Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion v6

[ucunc156]

You do know that the block was asked for and put in place by the Newspaper themselves, right? It has to do with the fact that the daily mail published pictures and information about someone who is on trial for murder, something you are not allowed to do until after the trial. It's to avoid someone getting labeled as a murderer in the public opinion before he is found (not) guilty by the court.

"However, when the Swedish news outlet Fria Tider, contacted a source at the Daily Mail, he said that the newspaper's lawyers had ordered blocking of articles for Swedish visitors. The reason is, among other things, that a number of articles are questioning the suspected perpetrator's alleged age, information that could affect the trial."

You're telling me breitbart misrepresented something and made an outrageous claim and people ran with it to suit their ideological beliefs? Gtfo man.

 

[lapollarecords]

I'm laughing my ass off with the basque national TV's coverage of the election. Every Basque American they interview is an old conservative redneck. It's the most far right speech I've ever heard in my own language. Offensive stuff for our usual, liberal standards.

I don't have a horse in this race but I hope Trump wins just for shits and giggles.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Clinton is likely to win, while Sanders would not be. Not sure why that commonsense, obvious observation infuriates you so.

I base my conclusion on empirical polling data. Your conclusion is based on partisanship, ideology and what you wish to be true. The rationale of my position leaves me about as "infuriated" as Mr. Spock.

I'm not expecting to feel any joy at your disappointment after the election.

My disappointment with the future of my country is current. It won't be increased or decreased by the outcome on election day.

I just wanted to go on the record saying that, if/when Trump wins this thing, it will, IMO, be the fault of those who voted for Clinton, an obvious, electoral cancer, in the democratic primaries.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So you're going to insist on framing this as a sensitive person having his feelings hurt rather than a push back against outright lies and smears. Just completely weak.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Trump has been smeared a bit but he's also incredibly sensitive to any criticism as evidenced by the first GOP debate. Megan Kelly asked tough questions to most of the candidates but only one of them engaged in a long running beef with her. He's talked about expanding the libel laws to be able better prosecute the press. I see that as very dangerous. I'm not the biggest fan of the MSM but I think their trash reporting is a lesser evil than a president going around suing the press for stepping on his toes.

So you're willing to exchange less money for the average american, less jobs, and a half a trillion trade deficit for cheaper goods and more competitive American firms? You don't make any sense Kafir.

Cheaper goods and stronger American firms are supposed to lead to more money and jobs for the average American. But it leads to the opposite so tell me again why we want this.

It wouldn't be as disastrous if there was more financial regulation and re-distributive economic policies. Trump isn't offering either or a more radical alternative that inspires confidence. I believe there's a chance that with Trump's solutions, whatever they ultimately are, the cure might be worse than the disease.

His temperament and knowledge can be debated but what can't be debated is that he's the only politician since Ross Perot to even bring this up. So you're solution is to vote for the person who guaranteed to slam the gas pedal and permanently propel us toward this globalization you're not a fan of? Just not making any sense.

Where have you been? Bernie Sanders was making the same sorts of noises on free trade and manufacturing("Open borders is a Koch Brothers proposal").

In fact that was one of my hang ups with Bernie just as it is with Trump. I think they've diagnosed the problem correctly but are offering an outdated cure. If a populist president with policies like those two have suggested got into office and fucked things up I fear the American people would run back into the arms of the neoliberal establishment the same way the huge fuck ups of Bush turned a lot of people away from the GOP and from the neocon agenda.

"I don't know this, I don't know that, I don't know anything about this subject but Trump is definitely ignorant because reasons"

If you say so man.

Some people can admit their limitations on certain topics instead of trying to cover it up with the "best words" and a "good brain"

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I've noticed that 98% of your posts are either some liberal talking point or sucking jack's cock..

You're pathetic...lol

I've noticed that 98% of your posts are either some liberal talking point or sucking jack's cock..

You're pathetic...lol

Lol whatever, I've mentioned him maybe a dozen times over the years , you on the other hand ....

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

and?

Anyone can file a civil suit , way to early to say that this is anything of note.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Lol whatever, I've mentioned him maybe a dozen times over the years , you on the other hand ....

Bullshit . ..

But coming from you I'm not surprised

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Bullshit . ..

But coming from you I'm not surprised

Man you sound angry these days , lighten up

 

[Sycho Sid]

I am almost hoping for a Trump win just so we do not have to hear from posters on here every fucking day about how much they hate Hillary, and post two or three "scandals" a day.

God this shit has been exhausting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I base my conclusion on empirical polling data. Your conclusion is based on partisanship, ideology and what you wish to be true. The rationale of my position leaves me about as "infuriated" as Mr. Spock.

Empirical polling data that shows your boy trailing. How does that work?

My disappointment with the future of my country is current. It won't be increased or decreased by the outcome on election day.

Your disappointment at seeing the liberal candidate win.

I just wanted to go on the record saying that, if/when Trump wins this thing, it will, IMO, be the fault of those who voted for Clinton, an obvious, electoral cancer, in the democratic primaries.

Nope. It would first be the fault of people who voted for Trump (duh). And then of the media, who has helped people like you get so badly misinformed.

 

[BOWHUNTER]

Goddamn you sound like such a cuck'd bitch.

easy tough guy. Daddy is gonna make all your pain go away, when he makes America great again.

 

[curryjunkie]

whenever i need a chuckle i come to the war room, Nov 9 is gonna be fun

 

[Jack V Savage]

The email thing isn't immoral. It's just stupid, illegal and a national security risk. Which in my eyes is way worse for the leader of our nation to be doing than saying something about not liking women who don't have big boobs.

That's false (the email thing was not found to be illegal and obviously was not a national security risk), and you're downplaying the extent of Trump's immorality to a ridiculous degree.

Lets see, Hillary's pathological lying is immoral. Her speeches to Wall Street were immoral. Her intimidating her husbands mistresses was immoral. Her accepting money from countries that persecute gays and women is immoral. The way she treats her security is immoral. Her campaign's dirty illegal tricks are all immoral. Her foundation playing favorites is immoral. Basically her life is just a constant cloud of immorality until she steps on stage, straps on that smile and puts on a facade for the public that she really cares about them. The fact that you and millions of others believe it is absurd to me.

She's not, in fact, a pathological liar. Her accuracy rate is one of the highest of any politicians (and Trump's is by far the worst--he is a pathological liar). Giving speeches isn't immoral under any system I'm aware of. I don't know what intimidation you're referring to. The charity thing makes no sense. Charities should check up on donors before accepting their money? I give money to charity a lot, and I've never been subjected to a background check or anything from the recipients. Neither of us has any idea how she treats her security.

Her life, as you demonstrate, is a constant cloud of ridiculous gossip and false accusations. A decent person doesn't make public accusations of that nature with no evidence, IMO.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Empirical polling data that shows your boy trailing. How does that work?

I'd suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. But I can't find the wherewithal.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-does-sanders-do-better-clinton-against-trump

According to the latest (June, 2016) NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now only slightly ahead of businessman Donald Trump in a general election match-up among registered voters, 47 percent to 45 percent.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, however, continues to perform much better against the presumptive Republican nominee than Clinton and is currently beating him by a full 12 points, 52 percent to 40 percent.

 

[Quipling]

I'd suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. But I can't find the wherewithal.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-does-sanders-do-better-clinton-against-trump

According to the latest (June, 2016) NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now only slightly ahead of businessman Donald Trump in a general election match-up among registered voters, 47 percent to 45 percent.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, however, continues to perform much better against the presumptive Republican nominee than Clinton and is currently beating him by a full 12 points, 52 percent to 40 percent.

Gosh, it's almost like nobody is running a negative campaign against Bernie, allowing him to have a much better performance.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'd suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. But I can't find the wherewithal.

You're confused. You suggested that I would be "weeping bitter tears" blah blah blah on the 9th, knowing that I'm a liberal. I noted that Clinton is likely to win, and you said that you base your conclusion on empirical polling data, while I base my conclusion on evility or something. Nope. Clinton is likely to win based on straight polls, polling-based analysis, and betting odds.

And it's pretty ridiculous to bring up Sanders. He lost the primary. He would be getting killed in the general if he were subject to the same types of personal attacks and to highlighting of his unpopular policy ideas. You yourself would certainly regard him as no better than Trump after a month of negative campaign ads, attacks from right-wing talk radio and blogs, and screeching from the Herbal Tea Party types like deBoer, Taibbi, and Greenwald.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Gosh, it's almost like nobody is running a negative campaign against Bernie, allowing him to have a much better performance.

Cling to conjecture in the face of hard data.

At the time this poll was taken Clinton was trying to hit Sanders just as hard as Cruz and Kasich were trying to hit Trump.

So Sanders and Trump were exactly even at that time in that regard.

You would have to imagine that, somehow, Sanders might have taken significantly more hits than Trump has since the general began. Enough that it would erode a 12 point lead.

It's a laughable proposition.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Cling to conjecture in the face of hard data.

At the time this poll was taken Clinton was trying to hit Sanders just as hard as Cruz and Kasich were trying to hit Trump.

This is false. Clinton was never in any real jeopardy in the primary and her incentive was always to maintain a good relationship with Sanders. She didn't campaign against him hard or even for herself much (note, for example, that Sanders outspent her). Plus, the GOP and the fake left, knowing that Clinton had the primary won, was trying to put a wedge there by praising Sanders.

So Sanders and Trump were exactly even at that time in that regard.

You would have to imagine that, somehow, Sanders might have taken significantly more hits than Trump has since the general began. Enough that it would erode a 12 point lead.

It's a laughable proposition.

Not if you know anything about the effectiveness of negative campaigning. Clinton was one of the most well-known and deeply vetted political figures in the country and had a 65% favorability rating at the end of her time as SoS.

 

[Fawlty]

Bullshit . ..

But coming from you I'm not surprised

lol did you lose your shit again? After trying to get your shit back together?

I mean damn, man, this election is stressing me out too, but your nervous system must look like the Vegas Strip on fight night.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I've really hit a wall with this election. I have Clinton - Trump overload.

Gets on my nerves listening to them... bad. I need to chill out til election day I think. Man, I wish Obama could stay on.