2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

InTheTrees · 18-10-2016 11:24PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Now where does her millions of dollars come from.

She's released decades of tax returns. You can see to the penny where her millions have come from.

Zubeneschamali · 18-10-2016 11:26PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

9-2 is not huge.
How many times have we seen a 9-2 beat a 1-6 shot.

In a 2 horse race? I'll say roughly never. All hail President Clinton (no, not that one, the new one!).

BorneTobyWilde · 18-10-2016 11:35PM

Win the black vote and latina vote then tell them to feck off, see you in 4 years. She mocks them in private at how stupid they are.

Black Swan · 18-10-2016 11:43PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

She's the most crooked person in world politics.

Is this revealed in Hillary Clinton's tax returns? She has provided all her returns from 2000 to 2015. Can you point out in her tax returns where she evidences being "crooked" as you claim here?

Of course Donald Trump has nothing to hide in his tax returns, because like all the candidates for president for the past 4 decades he too has allowed the American voter to review them to ensure that he is not "crooked" or paying no taxes or evidencing any large foreign loans that may influence his decision making if elected president 2016. Unfortunately I cannot find the link where Donald Trump has revealed several years of his tax returns. Do you have it? Trump has nothing to hide does he?

Billy86 · 18-10-2016 11:43PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why are so many Americans brain washed into doing exactly what the crooked government wants them to do. I still think polls are wrong like in the Brexit vote. Who was polling the council estates of the north east of uk, no one. And no one is polling the people in the sticks in USA either. All these rednecks and slack jawed yokels will emerge from the woods to wreak havoc with polls in so many swing states.

Did you think the polls were wrong when 159 out of 160 of them from November 2015 had Trump winning the primaries? Or were they correct then because they confirmed your personal bias and told you what you wanted to hear?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2016_presidential_primaries#Polls_conducted_in_2016

Billy86 · 18-10-2016 11:46PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Actually the polls for brexit were within the margin for error of the result. There was a last minute swing towards leave.

As for the other nonsense about 'brainwashing' and 'crooked government'. Easy. Everybody is brain washed. Look how easily you've been brain washed into believing polls are wrong.

Actually up until the terrorist attack a week or two before the election, they arguably weren't as they showed leave winning by a slim but noticeable margin.

CMOTDibbler · 18-10-2016 11:46PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Win the black vote and latina vote then tell them to feck off, see you in 4 years. She mocks them in private at how stupid they are.

To be fair. If you weren't on this thread, there'd be nothing to reply to. I just wish you could up your game a bit and make it just a teensy bit harder.

ancapailldorcha · 18-10-2016 11:48PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Win the black vote and latina vote then tell them to feck off, see you in 4 years. She mocks them in private at how stupid they are.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

To be fair. If you weren't on this thread, there'd be nothing to reply to. I just wish you could up your game a bit and make it just a teensy bit harder.

Up the standard and cut out the sniping please.

alastair · 18-10-2016 11:49PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Not very clear, hmmm secretary of state Hilary makes a salary of 186,000$ .
Now where does her millions of dollars come from. Where oh where, could it be she tells the stupid public what they want to hear while selling them out and laughing about it behind their backs. Hmmmm could it be , hmmmm .
She's the most crooked person in world politics.

Nope - I'm still not getting where the 'crooked government' is asking the 'brainwashed' to do something. It's as if you haven't really formulated a clear scenario, and would rather spout woolly, but meaningless soundbites.

Billy86 · 18-10-2016 11:51PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

9-2 is not huge.
How many times have we seen a 9-2 beat a 1-6 shot.

Hardly surprising that you're so certain of a Trump win yet won't take such long odds with your own money.

But if gambling money isn't your thing I'll give you an easier one - Clinton wins you close your account, Trump wins and I close mine. Deal?

RobertKK · 19-10-2016 12:10AM

I would guess here inAustin it will vote a majority for Clinton.
I went for a long walk On a record hot day for October, up to 34C, saw some Clinton/Kaine posters on lawns, saw none of Trump.
Just saw one campaign ad on TV, wasn't watching much TV, a Trump ad with a woman saying she is voting for Trump so she can carry her gun to protect herself.
I have chosen not to talk about the election so far but tomorrow night it is unavoidable.

Trump has invited Obama's half brother to the debate, who is a Trump supporter.

RobertKK · 19-10-2016 12:11AM

Double post so will add this.

I don't think most Americans want to talk about the election openly, which could be good news for Trump who is more embarrassing than Hillary.
Though neither would have one shouting from the rooftops.

frostyjacks · 19-10-2016 08:12AM

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

B_Wayne · 19-10-2016 08:17AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

It might simply be that as informed voters, they are not willing to support Trump. You've made it into a conspiracy theory the fact they have common sense.

alastair · 19-10-2016 08:25AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

Complete nonsense. Journalists are under no obligation to be impartial, just accurate in what they report. Likewise, media organisations are not expected to be impartial, and most are quite transparent in their editorial positions. Perhaps if Trump made a better case for his candidacy, he might have done better with contributions from journalists, who last I heard, were pretty unlikely members of any 'globalist cabal'.

I love however, the notion that freedom of political expression needs to be 'stopped', once it doesn't tally with your man. Is this a new GOP take on protecting the constitution?

Christy42 · 19-10-2016 09:18AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

The media does not consider all views equal nor is it expected to by anyone. For instance someone who believed murder should be legal would not be given equal weight by our media as the saner view that it should not be legal.

Likewise the media is under no obligation to suggest that racism and sexism are just as valid as believing people are equal which is what has happened in this election.

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 09:34AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

Journalists have been attacked and threatened at Trump's rallies. He has been cheerleading his supporters to do this with his 'crooked media' talk and as a result, I'm not surprised that they'd be more in favour of Clinton.

The most stupid part of this is that Trump was getting free air time from TV media and even boasted about it. Estimates put his 'free' airtime at about $3 billion.

He had Fox News in his corner until recently. He's got Breitbart, InfoWars and Roger Ailes in his camp. How long before he alienates them I wonder.

All this is the logical extension of Trump's own rhetoric and actions. For all the talk of 'crooked media', the best his supporters can come up with is vague and woolly statements about 'cabals' and 'globalists'. The fact is that the media are largely reporting exactly what he's saying.

oscarBravo · 19-10-2016 09:43AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

I guess that means that the people with their finger most on the pulse of what's going on in the world would prefer to see Clinton as president.

Do you have a problem with journalists supporting a candidate for president? Is there anyone else that you feel shouldn't be supporting a candidate for president? Would you have a problem with them supporting a candidate if it happened to be the candidate you preferred?

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society.

Wow, so many dog whistles to unpack.

They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

How?

frostyjacks · 19-10-2016 10:06AM

alastair wrote: »

Complete nonsense. Journalists are under no obligation to be impartial, just accurate in what they report. Likewise, media organisations are not expected to be impartial, and most are quite transparent in their editorial positions. Perhaps if Trump made a better case for his candidacy, he might have done better with contributions from journalists, who last I heard, were pretty unlikely members of any 'globalist cabal'.

I love however, the notion that freedom of political expression needs to be 'stopped', once it doesn't tally with your man. Is this a new GOP take on protecting the constitution?

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

Christy42 · 19-10-2016 10:15AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

You going to provide evidence for any of these illnesses? Or anything to convince that Trump is in it "for the little guy" and not just himself. Or why you consider admitting to sexual assault the equivalent as a rude word?

They are rallying around Clinton because Trump is entirely unfit. Morally bankrupt. Incredibly corrupt (even in comparison to Clinton). Volatile, has shown no knowledge of how the economy is run or how foreign affairs works. He is by quite some distance the worst candidate in at least my living memory. It is also hard to criticise Hillary while showing the difference in just how much worse Trump is.

When the Republicans put forward a candidate who isn't a joke candidate in it for publicity stunts (calling a press conference to advertise his hotel, the women at the last debate, Obama's half brother at the next) then the media will consider them seriously. Essentially Trump doesn't treat his election bid as a serious campaign - why should the mediary

Billy86 · 19-10-2016 10:17AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

There always only one candidate sniffling like a third act Tony Montana through both debates, and it was the older Trump who has a shorter life expectancy, and who has been plagued with health problems his whole life that kept him out of military service (he's far from a pacifist, so this is giving him the benefit of the doubt - otherwise he would have just been a draft dodging coward), and who is noticeably overweight in his old age, before even getting into the fact that he is heavily indebted to both Russians and Saudis

Trump had pretty much lost this election before the pussy video even came around, not to mention the endless accusations of rape and sexual assault from women and children alike, so claiming that is all that did it come over as either disingenuous or a temper tantrum. Then again, that is perfectly in turn with Trump and the vast majority of his supporters - both of whom have played a big a role as each other, and a much bigger role than Clinton herself, in making Hillary Clinton the next president of the US. So congratulations on that, I guess.

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 10:20AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

For a guy who claims that he can see through media bias and political rhetoric, you seem to have a complete blind spot when it comes to Donald Trump.

