2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

CMOTDibbler · 10-11-2016 02:29PM

RobertKK wrote: »

About the current wall/fence along the US/Mexican border:

As of 2014, 653 miles of this border has been fenced at a cost of about $7 billion. A few dozen miles are reinforced with secondary and tertiary fencing. About half of the fencing is designed to prevent pedestrians from crossing through, while the other half just blocks vehicles. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reports that the pedestrian fencing cost an average of $6.5 million per mile, and the vehicle fencing $1.7 million per mile.

All that expense and it doesn't actually work.

Overheal · 10-11-2016 02:37PM

Speaking of that Muslim ban, the campaign promises are evaporating already

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement-removed-a7408466.html%3Famp?client=safari

aloyisious · 10-11-2016 02:41PM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

This is one of those situations where the FBI are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they didn't investigate the Hillary/Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner shared laptop emails until after the presidential election, they'd be accused of being pro-Hillary. If they investigate the Hillary/Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner shared laptop emails before the presidential election, they're accused of being pro-Trump. Seems to me the FBI came out very quickly to exonerate Hillary of any wrongdoing. Not suggesting for a moment that they might have been lent on by higher powers....
Considering what's at stake, the naïveté or the sheer stupid-mindedness of Hillary and her aides beggars belief. And they were perceived as being the intellectual superiors of Trump and his advisors.......

I've been minded for some time now that a better course would have been for the FBI PR person to announce that "the investigation is ongoing and includes the leaking of classified documents to the public, so no further comment can be made in the interests of natural justice.". So simple that I'm surprised it wasn't done.

A private briefing to persons within congress on the need to know list would have sufficed, and they could have told all others in the houses that they'd be updated shortly. It would have covered all the bases and not interfered with the electoral process.

alastair · 10-11-2016 02:41PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Well Hillary Clinton is now irrelevant, as are her love of regime change. It was nice that her political career ended in the type of regime change she supported elsewhere, but this time it being her who was stopped from taking political power.
After all with Wikileaks, we found her campaign wanted her opppnent to be someone like Trump. It was justice that like the other regime changes she supported, that this time her failed regime change policies affected herself.
I think she got justice.
As the voters can say 'we voted, we counted, she lost'.
Karma...

These would be the voters who give more votes to Hillary than Trump?

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 02:43PM

Overheal wrote: »

Speaking of that Muslim ban, the campaign promises are evaporating already

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement-removed-a7408466.html%3Famp?client=safari

I don't think anyone really expected otherwise, but the interesting thing will be how the people who voted for him on the basis of some of those promises react.

alastair · 10-11-2016 02:44PM

aloyisious wrote: »

I've been minded for some time now that a better course would have been for the FBI PR person to announce that "the investigation is ongoing and includes the leaking of classified documents to the public, so no further comment can be made in the interests of natural justice.". So simple that I'm surprised it wasn't done.

A private briefing to persons within congress on the need to know list would have sufficed, and they could have told all others in the houses that they'd be updated shortly. It would have covered all the bases and not interfered with the electoral process.

Comey could have handled things better for sure, but I doubt that it really influenced the final vote that much.

Zubeneschamali · 10-11-2016 02:45PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Explain? They seem like serious people to me.

Perhaps, but then Trump looks Presidential to you.

Mr.Micro · 10-11-2016 02:58PM

Trump is now the apprentice. America deserves him. If Clinton had won it would be no better.

aloyisious · 10-11-2016 03:01PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Giuliani was NYC mayor and took down the NYC mob. Won person of the year in time magazine. If that's not serious I don't know what is.

Gingrich's CV is also highly impressive.

If it's the AG's position that's offered to Rudy, he hasn't been practicing law in a courtroom since '89. That was as a US prosecutor going after a crooked financier. He has his detractors as well as promoters. Don might be aware of Rudy leaking insider information from FBI and NYC cops to the media of ongoing criminal investigations and have to be wary of putting him in overall charge of justice, head cop in the US.

CMOTDibbler · 10-11-2016 03:03PM

alastair wrote: »

Comey could have handled things better for sure, but I doubt that it really influenced the final vote that much.

I posted the average poll graph for Florida on another thread. Here it is again:

You can see exactly the effect of Comey's intervention. She never fully recovered from it. In fact, when he came out and said there was nothing in it, it actually damaged her poll figures again.

10-11-2016 03:06PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If Clinton had won it would be no better.

*What my cat's name would be if John Wilkes Booth had missed his target*

GO!

