2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

BorneTobyWilde · 20-10-2016 11:36PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

This again. OK I'll bite.

What has been proven against her?

Do you live under a rock.
She lied counting times in her Benghazi hearing and her email hearing, all proven . The FBI investigation showed she lied over and over about details surrounding her emails and private server .

''I never sent or received classified information ''

FBI: She did

'' there was nothing even marked classified on my emails sent or received''

FBI: Multiple items marked classified

'' i only used one device, just one ''

FBI: Multiple devices used

'' all work related emails were returned to the state department ''

FBI: False ,thousands of emails not returned

'' my lawyers read all emails''

FBI: No . they did not read all

Hilary '' i have a private face and a public face''

The public face is for you , enjoy it .

CMOTDibbler · 20-10-2016 11:40PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Do you live under a rock.
She lied counting times in her Benghazi hearing and her email hearing, all proven . The FBI investigation showed she lied over and over about details surrounding her emails and private server .

''I never sent or received classified information ''

FBI: She did

'' there was nothing even marked classified on my emails sent or received''

FBI: Multiple items marked classified

'' i only used one device, just one ''

FBI: Multiple devices used

'' all work related emails were returned to the state department ''

FBI: False ,thousands of emails not returned

'' my lawyers read all emails''

FBI: No . they did not read all

Hilary '' i have a private face and a public face''

The public face is for you , enjoy it .

I know you think that's a clever way to present your 'evidence', but it just isn't.

You are a random poster on a bulletin board typing stuff. It means diddly squat.

When asked to back something up, you are actually supposed to provide reputable sources. Not write a script for a straight to DVD movie.

Timberrrrrrrr · 20-10-2016 11:50PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I think wrong, so the person with 13 phones, the person who lies under oath to the American people, the person who after receiving a subpoena still goes ahead and deletes as many emails as humanly possible before she hands over rest.
Yep she has no offshore account with millions hidden away for all her favours to countries who treat women like animals, she would not do such a thing.
I can imagine she has 13 names too to go with her 13 phones.

One shred of evidence for this fantasy of yours, go on....just one tiny shred of evidence to prove you are not making up these idiotic claims.

aloyisious · 21-10-2016 12:04AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Do you live under a rock.
She lied counting times in her Benghazi hearing and her email hearing, all proven . The FBI investigation showed she lied over and over about details surrounding her emails and private server .

''I never sent or received classified information ''

FBI: She did

'' there was nothing even marked classified on my emails sent or received''

FBI: Multiple items marked classified

'' i only used one device, just one ''

FBI: Multiple devices used

'' all work related emails were returned to the state department ''

FBI: False ,thousands of emails not returned

'' my lawyers read all emails''

FBI: No . they did not read all

Hilary '' i have a private face and a public face''

The public face is for you , enjoy it .

Would these include any of the 33,000 Don keeps talking about?

Is there any reason why a Republican-dominated senate can't, now or in the future, subpoena the FBI records on what emails were seen during the investigation to allow for an impeachment trial of Hillary Edit..... that is supposing the FBI managed somehow to see the 33,000 emails, seeing as how they were deleted, done away with?

Overheal · 21-10-2016 12:39AM

Trumps national political director jumped ship

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-national-political-director-is-stepping-back-from-campaign-citing-personal-reasons/

Zubeneschamali · 21-10-2016 12:47AM

Overheal wrote: »

Trumps national political director jumped ship

Let's not forget that Trump beat 16 Republicans to win the nomination. This complete meltdown is their best shot. There is a very good chance that their 2020 candidate will be one of the losers.

But hey: Some Republican but not a racist misogynist billionaire arsehole 2024!

learn_more · 21-10-2016 01:03AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Let's not forget that Trump beat 16 Republicans to win the nomination. This complete meltdown is their best shot. There is a very good chance that their 2020 candidate will be one of the losers.

But hey: Some Republican but not a racist misogynist billionaire arsehole 2024!

I think in the context of being beaten by trump, most of them haven't a hope, especially Jeb Bush Ben Carson, Chris Christie and the awful Ted Cruz. Rubio possibly but I think he should leave it for another 8 years.

Zubeneschamali · 21-10-2016 01:13AM

learn_more wrote: »

I think in the context of being beaten by trump, most of them haven't a hope, especially Jeb Bush Ben Carson, Chris Christie and the awful Ted Cruz. Rubio possibly but I think he should leave it for another 8 years.

Hillary will be running as incumbent. If all 16 of this years crop are out, what have the R's got?

Do not say Paul Ryan - he knows better himself.

BorneTobyWilde · 21-10-2016 01:32AM

If McMullin wins Utah then it's possible in theory that neither Hilary or Trumps gets to 270.
What happens at that point if that were to happen.

johnp001 · 21-10-2016 01:38AM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I know you think that's a clever way to present your 'evidence', but it just isn't.

You are a random poster on a bulletin board typing stuff. It means diddly squat.

When asked to back something up, you are actually supposed to provide reputable sources. Not write a script for a straight to DVD movie.

Most of the statements in post #4562 above are covered in the first couple of minutes of Trey Gowdy's questioning here:

johnp001 · 21-10-2016 01:49AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Would these include any of the 33,000 Don keeps talking about?

Is there any reason why a Republican-dominated senate can't, now or in the future, subpoena the FBI records on what emails were seen during the investigation to allow for an impeachment trial of Hillary?

The House committee issued a subpoena to the FBI for the email investigation last month as they continued to withhold the information despite admitting that there was no legal or constitutional basis for doing so. The FBI had to be subpoenaed to even testify to the committee having apparently not shown up before the House for a previous hearing.
You can watch it here:

learn_more · 21-10-2016 02:16AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hillary will be running as incumbent. If all 16 of this years crop are out, what have the R's got?

Do not say Paul Ryan - he knows better himself.

They don't have anybody. That's the point. They better find somebody and fast.

I think Paul Rayn has a really poor public image. He just looks and acts like a baddie.

Alaskan candidates are out. If they don't have anyone then they don't have anyone. The Dem's are prolly looking now for their next president after Clinton : )

Igotadose · 21-10-2016 06:55AM

learn_more wrote: »

They don't have anybody. That's the point. They better find somebody and fast.

I think Paul Rayn has a really poor public image. He just looks and acts like a baddie.

Alaskan candidates are out. If they don't have anyone then they don't have anyone. The Dem's are prolly looking now for their next president after Clinton : )

Economist ran a profile of Tom Cotton, Senator from Arkansas, visiting Iowa a week or two ago. Classic GOP bona fides - anti-choice, Iraq vet, budget hawk. Much slicker than the usual nimrod, though hasn't really gone through the media furnace yet. Showing up and meeting with the Iowan movers and shakers looks like he's interested in running.

Ludo · 21-10-2016 07:36AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If McMullin wins Utah then it's possible in theory that neither Hilary or Trumps gets to 270.
What happens at that point if that were to happen.

This is what happens: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct20.html#item-5

Basically, House Of Reps elects the President and Senate elects the VP.

Christy42 · 21-10-2016 08:14AM

learn_more wrote: »

They don't have anybody. That's the point. They better find somebody and fast.

I think Paul Rayn has a really poor public image. He just looks and acts like a baddie.

Alaskan candidates are out. If they don't have anyone then they don't have anyone. The Dem's are prolly looking now for their next president after Clinton : )

Another point is that they don't just have to find them. The have to nominate them as well. Most of the grassroots still support Trump and so will nominate another just like him. They are stuck. Until something changes they only seem set to nominate entirely unelectable people like Trump.

Quin_Dub · 21-10-2016 09:27AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Another point is that they don't just have to find them. The have to nominate them as well. Most of the grassroots still support Trump and so will nominate another just like him. They are stuck. Until something changes they only seem set to nominate entirely unelectable people like Trump.

This is the key problem for the GOP.

Not unlike UK Labour with Momentum , the party core has been taken over by a group that are utterly unacceptable to a majority of the general public.

Within the echo chamber of the party , they believe they are popular and have a mandate etc. etc. but the reality is that on the National stage they are entirely unelectable.

Truthfully , the only hope for the GOP is that Trump starts his own party in a huff after the election

That way he'll take the lunatic fringe with him and allow the GOP to rebuild as something more palatable..

Sofa Spud · 21-10-2016 09:32AM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the key problem for the GOP.

Not unlike UK Labour with Momentum , the party core has been taken over by a group that are utterly unacceptable to a majority of the general public.

Within the echo chamber of the party , they believe they are popular and have a mandate etc. etc. but the reality is that on the National stage they are entirely unelectable.

Truthfully , the only hope for the GOP is that Trump starts his own party in a huff after the election

That way he'll take the lunatic fringe with him and allow the GOP to rebuild as something more palatable..

That could very well happen - the only issue is that a fringe party will leak votes from the GOP, and if they were to put up congressional candidates too, that would ensure the Dems have a hold on power for a number of election cycles....

Quin_Dub · 21-10-2016 10:13AM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

That could very well happen - the only issue is that a fringe party will leak votes from the GOP, and if they were to put up congressional candidates too, that would ensure the Dems have a hold on power for a number of election cycles....

Agree - It wouldn't be a short term fix for the GOP.

Any Presidential recovery for the GOP is at least 2 cycles away..

johnp001 · 21-10-2016 10:18AM

This year's primaries show there is a huge appetite for an anti-establishment, outsider candidate. Neither Sanders or Trump were considered likely to be serious contenders at the start of the primary campaign.
If the Republican party had recognised this earlier and got behind a candidate like Rand Paul who has excellent anti-establishment credentials while being a staunch fiscal conservative then the situation now could be very different. Paul has political experience, very consistent positions and is an excellent speaker who would have mopped the floor with Clinton at the debates.

21-10-2016 10:19AM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agree - It wouldn't be a short term fix for the GOP.

Any Presidential recovery for the GOP is at least 2 cycles away..

Superficially it looks like that. 4 years of nothing whatsoever getting done and the Dems could go way down.

Quin_Dub · 21-10-2016 10:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Superficially it looks like that. 4 years of nothing whatsoever getting done and the Dems could go way down.

A lot depends now on the Senate race..

If the Dems can get control (either by holding more seats or by getting to parity and using the VP casting vote) that should allow them to actually get stuff done.

I was bit saddened to hear John McCain say the other day that the GOP would block any SCOTUS pick from Clinton..

Not that they block any they found unacceptable, which would be ok but a flat "we'll block everybody" even if they are good.

If the GOP continue with this "block everything, just because the Democrats suggested it" approach I can't see how that enables them to expand their base in the mid-terms or the next Presidential election.

Sofa Spud · 21-10-2016 10:37AM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

A lot depends now on the Senate race..

If the Dems can get control (either by holding more seats or by getting to parity and using the VP casting vote) that should allow them to actually get stuff done.

I was bit saddened to hear John McCain say the other day that the GOP would block any SCOTUS pick from Clinton..

Not that they block any they found unacceptable, which would be ok but a flat "we'll block everybody" even if they are good.

If the GOP continue with this "block everything, just because the Democrats suggested it" approach I can't see how that enables them to expand their base in the mid-terms or the next Presidential election.

Yeah, but in a body politic where he who shouts loudest gets the press, the whole point about blocking legislation or preventing cross aisle cooperation is seen as a strength and playing directly to their base.
If they try to expand their base by showing any hint of moderation or even the slightest hint of even respecting the opposition, they risk everything.
Look what happen to Eric Cantor - House Majority Leader, show a little softening in his hard core conservative stance and he lost his primary - snuffed out by his own party.

The fact that it's Hillary, probably not an exaggeration to say as hated, if not more, than Obama, means that if anyone from the GOP stands up when she enters the congress for the State of the Union, they will have to watch their backs. There's a possibility for the Dems to win the Senate, but without the House too, nothing of any substance will happen in the next 4 years.

TheDoctor · 21-10-2016 10:39AM

If Hillary wins, the Dems need the senate for anything to happen in the next few years.

CMOTDibbler · 21-10-2016 11:03AM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

The fact that it's Hillary, probably not an exaggeration to say as hated, if not more, than Obama, means that if anyone from the GOP stands up when she enters the congress for the State of the Union, they will have to watch their backs. There's a possibility for the Dems to win the Senate, but without the House too, nothing of any substance will happen in the next 4 years.

The Democrats may make some gains in the house in this cycle. Not enough to change the balance of power, but they could get a good bit closer.

aloyisious · 21-10-2016 11:16AM

Just saying, is all...... Hillary will have broken two barriers, Ist Democratic Presidential nominee to succeed a sitting Democrat in 160 years AND the 1st female US President (partially presented to her by the Republican party nominee, that party's choice in chosen one).

The last time voters elected a Democrat to the White House after a president from the same party had just served a full term was in 1856, before the Civil War. Last Democrat elected to Succeed a Democrat (aside from the third timer Franklin D Roosevelt succeeding himself so doesn't really count) President was James Buchanan, the 15th president and the only one ever to come from Pennsylvania. Buchanan succeeded President Franklin Pierce.

It's possible that Don's acts, and his denials, will propel Democrat voters out in numbers from voter apathy in order simply to show their anger and disgust and stick it to the Republican party, via it's Representatives and Senators but I wouldn't count my chickens before they're hatched just because it's what one wished for.

Pro Hoc Vice · 21-10-2016 12:40PM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Yeah, but in a body politic where he who shouts loudest gets the press, the whole point about blocking legislation or preventing cross aisle cooperation is seen as a strength and playing directly to their base.
If they try to expand their base by showing any hint of moderation or even the slightest hint of even respecting the opposition, they risk everything.
Look what happen to Eric Cantor - House Majority Leader, show a little softening in his hard core conservative stance and he lost his primary - snuffed out by his own party.

The fact that it's Hillary, probably not an exaggeration to say as hated, if not more, than Obama, means that if anyone from the GOP stands up when she enters the congress for the State of the Union, they will have to watch their backs. There's a possibility for the Dems to win the Senate, but without the House too, nothing of any substance will happen in the next 4 years.

Why not for 4 years. 1/3 of senate are up for reelection in 2 years, plus if I'm not mistaken the House is also up for election in 2018.

Is there many examples of members not standing for the President at the state of the union.

Skylinehead · 21-10-2016 12:57PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Just saying, is all...... Hillary will have broken two barriers, Ist Democratic Presidential nominee to succeed a sitting Democrat in 160 years AND the 1st female US President (partially presented to her by the Republican party nominee, that party's choice in chosen one).

The last time voters elected a Democrat to the White House after a president from the same party had just served a full term was in 1856, before the Civil War. Last Democrat elected to Succeed a Democrat (aside from the third timer Franklin D Roosevelt succeeding himself so doesn't really count) President was James Buchanan, the 15th president and the only one ever to come from Pennsylvania. Buchanan succeeded President Franklin Pierce.

Why does everyone forget about Harry Truman when citing this "fact"?

Sofa Spud · 21-10-2016 01:01PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Just saying, is all...... Hillary will have broken two barriers, Ist Democratic Presidential nominee to succeed a sitting Democrat in 160 years AND the 1st female US President (partially presented to her by the Republican party nominee, that party's choice in chosen one).

The last time voters elected a Democrat to the White House after a president from the same party had just served a full term was in 1856, before the Civil War. Last Democrat elected to Succeed a Democrat (aside from the third timer Franklin D Roosevelt succeeding himself so doesn't really count) President was James Buchanan, the 15th president and the only one ever to come from Pennsylvania. Buchanan succeeded President Franklin Pierce.

It's possible that Don's acts, and his denials, will propel Democrat voters out in numbers from voter apathy in order simply to show their anger and disgust and stick it to the Republican party, via it's Representatives and Senators but I wouldn't count my chickens before they're hatched just because it's what one wished for.

What about Truman succeeding FDR - had almost a full term having stepped up from VP when FDR died and then won re-election?

PopePalpatine · 21-10-2016 01:02PM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

What about Truman succeeding FDR - had almost a full term having stepped up from VP when FDR died and then won re-election?

I think it'd be the same reason LBJ was ignored in that statistic.

Sofa Spud · 21-10-2016 01:07PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Why not for 4 years. 1/3 of senate are up for reelection in 2 years, plus if I'm not mistaken the House is also up for election in 2018.

Is there many examples of members not standing for the President at the state of the union.

Yep, fair point, and the entire house is up for re-election every 2 years, which is a bit nonsensical as it means as soon as they're sworn in they have to start fund-raising for the next round.

Quip about standing for the pres at the state of the union is just that, a quip - I think it's very rare, if ever, for anyone not to stand when they enter the chambre, but common not to give a standing ovation during the speech, or even shout abuse, as happened for Obama when he was talking about the affordable health act. My point is that anyone within the GOP that shows any hint of cooperation with Hillary will be slated, and quickly. They seem to forget that St. Reagan would have got nothing done were it not for Tip O'Neil's willingness to do business with him....

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments