump is not the only one to notice how extremely favourable the press are to Clinton. Lets not forget she was investigated by the FBI and has repeatedly lied on crucial positions that she has held in the past. Her campaign has been very dirty by implying that Trump is a sexual predator despite any of the allegations being substantiated. She benefits from the citizen united judgement she herself opposes. What we know of Trump is rumor and gossip all be it very bad press coverage. Clinton's record concerning her present policies and her husbands scandals are historical facts.

InTheTrees

B_Wayne wrote: »

And I asked for clarification on how exactly it is presidential to refuse the democratic will of the people? Trump is setting this election up to end in riots, that's what happens when you claim that it's voter fraud and election rigging that's losing it for you. There's nothing presidential about his behaviour.

I think he'll have to concede. The damage he would do to the trump "brand" if any violence were to result would be incalculable.

InTheTrees

TheDoctor wrote: »

On the flip side a "normal" Republican candidate should have Hillary in trouble in 2020.

I dont think she'll be a one termer. We'll have to wait and see of course.

B_Wayne

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think he'll have to concede. The damage he would do to the trump "brand" if any violence were to result would be incalculable.

Thing is, he's already told his supporters to keep an eye out for rigging at their local polling centers. Seems guaranteed that something will go wrong.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

His exact words were "we'll wait and see." Trump is not the only one to notice how extremely favourable the press are to Clinton. Lets not forget she was investigated by the FBI and has repeatedly lied on crucial positions that she has held in the past. Her campaign has been very dirty by implying that Trump is a sexual predator despite any of the allegations being substantiated. She benefits from the citizen united judgement she herself opposes. What we know of Trump is rumor and gossip all be it very bad press coverage. Clinton's record concerning her present policies and her husbands scandals are historical facts.

'But Hillary'........

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

His exact words were "we'll wait and see." Trump is not the only one to notice how extremely favourable the press are to Clinton. Lets not forget she was investigated by the FBI and has repeatedly lied on crucial positions that she has held in the past. Her campaign has been very dirty by implying that Trump is a sexual predator despite any of the allegations being substantiated. She benefits from the citizen united judgement she herself opposes. What we know of Trump is rumor and gossip all be it very bad press coverage. Clinton's record concerning her present policies and her husbands scandals are historical facts.

He substantiated them himself. On numerous occasions. Not just on the Billy Bush bus.

Seriously. The sexual predator stuff is all self-inflicted. You can't blame Hillary for starting them because she didn't.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

His exact words were "we'll wait and see." Trump is not the only one to notice how extremely favourable the press are to Clinton. Lets not forget she was investigated by the FBI and has repeatedly lied on crucial positions that she has held in the past. Her campaign has been very dirty by implying that Trump is a sexual predator despite any of the allegations being substantiated. She benefits from the citizen united judgement she herself opposes. What we know of Trump is rumor and gossip all be it very bad press coverage. Clinton's record concerning her present policies and her husbands scandals are historical facts.

He stated he was a sexual predator - not Hillary.
The press and their relationship to Hillary have nothing to do with conceding defeat - that's between the electorate and the candidates.
The rest of the evasions ignored.

InTheTrees

Well luckily here in Washington we're Vote-By-Mail only. So there wont be any polling stations for trump supporters to be patrolling.

alastair

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont think she'll be a one termer. We'll have to wait and see of course.

I reckon she will be. Even if the GOP don't get their act together and find a convincing candidate (entirely possible given the mess they're in), I'd see some serious challengers coming up the ranks in the Democrats.

Overheal

Nobody in the DNC will give her a serious challenge. There would be no real imperative to, unless she was threatened by another party's candidate.

InTheTrees

alastair wrote: »

I reckon she will be. Even if the GOP don't get their act together and find a convincing candidate (entirely possible given the mess they're in), I'd see some serious challengers coming up the ranks in the Democrats.

Its rare for a serious challenger to the sitting President from their own party.

Has a sitting president ever lost their own party's primary? The most recent one termers were carter and bush senior and they were both beaten by the other party's nominee.

alastair

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its rare for a serious challenger to the sitting President from their own party.

Has a sitting president ever lost their own party's primary? The most recent one termers were carter and bush senior and they were both beaten by the other party's nominee.

LBJ was challenged by Eugene McCarthy in the primaries, and then withdrew from the race, but not neccesarily just for that reason.

alastair

Overheal wrote: »

Nobody in the DNC will give her a serious challenge. There would be no real imperative to, unless she was threatened by another party's candidate.