RobertKK · 10-11-2016 03:08PM

B0jangles wrote: »

I knew it, for all your "both candidates are bad but here's the latest thing wikileaks has said about Clinton..." -posturing, it was all about the Supreme Court and overturning Roe vs. Wade for you, wasn't it?

Trump was still not my first choice, and I live in a free society where people can be conservative, liberal or anything in between.

I did think a Clinton victory wouldn't be so bad as she would have really destroyed the Democrats, but then maybe I am more in tune with US voters, as they destroyed the Democrats anyway by giving Republicans virtually full control.

It was not all about Roe V Wade, but I am not a person who thinks destroying life is a right, whether unborn or in her neocon war mongering which has killed so many people. But Clinton supporters seem to not care about her love of regime change and all the death she has caused.
I could not support someone who feels so free to use military power, which only destroys societies.
A woman who signed off on an arms deal to be used against Yemen, and nothing about the Saudis starving the people of Yemen - which she helped assist.
I just think Hillary Clinton is a far bigger disgrace than Trump.
Weapons she signed off being used in Yemen by the Saudis to bomb hospitals, prisons, residential areas, yet the same hypocrites go on about Aleppo which is another disaster when they are silent on the disaster in Yemen.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/oct/06/we-saw-how-yemen-children-slowly-starving-to-death-krishnan-guru-murthy

The Clintons accept money from Saudi Arabia, Hillary signed off on a $29.6 billion arms deal - the bitch has contributed to this:
Those who are malnourished are set to be, by far, the biggest casualties of Yemen’s war. More than 6,000 people have been killed in the bombing and fighting as a Saudi-led coalition tries to defeat the Houthi rebels and supporters of the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who took over much of the country last year and drove out the new president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.
Hundreds of thousands of children in Yemen, like Atan, are suffering from severe malnutrition, and possibly millions are in the early stages. Statistics in countries like this are unreliable, but the doctors say there is a procession of children coming through the emergency unit every day.
Patients with other conditions are made worse by malnutrition. As we stand looking at Atan, another family rushes into the ward carrying a child of around six. Within seconds doctors are doing chest compressions and blowing oxygen into his mouth but it is clearly too late. Within seconds the cries of the child’s mother fill the emergency ward. The boy had malaria but the doctor says he was so severely malnourished that he had no strength to fight the fever. About 40% of the cases coming in, he says, are made much worse by malnutrition.

The Saudis who Hillary helped militarily are also targeting the farmland in Yemen to destroy their food.
It just makes me angry and Hillary has her fingerprints on this, I would not accept a cent from this evil regime, let alone sign off on an arms deal. The US are complicit to these crimes, and the irony of being friendly towards a country that is implicated in the biggest terrorist attack in history against the US and the world, and implicated in the funding of ISIS.
Why would I support the candidate the Saudis wanted elected?
This is far bigger than abortion or the supreme court. I don't trust her and her judgement has been so bad for such a long time...like the email that showed her campaign helped promote Trump, Cruz and Carson in the primaries, again look how that turned out.

Her main trait has been bad judgement.

alastair · 10-11-2016 03:09PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I posted the average poll graph for Florida on another thread. Here it is again:

You can see exactly the effect of Comey's intervention. She never fully recovered from it. In fact, when he came out and said there was nothing in it, it actually damaged her poll figures again.

Three points worth making.
1. You assume that the Comey announcement is the cause of the dip, but it may not have been.
2. She does recover from the dip. It takes a week.
3. The polls didn't prove to be that accurate in measuring actual voter intent.

RobertKK · 10-11-2016 03:14PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

All that expense and it doesn't actually work.

The border is somewhere around 1,650 miles long, 653 miles has a fence but only half of it has been put into be pedestrian proof, the other bit to stop vehicles.
It is no wonder it doesn't work.

CMOTDibbler · 10-11-2016 03:18PM

alastair wrote: »

Three points worth making.
1. You assume that the Comey announcement is the cause of the dip, but it may not have been.
2. She does recover from the dip. It takes a week.
3. The polls didn't prove to be that accurate in measuring actual voter intent.

1. There were two Comey announcements. One about the investigation and the second with the 'nothing to see here' announcement. Both coincided with a dip in her polling figures. The first because of the obvious damage it did to her and the second because it brought the whole thing back into the media again on the eve of the election.
2. And that recovery was reversed as I said above.
3. The poll above gave Trump a 0.2 percent lead on the eve of the election. Pretty much what he got on the day. How is that not a measure of voter intention?

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 03:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The border is somewhere around 1,650 miles long, 653 miles has a fence but only half of it has been put into be pedestrian proof, the other bit to stop vehicles.
It is no wonder it doesn't work.

No, it doesn't work because people can go over, under and around it - and as one borderguard said recently "If you you build a 10m high wall, they'll just come along with 12m ladders."

CMOTDibbler · 10-11-2016 03:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The border is somewhere around 1,650 miles long, 653 miles has a fence but only half of it has been put into be pedestrian proof, the other bit to stop vehicles.
It is no wonder it doesn't work.

I've seen interviews with people who live alongside it. They think it's pretty useless and purely to make people feel 'protected'.

But it really doesn't work because it's not actually delaing with the actual problem of people outstaying visas that they entered legitimately on. Many of those coming across the border are seasonal workers who cross back again when their work is finished.

The actual way to deal with illegal immigrants working in the US, is to hit the employers who are employing them.

aloyisious · 10-11-2016 03:29PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The border is somewhere around 1,650 miles long, 653 miles has a fence but only half of it has been put into be pedestrian proof, the other bit to stop vehicles.
It is no wonder it doesn't work.

Realistically no border fence ever could. RTE had a short clip of the border being walked with a US Border Agent showing the repaired cement base below the fence where a tunnel had been made through it, probably from the Mexican side (the camera was on the US side) the fence above ground intact. The weakness is identified as both ends of the border end at the open sea. However Don probably knows that from hotel boss meetings about staffing problems.

130Kph · 10-11-2016 03:32PM

According to www.vox.com/policy.... enough energised, activist (republican) voters seem to

• prefer a demagogue to be their leader
• have started to hate their own parties & party officials in a schizophrenic manner
• devour partisan media that (for the profit motive reason) lies relentlessly about the opposing party

E Klein, vox wrote:

Voters’ dislike of their own party has broken the primary process, but fear of the opposition has guaranteed unified party support to the nominee.

Social media is now the main way these activists bypass the party’s gatekeepers who traditionally prevented demagogues or nutcases from getting on the ticket.
Also the internet plays a large role in the absurd & unnecessary polarization that goes on now in political discourse in the states.

And polarization begets polarization. The angrier and more fearful partisans are, the more of a market there is for media that makes them yet angrier and yet more fearful.

What this article doesn’t address is why so many grass roots republican activists in the US desire to have a president who is an authoritarian fascist?

Could it be that internet magazines like Breitbart and all the others both feed the polarisation, paranoia & nastiness of political discourse …as well as being the root cause of it

i.e. could it be that many activists want to be led by a fascist now for no actual substantial reason - it’s just an indirect, unplanned by-product of the profit motive of certain investors & new communication technology?

Or could it be some other reason?

alastair · 10-11-2016 03:33PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump was still not my first choice, and I live in a free society where people can be conservative, liberal or anything in between.

I did think a Clinton victory wouldn't be so bad as she would have really destroyed the Democrats, but then maybe I am more in tune with US voters, as they destroyed the Democrats anyway by giving Republicans virtually full control.

It was not all about Roe V Wade, but I am not a person who thinks destroying life is a right, whether unborn or in her neocon war mongering which has killed so many people. But Clinton supporters seem to not care about her love of regime change and all the death she has caused.
I could not support someone who feels so free to use military power, which only destroys societies.
A woman who signed off on an arms deal to be used against Yemen, and nothing about the Saudis starving the people of Yemen - which she helped assist.
I just think Hillary Clinton is a far bigger disgrace than Trump.
Weapons she signed off being used in Yemen by the Saudis to bomb hospitals, prisons, residential areas, yet the same hypocrites go on about Aleppo which is another disaster when they are silent on the disaster in Yemen.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/oct/06/we-saw-how-yemen-children-slowly-starving-to-death-krishnan-guru-murthy

The Clintons accept money from Saudi Arabia, Hillary signed off on a $29.6 billion arms deal - the bitch has contributed to this:
Those who are malnourished are set to be, by far, the biggest casualties of Yemen’s war. More than 6,000 people have been killed in the bombing and fighting as a Saudi-led coalition tries to defeat the Houthi rebels and supporters of the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who took over much of the country last year and drove out the new president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.
Hundreds of thousands of children in Yemen, like Atan, are suffering from severe malnutrition, and possibly millions are in the early stages. Statistics in countries like this are unreliable, but the doctors say there is a procession of children coming through the emergency unit every day.
Patients with other conditions are made worse by malnutrition. As we stand looking at Atan, another family rushes into the ward carrying a child of around six. Within seconds doctors are doing chest compressions and blowing oxygen into his mouth but it is clearly too late. Within seconds the cries of the child’s mother fill the emergency ward. The boy had malaria but the doctor says he was so severely malnourished that he had no strength to fight the fever. About 40% of the cases coming in, he says, are made much worse by malnutrition.

