2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Quin_Dub

wonderfullife wrote: »

Actually i'd say the complete opposite. It's looking very likely he exits and perhaps sooner than many think.

The latest Fox News Poll already showing a 10-point lead for Clinton at the polls.

Making a reasonable assumption that Hilary destroys him on almost every issue during the 1st televised debate, that lead could grow huge.

Trumps campaign is already on choppy waters financially.

I just can't see him convincing people to part with millions to fight a losing cause.

Trump is an ego-maniac. He'd rather drop out of the race allowing Clinton to run unopposed, than to lose in an embarrassing fashion.

He won't be bothered if that means no Republican left standing.

He has a pretty primitive exit strategy already lined up: 1. Election was rigged so i dropped out 2. Republican Party betrayed me so i dropped out etc

Easy nonsensical excuses, swift exit, back to reality tv.

As I understand it , the reason for all the talk of Trump pulling out at this time is that it's pretty much the last chance to do it.

If he throws his toys out of the pram in 3-4 weeks time , they would not have enough time to get a new candidate on to the ballot in all of the states.

Basically, either he goes now or he's in for the full ride..

Also - I don't think that they actually want him to step down (nor will Trumps ego let him) - There's a distinct possibility that elements within the GOP have decided that Trump cannot win and they want to make sure he loses really big so that it kills off any "Trump-a-likes" for having any chance in future.

It also perhaps shores up their marginal senate/congressional candidates , allowing them to have a better crack at keeping control of both houses thereby limiting the "damage" that a Clinton presidency might do in their view..

I also think that neither Ryan nor Cruz would want to touch stepping in at this stage.. far better for both of them to come out after the Election and position themselves as the "saviour" of the GOP.

Cruz has already put down his marker for his "I told you so" argument.

Trump is going nowhere.

Black Swan

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump is going nowhere.

If someone had told me a year ago that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president 2016, I would have laughed given his ZERO experience in governance, diplomacy, and preparation for CIC, as well as being currently tried as a defendant for "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as founder of Trump University in US District Court. I'm not laughing today, rather in disbelief that someone completely unqualified for US president could win 8 November 2016.

Suryavarman

An NBC/WSJ poll is showing Hillary leading by 9 points. What caught my eye is who voters thought was best on various issues. I'm not sure what is worse, that 46% of people thought Trump was best on the economy or that 26% of people thought he was better able to unite the country.

alaimacerc

Sounds like the respondents had some pretty diverse idea on what the phrase "dealing with immigration" might mean...

RobertKK

Face it, whoever is President it is not going to have been the best option for the US or the world.

Paul Ryan should have run, I would be confident he would beat Hillary and be a good president, and lack the controversy of Donald Trump.
The Democrats could have done a lot better than Hillary who will get into trouble in October I believe and she will be the October surprise, I suspect then the most damaging stuff will be released by Wikipedia, like it was against Debbie Wasserman Schultz just before her big day.
It could end up like the Irish Presidential election where Sean Gallagher was leading but for a tweet to derail it.

As for US infrastructure policy, Hillary says she would invest $275 billion over her four years, while Trump is saying his infrastructure investments would be at $500 billion.

At the moment one would say Hillary will win, but there is a long way to go and a lot of dirt still to be flung by all sides at each other, lets see who has the stickiest mud to fling.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

Face it, whoever is President it is not going to have been the best option for the US or the world.

Paul Ryan should have run, I would be confident he would beat Hillary and be a good president, and lack the controversy of Donald Trump.
The Democrats could have done a lot better than Hillary who will get into trouble in October I believe and she will be the October surprise, I suspect then the most damaging stuff will be released by Wikipedia, like it was against Debbie Wasserman Schultz just before her big day.
It could end up like the Irish Presidential election where Sean Gallagher was leading but for a tweet to derail it.

As for US infrastructure policy, Hillary says she would invest $275 billion over her four years, while Trump is saying his infrastructure investments would be at $500 billion.

At the moment one would say Hillary will win, but there is a long way to go and a lot of dirt still to be flung by all sides at each other, lets see who has the stickiest mud to fling.

That sounds like desperation to me. You know Trump is in serious trouble.

BTW the threatened email leak is from Wikileaks. Not Wikipedia.

Amerika

Hillary Clinton is proposing a $1 Trillion tax hike proposal. Most of the tax increases will be paid by the rich. She also promised not to tax the middle class, but some of her proposals will hit the pockets of the middle class. Herein lies (pun intended) the problem…. She is also proposing $2 trillion in new spending. That leaves a $1 Trillion deficit, which she has promised will be fully paid for with tax increases. The problem is she is already massively taxing the rich, so where will the extra $1 trillion come from? The answer is it will have to come from the middle class.

Nothing to see here, please move along and go back to concentrating on Trump picking on a family who became fair game when they decided to enter the political realm and trash a candidate before a national audience.

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

Nothing to see here, please move along and go back to concentrating on Trump picking on a family who became fair game when they decided to enter the political realm and trash a candidate before a national audience.

Of course they are fair game Hillary has been fair game for the Reps for 30 years why should Trump get a free pass on criticism of his policies and his past. Regarding his family its Trump who wheeled them out and put fron t and center how many of his family spoke at the convention 5/6 so if they want to stand up and say Hillary is crooked etc etc then, game on:cool: If the Donald didn't want them in the limelight then dont have them headlining at the convention.

oscarBravo

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Of course they are fair game Hillary has been fair game for the Reps for 30 years why should Trump get a free pass on criticism of his policies and his past. Regarding his family its Trump who wheeled them out and put fron t and center how many of his family spoke at the convention 5/6 so if they want to stand up and say Hillary is crooked etc etc then, game on:cool: If the Donald didn't want them in the limelight then dont have them headlining at the convention.

He's talking about the Khan family. A gold-star family is "fair game", apparently, if they have the temerity to have an opinion.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I never thought Hillary was one of the best, one of the worst - yes.

No, the bar you set for Rice to be 'one of the best' while willing to completely overlook all the bad things that happened during her time as SOS and that she contributed to as chief national security advisor means you regard Clinton as one of the best two. Anything else would just be sheer hypocrisy. That's already been pointed out.

I think Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State got her stint right in that role, especially with the surge in Iraq, plus no new wars.
Pity Obama let everything get worse in Iraq and near everywhere else.

No new wars... because the USA was already in three wars, all of which Rice played a central role in helping create. And a lot of people would argue the Iraqi surge was a failure that played a big role in the rise of ISIS.

Assange has already caused several top level members of the DNC to resign.

Such as? I can't remember if any did during some of his initial leaks years back, but the DNC emails were not him so that eejit Wasserman-Schultz isn't one of them.

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Of course they are fair game Hillary has been fair game for the Reps for 30 years why should Trump get a free pass on criticism of his policies and his past. Regarding his family its Trump who wheeled them out and put fron t and center how many of his family spoke at the convention 5/6 so if they want to stand up and say Hillary is crooked etc etc then, game on:cool: If the Donald didn't want them in the limelight then dont have them headlining at the convention.

You misunderstood. I was referring to the Gold Star Khan family who trashed Trump and the Democratic convention, then went on multiple television interviews and continued to trash him.

In an interview Trump was asked about the Kahn speech at the convention. His response “I saw him. He was, you know, very emotional. And probably–looked like a nice guy to me. His wife uh, if you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me. But plenty of people have written that. She was extremely quiet. And it looked like she had nothing to say. A lot of people have said that. And personally, I watched him, I wish him the best of luck.”

The media has been going “Full Palin” on Trump for his comment. But the media has completely ignored the fact that Hillary Clinton said the mother of a fallen Benghazi hero was a liar. Other gold star parents backed up the mothers claim, that Hillary told them when their sons returned in caskets, that she would make sure the person who made that video that sparked the protest, and was responsible for their sons deaths, would go to jail. The media is mute on this… no outrage. Shame on them for double standards.

Both the Kahns and the mother of the fallen hero who spoke at the two conventions became fair game when they became public, political partisans. They lost their “off limits” status when they went political. But the true outrage should be directed at a truly biased media. And of course the media will not suffer for their antics and will continue with their bias, unabated.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is proposing a $1 Trillion tax hike proposal. Most of the tax increases will be paid by the rich. She also promised not to tax the middle class, but some of her proposals will hit the pockets of the middle class. Herein lies (pun intended) the problem…. She is also proposing $2 trillion in new spending. That leaves a $1 Trillion deficit, which she has promised will be fully paid for with tax increases. The problem is she is already massively taxing the rich, so where will the extra $1 trillion come from? The answer is it will have to come from the middle class.

Nothing to see here, please move along and go back to concentrating on Trump picking on a family who became fair game when they decided to enter the political realm and trash a candidate before a national audience.

How do you envision Trump's budget working out?

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is proposing a $1 Trillion tax hike proposal. Most of the tax increases will be paid by the rich. She also promised not to tax the middle class, but some of her proposals will hit the pockets of the middle class. Herein lies (pun intended) the problem…. She is also proposing $2 trillion in new spending. That leaves a $1 Trillion deficit, which she has promised will be fully paid for with tax increases. The problem is she is already massively taxing the rich, so where will the extra $1 trillion come from? The answer is it will have to come from the middle class.

Nothing to see here, please move along and go back to concentrating on Trump picking on a family who became fair game when they decided to enter the political realm and trash a candidate before a national audience.

Trump is proposing $10 trillion in tax cuts and at least $550 billion in spending increases. Who's going to pay for that?

Amerika

Calina wrote: »

That sounds like desperation to me. You know Trump is in serious trouble.

BTW the threatened email leak is from Wikileaks. Not Wikipedia.

I wouldn’t write Trump off quite yet. It is still early and the battle has just begun. Even the most relentlessly negative campaign narratives have a way of changing at a moment's notice. Things will change, the debates are yet to come and more scandals will be coming out. Saying Trump is finished is probably a fool's errand at this point.

RobertKK

Calina wrote: »

That sounds like desperation to me. You know Trump is in serious trouble.

BTW the threatened email leak is from Wikileaks. Not Wikipedia.

I always wanted Paul Ryan to run. He visits Kilkenny where I am from and keeps a Kilkenny hurling shirt in his Speaker's office. He is well spoken and not hated like the two current front runners.
Trump can still win, would never write him off, I would if Hillary didn't have such high dislike rate which is near the same as Trump's. There are 13 to 14 weeks for a disaster to hit either campaign.
If a week is a long time in politics, then 13 to 14 weeks is a lifetime.

lol (at me) I meant Wikileaks, a Freudian slip...

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Trump is proposing $10 trillion in tax cuts and at least $550 billion in spending increases. Who's going to pay for that?

How much has Hillary budgeted for new wars she will have?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

No, the bar you set for Rice to be 'one of the best' while willing to completely overlook all the bad things that happened during her time as SOS and that she contributed to as chief national security advisor means you regard Clinton as one of the best two. Anything else would just be sheer hypocrisy. That's already been pointed out.

No new wars... because the USA was already in three wars, all of which Rice played a central role in helping create. And a lot of people would argue the Iraqi surge was a failure that played a big role in the rise of ISIS.


Such as? I can't remember if any did during some of his initial leaks years back, but the DNC emails were not him so that eejit Wasserman-Schultz isn't one of them.

During Condoleezza Rice's term of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was talking about "obliterating Iran".
Isn't it a good thing that Condi didn't listen to her rhetoric?

It was wikileaks that caused DWS to resign, and the fallout caused others to resign.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

During Condoleezza Rice's term of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was talking about "obliterating Iran".
Isn't it a good thing that Condi didn't listen to her rhetoric?

It was wikileaks that caused DWS to resign, and the fallout caused others to resign.

No, because when Clinton was SOS she imposed sanctions on Iran that saw them forced into negotiations that eventually saw them move away from their chasing nuclear weapons. As per you, that was enough for Rice to be considered 'the best SOS in quite some time' with Libya, and so it is with Clinton and Iran too. Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite and applying the "it's Hillary so I must find a way to vilify instead of praise" double standard.

It was apparently a not-Russian hacker named Guccifer 2.0 who did the hack, not Assange. At this rate, you might as well give the credit to Bob Cusack, who is the editor of The Hill.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

How much has Trump budgeted for new wars he will have?

This game of baseless accusations that apply to Trump as much as Clinton really is getting tiresome at this stage. And yes, as he supported the Iraq War, intervention of Libya, and now 'bombing the sh*t' out of chunks of the world while torturing innocent families, they apply every bit as much to him.

But of course, that rhetoric only seems to bother you when it comes from Hillary Clinton, when Trump does it's grand sure... we'll just pretend he never said it.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

No, because when Clinton was SOS she imposed sanctions on Iran that saw them forced into negotiations that eventually saw them move away from their chasing nuclear weapons. As per you, that was enough for Rice to be considered 'the best SOS in quite some time' with Libya, and so it is with Clinton and Iran too. Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite and applying the "it's Hillary so I must find a way to vilify instead of praise" double standard.

It was apparently a not-Russian hacker named Guccifer 2.0 who did the hack, not Assange. At this rate, you might as well give the credit to Bob Cusack, who is the editor of The Hill.

Is that why Hillary after the Iran deal mentioned having a war against Iran again to enforce the deal.
This is going down the Iraq path to war.

I never said Assange hacked anyone, but Wikileaks were given the information, just like Bradley Manning did and who got 35 years in jail.

Amerika

On June 22, former UN official John Ashe “accidentally” crushed his own throat and died a week before he was scheduled to testify against the Clintons and Democrat Party.

On July 8, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington, DC. The killer appears to have taken nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone. There are unconfirmed reports that Rich might have been planing to speak with the FBI about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

Now, on August 2, Shawn Lucas was found dead on his bathroom floor. On July 3, 2016, Shawn Lucas and filmmaker Ricardo Villaba served the DNC Services Corp. and Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz at DNC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., in the fraud class action suit against the Democrat Party on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters.

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” - Ian Fleming

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

This game of baseless accusations that apply to Trump as much as Clinton really is getting tiresome at this stage. And yes, as he supported the Iraq War, intervention of Libya, and now 'bombing the sh*t' out of chunks of the world while torturing innocent families, they apply every bit as much to him.

But of course, that rhetoric only seems to bother you when it comes from Hillary Clinton, when Trump does it's grand sure... we'll just pretend he never said it.

Next thing you will be claiming Trump had more access to information than any of the public had in regards to Iraq and Libya, and that Hillary was the same.
Hillary had far more information than Trump and made wrong decision after wrong decision, wanted to bomb Assad out of power, another wrong idea, and she still wants to remove him, talked about military action against Iran, her Saudi pals must love her.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Next thing you will be claiming Trump had more access to information than any of the public had in regards to Iraq and Libya, and that Hillary was the same.
Hillary had far more information than Trump and made wrong decision after wrong decision, wanted to bomb Assad out of power, another wrong idea, and she still wants to remove him, talked about military action against Iran, her Saudi pals must love her.

No, I am claiming Trump was for the war on Iraq and was for intervention on Libya. And I am claiming that because he was. And he has shown very little interest in looking into the finer details of much of anything during this election, so what leads you to believe he would do so in office?

But thanks for confirming what I was talking about. Rice gets Libya to stop pursuing nukes = good, very very good. Clinton gets Iran to stop pursuing nukes = bad, very very bad. That's really where your line of reasoning begins and ends.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

On June 22, former UN official John Ashe “accidentally” crushed his own throat and died a week before he was scheduled to testify against the Clintons and Democrat Party.

He was going to be up for his own trial. And it was pre-trial stuff. So mostly wrong.

On July 8, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington, DC. The killer appears to have taken nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone. There are unconfirmed reports that Rich might have been planing to speak with the FBI about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/ Unconfirmed reports indeed.

Now, on August 2, Shawn Lucas was found dead on his bathroom floor. On July 3, 2016, Shawn Lucas and filmmaker Ricardo Villaba served the DNC Services Corp. and Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz at DNC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., in the fraud class action suit against the Democrat Party on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters.

Early days on this one.

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” - Ian Fleming

“Her breasts were showing and Mr. Player, who was a very strong Quaker, didn't think that was quite proper.” - Ian Fleming

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

CONSPIRACY!!

http://www.snopes.com/un-official-john-ashe-killed-the-day-before-he-was-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton/
http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/

Still waiting for the report on Shawn Lucas. It's gas how paranoid some are though (and the correlation between them and a certain far right politician who feeds on said paranoia), if such an operation were to be running this would be the most ham-fisted, out in the open conspiracy around.

K-9

Black Swan wrote: »

If Donald Trump's Republican primary debate performance is repeated during the 3 presidential debates, he will attempt to steer the content to his advantage, avoid indepth policy discussions, make frequent personal attacks, make things up as he goes along that are factually incorrect, while constantly interrupting and talking-over Hillary Clinton. If she does not call him on this, and stop him from controlling content and air time, she will lose the debates.

Tbh think she can only engage so much or else she ends up at his level. She needs to take a wider approach, address the main concerns but don't trade blow by blow attacks, it looks unpresidential and that only appeals to the base support anyway.

It will damage Trump eventually, he's the one that needs the swing in the polls, not Hillary. So continuing as he is will not work for him as there seems to be a level on it in support terms. In short he needs to be playing up to the Bernie support more and more as that's his chance of getting elected, going on about the vote being rigged only appeals to his base.

Jobs and the economy is where it will be won if Trump plays it right. He's giving her an open goal so far.

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

He was going to be up for his own trial. And it was pre-trial stuff. So mostly wrong.


http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/ Unconfirmed reports indeed.


Early days on this one.


“Her breasts were showing and Mr. Player, who was a very strong Quaker, didn't think that was quite proper.” - Ian Fleming

I just wish it to be publicly known that I love Hillary and Bill Clinton, and everyone in the Democratic National Committee.

K-9

Black Swan wrote: »

If someone had told me a year ago that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president 2016, I would have laughed given his ZERO experience in governance, diplomacy, and preparation for CIC, as well as being currently tried as a defendant for "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as founder of Trump University in US District Court. I'm not laughing today, rather in disbelief that someone completely unqualified for US president could win 8 November 2016.

Yes, but the tipsters ignored the poll data in the primaries. I listened to a great podcast about it a few weeks back, the young guy whose site called the election in 012 unerringly correct state by state (think it was linked on this thread in the past) got Trump wrong. As he said, the info was out there, he just ignored it! All the tipsters ignored the polls.

The polls now are showing an easy Hillary win and really until something significant happens to change that, it's very hard to see it changing.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

I just wish it to be publicly known that I love Hillary and Bill Clinton, and everyone in the Democratic National Committee.

Oh no, they got you as well! I wonder what Ian Fleming thinks 4 means.