It's more likely than not she will be (threatened).

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its rare for a serious challenger to the sitting President from their own party.

Has a sitting president ever lost their own party's primary? The most recent one termers were carter and bush senior and they were both beaten by the other party's nominee.

Lyndon Johnson was eligible to run in 1968 but chose not to.

Apparently the only time it has outright happened was to Franklin Pierce, back in 1856. Basically, it's not happening.

jobbridge4life

Finnley Quaint Wineglass wrote: »

And usually with a margin error of 5%. Unless the polls have consulted each and every voting adult anonymously, then wouldn't take them too seriously.

Eh... that wouldn't be a 'poll'... that would be the general election.

Sam Russell

1. Do not forget her age.

2. If the claims about her health are true (I do not believe them myself), she might not run for health reasons.

3. Her ratings might be so bad, it might cause her to not run.

Michelle Obama might be a contender - you never know.

Overheal

Sam Russell wrote: »

1. Do not forget her age.

2. If the claims about her health are true (I do not believe them myself), she might not run for health reasons.

3. Her ratings might be so bad, it might cause her to not run.

Michelle Obama might be a contender - you never know.

McCain is 80 and his heartbeat held out the 8 years we were worried about President Palin for.

alastair

Three terms under one party is enough to stack the odds against the incumbent. Daddy Bush wasn't the worst president, and he was well liked, but he was soundly defeated by fresh options - not just Clinton, but Perot did very well in the same election - clearly it was house-clearing time. A fresh proposition might well be the best defence against that dynamic - given that it's very difficult not to carry unwelcome baggage as the incumbent.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see the Donald has just said he will accept the election result "if he wins" he probably thinks that will do.

I think that's just about publicity. I believe Don believes ALL publicity is good and his ad libs are solely for that. He also can't help responding to the O/P, instead of keeping his mouth zippered shut.

aloyisious

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It came across a lot clearer. Hillary's record as a US senator was often thrown out there by her to show all the major important decisions she made.

And Don gave her the lead-in with his continuous reference to Hillary's 30 year service.

BorneTobyWilde

Clinton boasts about her tax returns being public, does anyone really believe that she doesn't have accounts in Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars in them. I think we all know she most likely does.

B_Wayne

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Clinton boasts about her tax returns being public, does anyone really believe that she doesn't have accounts in Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars in them. I think we all know she most likely does.

Hillary has released her tax returns, you're making Hillary guilty of everything with zero proof.

BorneTobyWilde

B_Wayne wrote: »

Hillary has released her tax returns, you're making Hillary guilty of everything with zero proof.

But if you look at all the things that have been proving against her then you would assume this person would have offshore accounts. I mean she things she is smarter than everyone else so she would have them, most likely..
It would be something she would do '' here are my tax returns''
''haha Americans are so stupid, I have 200 million in Saudi Account ''

alastair

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Clinton boasts about her tax returns being public, does anyone really believe that she doesn't have accounts in Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars in them. I think we all know she most likely does.

You think wrong.

alastair

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

But if you look at all the things that have been proving against her then you would assume this person would have offshore accounts. I mean she things she is smarter than everyone else so she would have them, most likely..
It would be something she would do '' here are my tax returns''
''haha Americans are so stupid, I have 200 million in Saudi Account ''

What exactly do you believe has been 'proving' against her?

She's an extremely wealthy woman, with no evidence of any financial wrongdoing, nor a particularly extravagant lifestyle. What do you imagine she's doing with this fantasy money in Saudi Arabia?

aloyisious

I think this was raised here earlier and it's probably best answered by some-one from the US voters. If Don was to stand down, for whatever reason, and the V/P nominee was to step forward for the position, how much would it change what the US polls say about the eventual outcome and increase the chances of the Republicans taking the presidency at this late stage? Is there any "scuttlebutt" in the air about such a chance?

BorneTobyWilde

alastair wrote: »

You think wrong.

I think wrong, so the person with 13 phones, the person who lies under oath to the American people, the person who after receiving a subpoena still goes ahead and deletes as many emails as humanly possible before she hands over rest.
Yep she has no offshore account with millions hidden away for all her favours to countries who treat women like animals, she would not do such a thing.
I can imagine she has 13 names too to go with her 13 phones.

InTheTrees

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

But if you look at all the things that have been proving against her then you would assume....'

I dont see you proving anything and assuming a whole lot.

I see you absolutely hate her (for ill defined reasons) and want to try and imply negativity wherever you can.

CMOTDibbler

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I think wrong, so the person with 13 phones, the person who lies under oath to the American people, the person who after receiving a subpoena still goes ahead and deletes as many emails as humanly possible before she hands over rest.
Yep she has no offshore account with millions hidden away for all her favours to countries who treat women like animals, she would not do such a thing.
I can imagine she has 13 names too to go with her 13 phones.

And yet with all that 'evidence' you seem to feel the need to make more stuff up?

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont think she'll be a one termer. We'll have to wait and see of course.

If Hillary Clinton is elected 8 November 2016 and sworn-in 20 January 2017, she will be faced with the same Republican roadblocks in the US House led by Speaker Ryan, and if the Republicans continue to control the US Senate, same there too. So the Obama 2-term condition with the Republican "Party of No" will continue into Clinton's 1st term as president, the purpose solely being for the Republicans to make the new Democratic party president look bad with little passed by congress, so that the Republicans can use this against Clinton in 2020. Such is the dysfunctional state of the 2-party system in America as cautioned by John Adams. The infighting between the two parties has gotten so extreme that it no longer functions as a check-and-balance, rather like 2 NFL teams with fans mindlessly cheering their teams on: "Right or wrong no matter, but always my team!"

CMOTDibbler

Black Swan wrote: »

If Hillary Clinton is elected 8 November 2016 and sworn-in 20 January 2017, she will be faced with the same Republican roadblocks in the US House led by Speaker Ryan, and if the Republicans continue to control the US Senate, same there too. So the Obama 2-term condition with the Republican "Party of No" will continue into Clinton's 1st term as president, the purpose solely being for the Republicans to make the new Democratic party president look bad with little passed by congress, so that the Republicans can use this against Clinton in 2020. Such is the dysfunctional state of the 2-party system in America as cautioned by John Adams. The infighting between the two parties has gotten so extreme that it no longer functions as a check-and-balance, rather like 2 NFL teams with fans mindlessly cheering their teams on: "Right or wrong no matter, but always my team!"

Yeah. This is just a sideshow to the main event which many Americans don't really understand is the real problem.

The US really needs a third party, but people are so entrenched at this stage that it wouldn't matter if Jesus himself came along and started it. He'd be completely ignored in the red v blue war.

Overheal

It really needs just no parties at all, but that will never happen. Just each candidate to stand on their own principles. Instead 2 parties form for the most part this fixed party platform of theirs neither of which encompasses most americans (seen by the turnout rates). The DNC and GOP bill themselves as these multi-issue parties and they're diametrically opposed. Sure there are caucuses and things but that doesn't address the real issue.

Black Swan

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Clinton boasts about her tax returns being public, does anyone really believe that she doesn't have accounts in Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars in them. I think we all know she most likely does.

No, we don't "all know," nor do you in the slightest. So this election should be decided my partisan rumour and innuendo without an once of evidence to support such claims? Certainly Clinton has a lot to answer for that has been documented, but Americans are also include rumour and innuendo about hidden overseas bank accounts, which you have ZERO evidence to support your claims?

It's a fact, not some unsubstantiated rumour, that Donald Trump has not revealed his many years of tax returns as other presidential candidates have for decades in past elections. The audit excuse is nonsense. Not all his returns are currently being audited. He could reveal many years that are not under current audit by IRS. What does Donald Trump have to hide by not revealing any of his tax returns?

Zubeneschamali

Black Swan wrote: »

Such is the dysfunctional state of the 2-party system in America

The problem is not the 2 party system, the problem is the Republican party.

Roanmore

I'd love to know what Trump would have to do for Giuliani to condemn him, he's become a parody of himself.

Black Swan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The US really needs a third party, but people are so entrenched at this stage that it wouldn't matter if Jesus himself came along and started it. He'd be completely ignored in the red v blue war.

Because of the vast diversities of problems, needs, and interests found in their population of approximately 318 million people, methinks that America needs more than just a 3rd party, rather several parties that have to come together to make a government, and by doing so go through the art of compromise so that the constituents of each party have a greater chance to be heard than in the current 2-party NFL gaming situation: "Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing," during presidential election 2016, regardless of how much voter collateral damage occurs.