a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016

Who do you vote into the office of USA President?

  • Total voters
    48
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Steinman endorsing Biden presidency? :p

I understand your math now, at least. I'll have to echo Ash that the odds of it succeeding are highly improbable, if only because Trump has shit the bed these past few weeks to the degree that Texas of all places could go blue. I at least hope this is a wake-up call to Republicans, but unfortunately will not be one to Democrats.
 
strawman

strawman

Zero Esc said:
I at least hope this is a wake-up call to Republicans, but unfortunately will not be one to Democrats.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the Democrats had a good wakeup call with Bernie. Hillary did adjust her campaign to address issues she wouldn't have touched if it weren't for him, and I suspect she adjusted her platform, perhaps only slightly, as well.

Ravenpoe said:
Unfortunately our electorate system doesn't work this way. Just look at how many people are only voting Hillary as a "not Trump" vote, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
It would be very interesting if there was a way to find out how many people would vote and for whom if we removed all the people who were really only voting against someone else.

I mean, I'm sure Hillary has her actual supporters who wanted her from day 1, but so does Trump.

There are an awful lot of people who are neverhillary, nevertrump, as well as many people who appear to understand their candidate isn't who they want - but they wouldn't choose their candidate as their first pick - they choose because that's what's left.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
I'm surprised Charlieneeded my post explained" since he's another of the few stand up and stand out political iconoclasts of the board. The other being Gasbandit, but he doesn't count since I'm pretty sure he only gains in power by being independent. Like one of those magic cards that gets a bonus for each creature blocking it.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
They ALL wield faith like a cudgel, but none of them seem like they know what their own religion means. The right has been pandering to the religious for a long time. They are really, really good at it.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
They ALL wield faith like a cudgel, but none of them seem like they know what their own religion means. The right has been pandering to the religious for a long time. They are really, really good at it.
Click to expand...
And look where it's got them. Their candidate doesnt hold to any of their governing or fiscal principles because they haven't for years, so their voters haven't either. As Gas said back in the last two elections, the Republican Party is democrats + Jesus in many ways. Throw in the racism for seasoning.
 
Reverent-one

Reverent-one

DarkAudit said:
To compare Trump's calls for the arrest, torture, and execution of members of the domestic media to the Obama administration going after suspected terrorists in much the same fashion his predecessors have is ludicrous. You seem more interested in countering any attack on Trump with real or imagined crimes of the other side. We can tit for tat for hours, and will wind up nowhere.
Click to expand...
This seems like a fairly hypocritical statement, given that you just tried to counter his attack on Hillary with an unrelated "Well, Trump does <bad thing>" claim. Not only that, since you made the statement that Trump is the ONLY one that does <bad thing>, steinman pointing out how he thinks Hillary is similar is a valid response as it shows how your statement is not accurate. If you think going tit for tat will end up going nowhere, don't start doing it yourself.
 
strawman

strawman

Reverent-one said:
This seems like a fairly hypocritical statement, given that you just tried to counter his attack on Hillary with an unrelated "Well, Trump does <bad thing>" claim. Not only that, since you made the statement that Trump is the ONLY one that does <bad thing>, steinman pointing out how he thinks Hillary is similar is a valid response as it shows how your statement is not accurate. If you think going tit for tat will end up going nowhere, don't start doing it yourself.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any point in responding directly to the claims anyway. So far I haven't seen any citation where Trump calls for the torture and execution of reporters or workers in media organizations.

It may be possible to interpret some of what he says as implied or veiled threats, and certainly some of his more wacko supporters are saying stupid things like that, but quick google searches don't seem to show that what @DarkAudit is saying is true. It's quite possible he's reading and believing fanatic left publications or articles/fabrications.
 
Null

Null

stienman said:
11 days before the election and the FBI announces it is reopening the case against clinton regarding the email server.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/polit...r-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html
Click to expand...
Except they're not.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-fbi-d...he-media-wants-you-to-aa61e81e5a97#.fy6sikvat

The second paragraph is the heart of the matter. "In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."

That's not re-opening a prior investigation. That's not reviewing its conclusions. It's seeing whether or not possibly relevant emails on another case are classified, and if they're at all pertinent to the case.
 
strawman

strawman

Ah, yes, the title of the article used the word "reopening" but I don't think they meant it in the legal sense. The investigation completed with a report made to the dept of justice, so while not legally reopened, since it was never closed, in a sense it's being reopened in that the FBI is assigning investigators and resources to it, ramping things back up to a higher level of effort in order to determine the relevance, if any, of the new emails brought to light.

It may be nothing, but it's a possible problem for the Clinton campaign because the new evidence isn't likely to result in a conclusion before the election, and with only a week and half left it may dominate the news cycle during a time when Clinton was hoping nothing would change the polling.

She really had thought the email scandal was firmly in the past, and here it is again.
 
Null

Null

Prediction: These new emails will also come to nothing, just like literally every other attempted scandal investigation against HRC.
 
strawman

strawman

Well, it's interesting that the FBI sent the note to congress on a Friday late in the day, obviously hoping it'll get buried under the weekend. But if these emails weren't consequential, why couldn't they have waited? Why even mention it to congress at all?

Now that they've brought it up, the Trump campaign will make a lot of hay about it, and it's unlikely to be resolved completely by election day.

On the other hand, her ardent supporters probably won't change their opinion of her based on new evidence.

Might move some undecideds around, though.
 
Null

Null

3 emails, none sent or received by HRC, found on human punchline Anthony Weiner's phone. None involve Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, or the State Department.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10...il-scandal-killed-slew-facts-record-time.html

Why mention it to Congress? Um, I don't know, maybe he's legally obligated to keep the committee updated on investigations? He wants to avoid charges of withholding information that might possibly have been relevant?

Actually, it's because he testified under oath that the investigation was concluded. Since something new has come to light, he has to let them know that.
 
Last edited:
Bubble181

Bubble181

stienman said:
Well, it's interesting that the FBI sent the note to congress on a Friday late in the day, obviously hoping it'll get buried under the weekend. But if these emails weren't consequential, why couldn't they have waited? Why even mention it to congress at all?

Now that they've brought it up, the Trump campaign will make a lot of hay about it, and it's unlikely to be resolved completely by election day.

On the other hand, her ardent supporters probably won't change their opinion of her based on new evidence.

Might move some undecideds around, though.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that he chose to release it at a time - Friday evening - when official sources have two days they can't respond properly, and nothing else big is in the news, right before election day, in an ambiguously worded mail that makes it look bigger than it is. If anything, this is to influence the elections against HRC.
 
Reverent-one

Reverent-one

Null said:
3 emails, none sent or received by HRC, found on human punchline Anthony Weiner's phone. None involve Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, or the State Department.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10...il-scandal-killed-slew-facts-record-time.html
Click to expand...
I don't see any source for the bolded claim in that article, though it makes the same claim itself. All it's sources say is that it's not about withheld emails, the podestra emails, or emails sent from Clinton. All of those things could be true and the information in the emails could still involve either Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, or the State Department. If nothing Clinton related is in the emails, why would the FBI be investigating it as part of the Clinton email investigation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top