The Saudis who Hillary helped militarily are also targeting the farmland in Yemen to destroy their food.
It just makes me angry and Hillary has her fingerprints on this, I would not accept a cent from this evil regime, let alone sign off on an arms deal. The US are complicit to these crimes, and the irony of being friendly towards a country that is implicated in the biggest terrorist attack in history against the US and the world, and implicated in the funding of ISIS.
Why would I support the candidate the Saudis wanted elected?
This is far bigger than abortion or the supreme court. I don't trust her and her judgement has been so bad for such a long time...like the email that showed her campaign helped promote Trump, Cruz and Carson in the primaries, again look how that turned out.

Her main trait has been bad judgement.

Where to begin? 'Neo-con war mongering' is, by definition, a conservative endeavour - as the 'con' bit implies. She certainly voted for the GoP initiated invasion of Iraq, but her opponent also supported that invasion at the time. She supported the Afghanistan war, but then very few did not. She supported the anti-Ghadaffi side in Libya, but that really didn't have anything to do with any 'neo-con' agenda, and, frankly, it still doesn't seem like the wrong call. The Libyan transitional government had the support of the UN, and the subsequent post-election chaos wasn't anything to do with the U.S., or NATO. She's undoubtedly hawkish, but even Bernie supported Afghanistan, Kosovo, and the Israeli Gaza campaign. Trump's suggested policy of killing families, torturing people, "bombing the **** out of them", and "taking their oil" sounds far more inflammatory than anything you might ascribe to Hillary.

Hillary didn't get to sign off on any Saudi military deal, as that's not the call that any SoS gets to make. Not her job.

The Saudi's contributed to the Clinton Foundation. They also contributed to the Bush library. Trump was also bailed out of one of his many business failures by Saudi money. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. There's no evidence that the Saudis wanted Hillary elected, and as you say, it's US policy with regard to Yemen that's the issue - not Hillary policy.

alastair · 10-11-2016 03:58PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

1. There were two Comey announcements. One about the investigation and the second with the 'nothing to see here' announcement. Both coincided with a dip in her polling figures. The first because of the obvious damage it did to her and the second because it brought the whole thing back into the media again on the eve of the election.
2. And that recovery was reversed as I said above.
3. The poll above gave Trump a 0.2 percent lead on the eve of the election. Pretty much what he got on the day. How is that not a measure of voter intention?

I'm well aware of Comey's two announcements. I have my doubts that a confirmation that Hillary was still not engaged in any criminal act was the cause of any dip.

Trump beat Hillary in the Florida vote (which this poll proports to illustrate) by more than 2% (not 0.2%) - so it's a poor reflection of voter intention, on the day, in that regard.

HensVassal · 10-11-2016 04:02PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I think as a governor she brings executive experience and yes, if you had to pick one post in the cabinet for her, Interior would be a good fit given the amount of federal land in Alaska.

Do I think she'd make a good Secretary of the Interior? No, I think she'd unwind a lot of the protections in place on federal land and in the national parks and ANWR would be in serious trouble!

She was the mayor of a one-horse town called Wasilla before running for VP. Then she was governor of Alaska. A job in which she did fuck all and just quit one day. Your average boy with a paper round or teenage girl with a babysitting rota has more management skill, planning experience and dedication to duty than Palin.

CMOTDibbler · 10-11-2016 04:13PM

alastair wrote: »

I'm well aware of Comey's two announcements. I have my doubts that a confirmation that Hillary was still not engaged in any criminal act was the cause of any dip.

Trump beat Hillary in the Florida vote (which this poll proports to illustrate) by more than 2% (not 0.2%) - so it's a poor reflection of voter intention, on the day, in that regard.

It was slightly over 1% of voter turnout in Florida. 1.1% to be exact.

The 0.2% is an average of polls. Some were closer than others. Polls have a built in margin for error. Usually that's around 3%. On no level can you say that the polls in the case of Florida were not a reflection.

RobertKK · 10-11-2016 04:17PM

alastair wrote: »

Where to begin? 'Neo-con war mongering' is, by definition, a conservative endeavour - as the 'con' bit implies. She certainly voted for the GoP initiated invasion of Iraq, but her opponent also supported that invasion at the time. She supported the Afghanistan war, but then very few did not. She supported the anti-Ghadaffi side in Libya, but that really didn't have anything to do with any 'neo-con' agenda, and, frankly, it still doesn't seem like the wrong call. The Libyan transitional government had the support of the UN, and the subsequent post-election chaos wasn't anything to do with the U.S., or NATO. She's undoubtedly hawkish, but even Bernie supported Afghanistan, Kosovo, and the Israeli Gaza campaign. Trump's suggested policy of killing families, torturing people, "bombing the **** out of them", and "taking their oil" sounds far more inflammatory than anything you might ascribe to Hillary.