Just to address some of what you say and compare to Trump. How is it if Hillary is 'in the pay' of 'the big banks', it doesn't show up in her tax returns. But speaking of tax returns...

Anatom · 19-10-2016 10:27AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't expect journalists to be like Pontius Pilate, but the way they rally round Hillary and ignore the questions being asked of her, whether or not she is physically or morally able for the role, is a worrying development.

Hillary is in the pay of the big banks, dancing to the tune of the globalist puppetmasters. She is a physical wreck, possibly pumped full of drugs for public appearances, but Trump said a rude word eleven years ago, so he's not allowed to be president.

They "rally" around the only candidate that is reasonably competent. Can you really imagine being represented by Trump?

Anyway, the sweeping statements ("globalist puppetmasters", "in the pay of the big banks") etc. can equally be levelled at Mr. Trump. Don't forget, they moved in the same circles for years!

aloyisious · 19-10-2016 10:31AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

So the journalists must arrange between themselves to split their fund-raising donations 50/50 between both candidates to prove they are impartial. They can't spend their money the way they have freely chosen. Instead they must fund the campaign of the person they do not want elected, just to satisfy and support your personal choice of candidate.

Would you apply that logic to Hillary if she and Don were in the opposite electoral positions they are in now?

Would you apply that logic as well to the journalists votes as well, or would it be "look at her, somehow I don't think so" ?

Will you be tuning in to watch the last debate tonight?

CMOTDibbler · 19-10-2016 10:52AM

Anatom wrote: »

They "rally" around the only candidate that is reasonably competent. Can you really imagine being represented by Trump?

Anyway, the sweeping statements ("globalist puppetmasters", "in the pay of the big banks") etc. can equally be levelled at Mr. Trump. Don't forget, they moved in the same circles for years!

He even invited the Clintons to his wedding. And they attended it.

Hande hoche! · 19-10-2016 11:39AM

See that Obama's half brother will be at the debate. Imagine the third debate will be a bit tamer versus the second one.

http://time.com/4536121/malik-obama-donald-trump-third-debate/

PopePalpatine · 19-10-2016 12:02PM

Anatom wrote: »

They "rally" around the only candidate that is reasonably competent. Can you really imagine being represented by Trump?

Anyway, the sweeping statements ("globalist puppetmasters", "in the pay of the big banks") etc. can equally be levelled at Mr. Trump. Don't forget, they moved in the same circles for years!

Yep, Trump's tax plan will slash rates for the mega-rich, which strangely enough includes those hedge fund managers he's railed against. Maybe he sees those rumours of his hero Putin amassing billions during his reign and thinks he wants some of that sweet, sweet kleptocracy, along with a muzzled press.

But then again, would you expect any better from a serial tax dodger?

Anatom · 19-10-2016 12:10PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, Trump's tax plan will slash rates for the mega-rich, which strangely enough includes those hedge fund managers he's railed against. Maybe he sees those rumours of his hero Putin amassing billions during his reign and thinks he wants some of that sweet, sweet kleptocracy, along with a muzzled press.

But then again, would you expect any better from a serial tax dodger?

I don't actually care too much about the tax dodging. No one has come up with any illegal manoeuvres yet, so I'd let it drop. But the problem with him is so much more serious, and says something about American politics in general and the GOP in particular. I just don't understand how he got this far. It almost says more about the Republican party that they went from fourteen candidates at the beginning of the year, down to him, than it does about him.

He's like a moth drawn to the light. The light in his case is the publicity or attention he gets as he flits from one subject to another, making grand sweeping statements as he goes. The fright he'd get if he were actually elected would be severe and I'm not sure he could handle it. He doesn't look like the sort to compromise or toe a middle line in a dispute, and I just cannot imagine him even wanting to (let alone be able to) give a state of the nation-type speech such as an inauguration or budget speech. He could do serious, generations-long, damage to US foreign relations, not to mention the potential divide in Congress.

marienbad · 19-10-2016 12:25PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

96% of campaign donations from journalists have gone to Hillary.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

If we don't have an impartial media, then we don't have a fair election. The whole process has lifted the lid on the globalist cabal who are intent on subverting our western, Christian society. They must be stopped, and Trump is the man to stop them.

So what ? they are citizens first and foremost .

Overheal · 19-10-2016 01:02PM

Wasn't Trump going on for the longest time about being very rich and self funding his campaign and not wanting to turn away cheques from nice old ladies?

Wonder what happened to that. Now it's a damn conspiracy that people don't donate to his campaign?

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments