2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Really?

Taylor Swift fans at a Taylor Swift gig, loudly cheer an ironic poster suggesting they vote Taylor for President and you think that's a valid measure of the popularity of Trump/Clinton??

Not suggesting that both candidates don't have "likability" issues , they absolutely do , but the above is seriously weak...

Most of the people were motorsport fans who attended a free concert.

B_Wayne

RobertKK wrote: »

Most of the people were motorsport fans who attended a free concert.

I'd be betting there were plenty of Taylor Swift fans at her concert.....

RobertKK

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maybe not voting would be the moral choice, passed through your swing state yesterday.
It will be sad when Hillary wins and proves she is still as incompetent as when she was Secretary of State.

RobertKK

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'd be betting there were plenty of Taylor Swift fans at her concert.....

Yes, but there was a massive crowd on Sunday for Usher and The Roots.

Billy86

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Broken is right. If she wins, it means 4 of the last 5 presidents will have come from 2 families. Madness in a country as diverse as the US.

While it is a good point and very much a problem, it's also not that new. The best example is FDR, probably the best president the US has ever had, was related to ELEVEN other Presidents.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There really are not many doing that at all to be honest, if you've been keeping track. It's a matter of her vs Trump as far as the thread is mainly concerned, and as you agree that's a decision that makes itself by default. The fact she couldn't pull away from him in the polls at times (I think he even held the lead for one day in the campaign) says a lot - it's the far, far, far less worse of two bad options.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not sure, but I'd vote out the gaggle that decided that 'bathroom bill' was worthwhile.

Asheville's always grand for a saturday excursion. Never not a line for the chocolate cafe' though, the gf was disappointed.

Christy42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is what keeps the 2 party system going and why 3rd party candidates lose so much support in the final weeks. That said I agree with her (and think Hillary would be better than Johnson).

Still I can't help but wonder how much of a better candidate other parties could get if they had a chance. Imagine PR in the states where you could vote green and still have Hillary as no.2 to ensure your anti Trump vote.

I mean I would never vote Stein but think under this system other parties might be able to find decent candidates as the saner elements of the left/right wouldn't be driven towards the main parties.

ebbsy

RobertKK wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maybe not voting would be the moral choice, passed through your swing state yesterday.
It will be sad when Hillary wins and proves she is still as incompetent as when she was Secretary of State.[/quote]

Watch out you might get a ban for saying that.

#Draintheswamp

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be sad when Hillary wins and proves she is still as incompetent as when she was Secretary of State.

This line is tired and rarely substantiated. "But Benghazi" seems to be the mating call, to which the courting response is usually, "But Bin Laden."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Colin Powell: "Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris."

Colin Powell: 'I will vote for HRC.'

http://www.mediaite.com/online/colin-powell-will-vote-for-hillary-clinton/

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

Colin Powell: "Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris."

Colin Powell: 'I will vote for HRC.'

http://www.mediaite.com/online/colin-powell-will-vote-for-hillary-clinton/

Mad as that is, it reflects more on Trump than Hilary.

I can see the logic of anybody but Trump and that's the message the Dems were giving to Sanders supporters. It suits the Dems down to the ground because it counters the apathy that is out there about both candidates and the real danger that many wouldn't vote, thus opening a path for Trump to get in.

The Libertarian and Green vote doesn't seem to be damaging Clinton anymore, that was a worry when the polls were tighter.

Black Swan

I have a close friend who is manning the phones calling from California to Nevada to help swing that state towards Hillary Clinton. She is a member of a university student group that favours Elizabeth Warren (who now supports Clinton) and just renamed their group "Nasty Women" with named T-shirts to match. They have a bank of phones with many young women volunteers calling a list of Nevada voters hour after hour. This is a tiny part of the ground game that Trump apparently lacks to get out the vote. Obama used a similar ground game phoning tactic in 2008 between California and Nevada.

Elizabeth Warren: "Nasty women are tough. Nasty women are smart. And nasty women vote. We nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever [Donald Trump]."

Their "Nasty Women" name came from the 3rd presidential debate, where Donald Trump once again reverted to his childish playground name-calling behavior and called Hillary Clinton a "Nasty woman."

Overheal

I overheard a conversation in the office about bad hombres today as well

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can quite happily dismiss some of those 'questions', on the basis that they've been answered already, or that there's no substance to them.

Hillary's role in discrediting the claims of sexual assault levelled against Bill is perfectly understandable, if you believe he's innocent of such acts. It's worth pointing out, once again, that he is innocent until proven guilty, and some of the claims are far from credible. Some people seem to expect that Hillary would believe the claims of sexual assault, simply because the man is a philanderer.

A flip-flopper? Sure. Questions arising from that? Not too sure what they might be. She's certainly got a track record of being more of a politician than an ideologue. Don't think anyone expects much different from her.

Cosy with Wall Street? Sure. To the point of it being a problem? Not clear at all.

Pay-for-play at State Dept? Never seen any convincing evidence of this. Unsubstantiated.

Benghazi? Complete political scapegoat for events that she really had little to do with.

Evasive under depositions? Yes. The email and Benghazi Congressional affairs are essentially a waste of time, energy, and money, for no good reason beyond trying to get Hillary politically. Do I want her to play along with these charades? Not particularly.

In general there's more good than bad with her. She isn't anything to get excited about, but most of the negative narratives about her are just hot air issues and the fact that she's only too happy to spin and distort like the cynical politician she is.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

I have a close friend who is manning the phones calling from California to Nevada to help swing that state towards Hillary Clinton. She is a member of a university student group that favours Elizabeth Warren (who now supports Clinton) and just renamed their group "Nasty Women" with named T-shirts to match. They have a bank of phones with many young women volunteers calling a list of Nevada voters hour after hour. This is a tiny part of the ground game that Trump apparently lacks to get out the vote. Obama used a similar ground game phoning tactic in 2008 between California and Nevada.

Elizabeth Warren: "Nasty women are tough. Nasty women are smart. And nasty women vote. We nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever [Donald Trump]."

Their "Nasty Women" name came from the 3rd presidential debate, where Donald Trump once again reverted to his childish playground name-calling behavior and called Hillary Clinton a "Nasty woman."

Since they're working for Hillary is she paying the ladies less then men who do the same job, which she has a tendency to do?

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Colin Powell: "Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris."

Colin Powell: 'I will vote for HRC.'

http://www.mediaite.com/online/colin-powell-will-vote-for-hillary-clinton/

That is like a WMD in Iraq part 2 from Colin Powell.

Zubeneschamali

The US uses a voting system that guarantees a two party system, whether you like it or not.

The time to argue that HRC is not the ideal Democratic candidate is during the Primaries, and may people did, and Bernie pushed her closer than expected and moved the Party platform left. He could get to be Chair of the Senate Budget Committee as a result.

Once it is HRC vs Any Republican, anyone to the left of Marie Le Pen has to vote for Clinton, as anyone the Republicans nominate will by to her right.

(The exception is when you think you are in a non-swing state, and can protest vote a real left wing candidate and hope you think correctly).

TheDoctor

Iowa swings back red, Ohio heading red.

I'd nearly give those two states to Trump at this stage.

Seems to have pulled some momentum from somewhere.

Igotadose

TheDoctor wrote: »

Iowa swings back red, Ohio heading red.

I'd nearly give those two states to Trump at this stage.

Seems to have pulled some momentum from somewhere.

Details? Ohio showing 9% higher chance for HRC, IA +1% higher (fivethirtyeight.com poll summary). What data are you using? How much swing is it from your earlier measure?

Billy86

TheDoctor wrote: »

Iowa swings back red, Ohio heading red.

I'd nearly give those two states to Trump at this stage.

Seems to have pulled some momentum from somewhere.

Depends where you're looking, on 538 both are blue while on rcp he has a reasonably strong 'toss up' lead in Iowa (which should never have even been up for grabs) and a much slimmer lead in Ohio. Interestingly though, rcp have Clinton as holding 272 votes already so in their model it wouldn't even make much difference.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Since they're working for Hillary is she paying the ladies less then men who do the same job, which she has a tendency to do?

They are highly motivated university student women volunteers, who, if they are like my close friend, would not take a dime payment. Donald Trump obviously does not understand women voters, because he has continued to say things during this campaign that drives the vast majority to dislike him greatly, motivating many like my friend and her group to work like crazy to defeat him 8 November 2016. They truly believe that they will help swing Nevada for Clinton by election day. You cannot buy this level of commitment from these highly educated and motivated women, and to attempt to do so would be an insult.

Methinks that when the post-election analyses have been concluded, most will suggest that women were the major factor in the defeat of Donald Trump. Given that there were approximately 10 million more registered women voters than men in presidential election 2012, Donald Trump truly has something to worry about, especially when he continues to insult women with his childish playground "Nasty woman" name calling. If he thinks that was a small thing, he REALLY does not understand women at all.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you arguing that it's a bad thing that government transfers fell?

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you arguing that it's a bad thing that government transfers fell?

No, he's telling left wing voters that Clinton is too right wing for them, which is why many left wing voters supported Bernie.

But Bernie didn't win the nomination, so anyone sane will row in behind Clinton to humiliate Trump.

aloyisious

I was listening to two elderly US citizens, a married couple, on RTE being asked about the Trump banner outside their home and who they were going to vote for. Trump was the answer, nothing strange due to the banner. It was what the woman said that caught me. She said she was a christian and that Hillary should not be in politics as she's a woman, she should be at home where a housewife should be. They couple were living in a state liable to bad winters so they were getting their mobile home ready to travel to Florida for the winter.

Trent Houseboat

aloyisious wrote:

I was listening to two elderly US citizens, a married couple, on RTE being asked about the Trump banner outside their home and who they were going to vote for. Trump was the answer, nothing strange due to the banner. It was what the woman said that caught me. She said she was a christian and that Hillary should not be in politics as she's a woman, she should be at home where a housewife should be. They couple were living in a state liable to bad winters so they were getting their mobile home ready to travel to Florida for the winter.

Yeah, that's part of Christianity.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 wrote:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Not sure what her book says about pussy grabbing.

Billy86

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Yeah, that's part of Christianity.


Not sure what her book says about pussy grabbing.

Its full by that for their obsession with the Muslimistanians, the USA is possibly the world capital of hard line, dangerous Christian fundamentalism. But self awareness never was a strong point with that particular demographic, to be fair.

rossie1977

Big debate/fight last night between Newt Gingrich and Megyn Kelly. The hardcore right have already started boycott Kelly file trends on twitter

What a bizarre election

TheDoctor

rossie1977 wrote: »

Big debate/fight last night between Newt Gingrich and Megyn Kelly. The hardcore right have already started boycott Kelly file trends on twitter

What a bizarre election

Saw it on youtube this morning.

Before this election I thought Kelly was further right but seems to be fairly central now.

Perhaps the drama she had with Trump at the start or Ailes departure may have shifted her leftwards.

aloyisious

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Yeah, that's part of Christianity.


Not sure what her book says about pussy grabbing.

Was thinking it might be a variation of the "grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow" quote.

Billy86

TheDoctor wrote: »

Saw it on youtube this morning.

Before this election I thought Kelly was further right but seems to be fairly central now.

Perhaps the drama she had with Trump at the start or Ailes departure may have shifted her leftwards.

No, she was just happy to attack everyone until it came too close to home. Kind of classic case of...


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



She should be very grateful that her and Fox's attacks have generally bee unsuccessful over the last 8 years, because those she has been a part of attacks on for quite a long time however, do seem to be somewhat inclined to speak for her.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

aloyisious wrote: »

I was listening to two elderly US citizens, a married couple, on RTE being asked about the Trump banner outside their home and who they were going to vote for. Trump was the answer, nothing strange due to the banner. It was what the woman said that caught me. She said she was a christian and that Hillary should not be in politics as she's a woman, she should be at home where a housewife should be. They couple were living in a state liable to bad winters so they were getting their mobile home ready to travel to Florida for the winter.

That was quite common thinking during Bill's Presidency, Hillary attracted a lot of dislike and hatred because she wasn't ashamed of her career and being a working mother.

Obviously not being a very likable person didn't help but that played a big part in the campaign against her.

Jack1985

Frightening to watch this today..

13 more days of bat sh*t crazy Giuliani.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I can quite happily dismiss some of those 'questions', on the basis that they've been answered already, or that there's no substance to them.

Hillary's role in discrediting the claims of sexual assault levelled against Bill is perfectly understandable, if you believe he's innocent of such acts. It's worth pointing out, once again, that he is innocent until proven guilty, and some of the claims are far from credible. Some people seem to expect that Hillary would believe the claims of sexual assault, simply because the man is a philanderer.

A flip-flopper? Sure. Questions arising from that? Not too sure what they might be. She's certainly got a track record of being more of a politician than an ideologue. Don't think anyone expects much different from her.

Cosy with Wall Street? Sure. To the point of it being a problem? Not clear at all.

Pay-for-play at State Dept? Never seen any convincing evidence of this. Unsubstantiated.

Benghazi? Complete political scapegoat for events that she really had little to do with.

Evasive under depositions? Yes. The email and Benghazi Congressional affairs are essentially a waste of time, energy, and money, for no good reason beyond trying to get Hillary politically. Do I want her to play along with these charades? Not particularly.

In general there's more good than bad with her. She isn't anything to get excited about, but most of the negative narratives about her are just hot air issues and the fact that she's only too happy to spin and distort like the cynical politician she is.

This quick hand waving away of Clinton's misdeeds is exactly the attitude that many, myself included, find infuriating. You're casually dismissing actions that are demonstrably illegal, re: emails, or demonstrate poor judgement and lack of political nous, i.e. Libya involvement, previous legislative efforts etc.

It's a consistent feature of her career, where she has demonstrated a disregard for established rules, exercised poor judgment in her actions and responded to exposure of said actions with dishonesty and evasion.

KingBrian2

Looks like an act of vandalism against Trump's Walk of Fame Star.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/donald-trump-walk-of-fame-star-smashed

This should be condemned as anyone would expect the same if it was done against Clinton.

Jack1985

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Looks like an act of vandalism against Trump's Walk of Fame Star.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/donald-trump-walk-of-fame-star-smashed

This should be condemned as anyone would expect the same if it was done against Clinton.

That isn't the first time either, in a sold Democratic state.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Looks like an act of vandalism against Trump's Walk of Fame Star.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/donald-trump-walk-of-fame-star-smashed

This should be condemned as anyone would expect the same if it was done against Clinton.

Not news tbh

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-donald-trump-walk-of-fame-star-20160404-story.html

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Not news tbh

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-donald-trump-walk-of-fame-star-20160404-story.html

It is since the slab is completely defaced this time. It will have to be redone or else another star's name is placed there.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

Not news tbh

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-donald-trump-walk-of-fame-star-20160404-story.html

Isn't it so refreshing to see everyday Americans no longer feel censored or held back, and just telling it like it is and showing us how they really feel inn relation to Trump?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, but if you look at the post I was replying to I was just pointing out that that those views existed and were much more prevalent in the 90's.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Was Colin Powell elected ? Condi Rice , Rahm Emanuel , George Marshall etc etc - I don't get your point here

AbusesToilets

marienbad wrote: »

Was Colin Powell elected ? Condi Rice , Rahm Emanuel , George Marshall etc etc - I don't get your point here

First Lady is not a position that holds any power in American government. Not an appointed figure, not head of a Department. Nada, zip, zilch.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Instead of being a wallflower in charge of decorating the White House and smiling for the cameras ambitious Hillary Clinton rolled up her sleves and got involved in policy making. Fair play to her.

B_Wayne

AbusesToilets wrote: »

First Lady is not a position that holds any power in American government. Not an appointed figure, not head of a Department. Nada, zip, zilch.

Can you show a way in which she demonstrably abused her role as first lady? Or is this going to be another one on the list of terrible things Hillary has done but with nothing to backup.

Eleanor Roosevelt did a lot as the First Lady, held press conferences regulary, engaged in activism including on issues of race. Are you guys similarly outraged about the fact that she was a highly influential first lady? In fact, basically entirely adapted the role that first ladies would hold in the future. So to extend the logic, she was as crooked as Hillary was as first lady while her husband held office. Personally, I think she was fantastic. Roles change, get over it.