Hillary didn't get to sign off on any Saudi military deal, as that's not the call that any SoS gets to make. Not her job.

The Saudi's contributed to the Clinton Foundation. They also contributed to the Bush library. Trump was also bailed out of one of his many business failures by Saudi money. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. There's no evidence that the Saudis wanted Hillary elected, and as you say, it's US policy with regard to Yemen that's the issue - not Hillary policy.

New York Times 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan’s careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.

Fast forward to 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues

Longtime Republican foreign policy stalwart and Iraq warmonger Robert Kagan became the latest neoconservative to endorse Clinton for president last week. He has even offered to host a fundraiser on her behalf....
Several neoconservatives have spent years gushing about Clinton’s penchant for supporting basically every foreign war or military escalation in the last decade, including Kagan, who said in 2014: “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy ... If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

The Secretary of State is the person who signs off on arms deals to other countries.

Amerika · 10-11-2016 04:18PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've never understood this sometimes near slavish devotion to the constitution and the founding fathers. The founding fathers are often mentioned as if they're the definitive authority in all matters akin to a Catholic mentioning the pope's opinion on something.

Been absent... trying now to catch up.

Do we not look with reverence at the works of Aristotle, of Plato, of Descartes, and of Benny Hill? The works of the Founding Father’s did more than any before them as they provided the world's first formal blueprint for a modern democracy, and of which served as the basis for all future democracies. No small feat for the time, wouldn't you agree.

HensVassal · 10-11-2016 04:21PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That has nothing to do with Hillary's no-fly zone though.

There already is a de-facto demarcation of operations.
For example: RuAF planes never or very rarely go further east of the Euphrates. There only ISIS east of that river and Russia doesn't care about ISIS

However that is not what Hillary was taking about.
She was taking about a no-fly zone over rebel territories primarily in Idlib or Aleppo provinces.
or to put it another way, a no-fly zone 5-10 mins away from Latakia.
Essentially grounding the SyAF & RuAF.
This necessitates patrol aircraft to be very very close to Russia's air defence assets.

No one.... no one believes that Pres Hillary (post reset button humiliation) can ground the SyAF & RuAF & deactivate its AD assets based on "negotiation".

No, just like the Kosovan, Libyan & Iraqi no-fly zone's weren't done by asking nicely or negotiations.

Why would any American vote for this.
An absolutely moronic intention backed with nothing but bluster.

What???

Amerika · 10-11-2016 04:21PM

Brian? wrote: »

It's a quasi religious cult. Even down to fact that it's never written as founding fathers but capitalised as "Founding Fathers ". Implying divinity.

Funny you should use the words "slavish devotion" as well. This group of men who are imbued with such all seeing wisdom were almost all slave owners. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...", not the ones we own and keep as property though!

This nonsense again? How disingenuous it is to judge a select group from hundreds of years ago through the prism of modern morality. A little bit of history for you… For centuries slavery had been a growing part of the world-wide economy, not just in the 13 Colonies here. The fact that some of the Founding Fathers opposed slavery at all was an incredibly radical idea for their time. What was the thinking on the subject of slavery of your ruling class forefathers from that time? Also, take some time and look up the Founding Fathers and the ‘Gradual Act for the Abolition of Slavery.’ Who else from this time attempted to accomplish anything similar?

Amerika · 10-11-2016 04:22PM

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Wow. Sounds like Sharia law would be just up your street. How would you look with a beard?

Sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

RobertKK · 10-11-2016 04:23PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, it doesn't work because people can go over, under and around it - and as one borderguard said recently "If you you build a 10m high wall, they'll just come along with 12m ladders."

Technology constantly improves which constantly helps to improve security.

One can see the security wall between Israel and the Palestinians had an enormous effect on the number of suicide bombers entering Israel.

I think the US who are very security conscious, will consider every option including a wall, and from that a decision will be made.

CMOTDibbler · 10-11-2016 04:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

New York Times 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Fast forward to 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues

The Secretary of State is the person who signs off on arms deals to other countries.

I find a lot of this labelling to be over-simplistic. It's like we're not comfortable unless we can put people in a box and tick another box so we'll always know where they are.

What happens when they do something 'outside the box'. Do we re-label them or persist with the stereotype and ignore the outliers?

Trump has said a lot of things that very clearly box him up. I'm waiting to see what he actually does when he's in office.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments