Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

1…109110112114115…314

Comments

  • #3332
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    Brian? wrote: »
    I'm not the one predicting it'll happen this year

    It has already happened this year.


  • #3333
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    It has already happened this year.

    Again, the Democratic Party primaries are not supposed to be free and fair elections. Unlike the general, which is overseen by the FEC.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #3334
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    Brian? wrote: »
    What will be the mechanism for the fraud?

    Counting.

    Any other stupid questions?


  • #3335
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    Brian? wrote: »
    Again, the Democratic Party primaries are not supposed to be free and fair elections. Unlike the general, which is overseen by the FEC.

    So you admit that fraud has happened this year. Well done!


  • #3336
    Varik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,536 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    Hillary will be declared the winner and she will not have received the most votes. That is how i imagine electoral fraud will work here, if it does transpire. Good question.

    That's how the US system can work, when it's working right. It's down to electoral votes, which for all bar 2 states will all go to the wining candidate only. So if you get 51% of the peoples votes in a state then you get all their states electoral votes so it is possible for the president to win fairly and still have less votes.


  • Advertisement
  • #3337
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    Counting.

    Any other stupid questions?

    Counting? You believe the votes will be counted incorrectly in favour of Hillary.

    This is incredibly unlikely. Such a coordinated conspiracy would be next to impossible to pull off.

    Since you refuse to be polite, I'll leave this here.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #3338
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    Varik wrote: »
    That's how the US system can work, when it's working right. It's down to electoral votes, which for all bar 2 states will all go to the wining candidate only. So if you 51% in a state you get all their votes so it is possible for the president to win fairly and still have less votes.

    Agreed.


  • #3339
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    HRC doesn't need fraud to win this.

    She doesn't need a biased media.

    She doesn't need any further scandals.

    Just let trump be trump.


  • #3340
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    Brian? wrote: »
    Counting? You believe the votes will be counted incorrectly in favour of Hillary.

    This is incredibly unlikely. Such a coordinated conspiracy would be next to impossible to pull off.

    Since you refuse to be polite, I'll leave this here.

    I have been nothing but polite. You began our exchange with an insult and then purposefully attempted to bring the exchange down an irrelevant route. Better luck next time!


  • #3341
    dwayneshintzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭dwayneshintzy


    I'd also be intrigued as to how you think the Democrats will "rig" this election, Peist2007. Fraudulent voter registrations? Corrupt vote counts?


  • Advertisement
  • #3342
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    I have been nothing but polite. You began our exchange with an insult and then purposefully attempted to bring the exchange down an irrelevant route. Better luck next time!

    This reply actually shocked me enough that I read our entire exchange again. I did not insult you once. I repeatedly asked how you thought the election would be rigged. You then repeatedly insulted me by call me a troll, keyboard warrior and accused me of asking stupid questions. You also threw out a smart Alec remark about my moderation of the fitness forum.

    Even now, I won't insult you. But you need to re read our exchange. Enjoy your day. I'm done.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #3343
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    Counting.

    Any other stupid questions?

    Banned for 3 days for repeated posts like this.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #3344
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Duck Soup wrote: »
    There's a lot of credit being given to Trump for pulling a candidacy that seemed dead and buried on Friday out of the hole and was back viable and snarling by the end of the second debate on Sunday.

    Sorry but I don't buy it. Everyone says he re-energized his base, but that wasn't the job of work to be done.

    His base will vote for him no matter what. He can wave his wang on top of the Statue of Liberty and his base will still vote for him. So the red meat - lock up Hillary, Bill's a bar steward etc. - that he threw to the base may have created noisy whoops, sold some more Chinese-made 'Make America Great Again' hats and led people to say that Trump won the debate, but it was precisely the wrong move.

    He played to and pandered to people who were already going to vote for him and turned off the undecideds, independents and moderates he needs. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    You underestimate the importance of morale.

    You're half right in the sense that he could have used the opportunity to broaden his appeal, but that leaves him vulnerable when he was already very vulnerable.


  • #3345
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,260 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785608815962099712

    Media given orders to destroy Trump


  • #3346
    Koobcam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Koobcam


    I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but I genuinely can't understand this election. Donald Trump is clearly an idiot and totally unsuitable to hold any sort of position of responsibility. He talks about grabbing women by the pussy and forcing himself on them and yet retains the support of a sizeable number of conserative christians. He hasn't paid taxes in two decades, has presided over numerous bankruptcies and yet is seen by many as a representative of the small guy and a smart businessman. He hangs out with KKK leaders and has a long record of racism and yet Ben Carson and other black Republican leaders apparently have no problem with him. So what exactly is it about Hillary Clinton that is so objectionable to people supporting Trump? I really don't get it.


  • #3347
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Christy42 wrote: »
    On the bright side we have fox for neutrality?
    Seriously how is media bias only an issue when they are biased towards the left? Don't just reply that you think fox are just as biased. They are far far far more biased than cnn and yet you still picked cnn as your example. Heck Breitbart is effectively part of the Trump campaign at this point but no cnn is still the problem.

    Fox have been less biased this election than any other outlets.

    I have said this numerous times on this thread and others and have got nothing but agreement.

    People like Meghan Kelly, Neil Cavuto etc are grilling Trump surrogates in the manner of Andrew Neil of the BBC.

    The Fox of 10 years ago is nothing like the Fox of today. Completely different animal.

    If you want proof they're not biased, just ask your average Trump supporter what they think of Fox. When both sides don't like you you're doing something right.


  • #3348
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785608815962099712

    Media given orders to destroy Trump

    According to FOX's most venerable narcissist.
    Fox have been less biased this election than any other outlets.

    I have said this numerous times on this thread and others and have got nothing but agreement.
    I disagree.

    #combobreaker


  • #3349
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    To answer your trolling question, I never professed to have a theory on mechanics of election fraud. However, it is simple logic to assume it possible given it has happened in this race already and in previous general elections. They aren't above it over there, on either side.

    Look up Al Franken's victory in Minnesota


  • #3350
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Koobcam wrote: »
    I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but I genuinely can't understand this election. Donald Trump is clearly an idiot and totally unsuitable to hold any sort of position of responsibility. He talks about grabbing women by the pussy and forcing himself on them and yet retains the support of a sizeable number of conserative christians. He hasn't paid taxes in two decades, has presided over numerous bankruptcies and yet is seen by many as a representative of the small guy and a smart businessman. He hangs out with KKK leaders and has a long record of racism and yet Ben Carson and other black Republican leaders apparently have no problem with him. So what exactly is it about Hillary Clinton that is so objectionable to people supporting Trump? I really don't get it.

    The mask slipped a bit there.


  • #3351
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    oik wrote: »
    Look up Al Franken's victory in Minnesota

    Multiple recounts?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Advertisement
  • #3352
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Overheal wrote: »
    I disagree.

    #combobreaker

    A shame.

    I always say, "with the exception of Sean Hannity". The man's constant ass kissing does my head in.


  • #3353
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    oik wrote: »
    Fox have been less biased this election than any other outlets.

    I have said this numerous times on this thread and others and have got nothing but agreement.

    People like Meghan Kelly, Neil Cavuto etc are grilling Trump surrogates in the manner of Andrew Neil of the BBC.

    The Fox of 10 years ago is nothing like the Fox of today. Completely different animal.

    If you want proof they're not biased, just ask your average Trump supporter what they think of Fox. When both sides don't like you you're doing something right.

    I despair for truth in this election.

    I mean I could quote articles showing just how pro trump Fox is but what's the point?

    It's like we can just shout whatever lie we want now.

    Is it really about shouting the loudest now and trying to get something to stick to your opponent? I mean, where's the truth gone?


  • #3354
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Brian? wrote: »
    Multiple recounts?

    I really recommend reading the full case if that's the extent of your knowledge.


  • #3355
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    gosplan wrote: »
    I despair for truth in this election.

    I mean I could quote articles showing just how pro trump Fox is but what's the point?

    It's like we can just shout whatever lie we want now.

    Is it really about shouting the loudest now and trying to get something to stick to your opponent? I mean, where's the truth gone?

    Why is it that when people hear an opposing opinion they need to shout "LIIEEES"

    Can't you just accept we different views? Doesn't make me a liar.


  • #3356
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,108 ✭✭✭Christy42


    oik wrote: »
    Fox have been less biased this election than any other outlets.

    I have said this numerous times on this thread and others and have got nothing but agreement.

    People like Meghan Kelly, Neil Cavuto etc are grilling Trump surrogates in the manner of Andrew Neil of the BBC.

    The Fox of 10 years ago is nothing like the Fox of today. Completely different animal.

    If you want proof they're not biased, just ask your average Trump supporter what they think of Fox. When both sides don't like you you're doing something right.

    Yup that is why they used online polls with 0 credibility http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/online-polls-declare-trump-debate-winner-despite-media-consensus-for-clinton.html

    Trump supporters hate fox because fox wanted a party insider to won the primaries. They are still completely biased towards the GOP.


  • #3357
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    oik wrote: »
    I really recommend reading the full case if that's the extent of your knowledge.

    Believe it or not, I am intimately familiar with the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota. It was a hum dinger.

    But in the end, the result was certified fair after 2 trips court. Of the 12 judges that adjudicated the Coleman appeals, 6 were GOP appointees and 3 were independents appointed bye Jessie "the Body" Ventura.

    If you're looking for voter fraud, you need to look elsewhere.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #3358
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Yup that is why they used online polls with 0 credibility http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/online-polls-declare-trump-debate-winner-despite-media-consensus-for-clinton.html

    Trump supporters hate fox because fox wanted a party insider to won the primaries. They are still completely biased towards the GOP.

    Yup, making an article about online polls proves they're in the tank for Trump :rolleyes:

    The reason people think they're not biased is because they're not outright rude to their guests.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbvmjMnCj8k


  • #3359
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,108 ✭✭✭Christy42


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes, but you know what you are getting.

    Hillary has the worst trust poll ratings in the election, even worse than Trump. When you can't believe a politician because they lie, it makes them far worse than a politician who tells you what they believe even if unpopular.
    I always prefer a genuine person other a fake person. You know where you stand, someone who is prepared to tell you something unpalatable and honestly to your face is far less likely to backstab you than someone who tells you what you want to hear.

    Even if it means gay teenagers getting electrocuted because the guy doesn't understand science? Also the point of democracy is you don't vote in the guy who believes in the crazy stuff.

    I should point out I still don't buy that Hillary opposes gay marriage personally. The emails don't read that way. So that still doesn't help you. Plus even if she didn't she needs to keep it up which means more equality for lgbt people and less shock therapy. Any one want to argue that is a bad thing?

    Also while Hillary may have worse trust ratings Trump is by far the most dishonest politician to run for the white house at least in modern times but probably further back.


  • #3360
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Even if it means gay teenagers getting electrocuted because the guy doesn't understand science? Also the point of democracy is you don't vote in the guy who believes in the crazy stuff.

    I should point out I still don't buy that Hillary opposes gay marriage personally. The emails don't read that way. So that still doesn't help you. Plus even if she didn't she needs to keep it up which means more equality for lgbt people and less shock therapy. Any one want to argue that is a bad thing?

    Also while Hillary may have worse trust ratings Trump is by far the most dishonest politician to run for the white house at least in modern times but probably further back.

    If Clinton opposes gay marriage privately there's nothing to stop her from accidentally on purpose appointing a judge who would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

    I don't personally think she would, but then again gay marriage doesn't matter to me one iota so I don't have to trouble myself about it.

    VPs don't do much btw, so attacking Trump's VP pick in response isn't going to do much for her.


    Trump is a different species of dishonest to Hillary. It's difficult to compare. Clinton lies to get herself out of trouble and has an established pattern of behaviour with this.

    I don't think Trump would have lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack, or lie about turning over his emails, or destroy evidence under subpoena.

    He can lie about supporting the war in Iraq all he wants as far as I'm concerned.


  • Advertisement
  • #3361
    Koobcam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Koobcam


    oik wrote: »
    The mask slipped a bit there.
    Ok, spo leave out the KKK bit then. But, specifically regarding Clinton, what is the problem? Can you or anyone explain to me how any rational person could choose Trump over Clinton?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement