2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

InTheTrees · 19-11-2016 12:18AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Perhaps he didn't want the bother of going through a long process which the media will lap up, who knows.

Well we know it cost him $25 million so that a lot of bother he must have bought his way out of.

nc6000 · 19-11-2016 12:21AM

alastair wrote: »

She sent Bill, she sent Chelsea, she sent Biden, she sent Kaine, and she sent Bernie, having twice campaigned herself in the state. It's not as if the electorate were neglected.

My original point was the she herself didn't bother to visit.

alastair · 19-11-2016 01:21AM

nc6000 wrote: »

My original point was the she herself didn't bother to visit.

Other than the two times she did.

PopePalpatine · 19-11-2016 01:25AM

alastair wrote: »

Other than the two times she did.

During the primary campaign, and not after she secured the Dems' nomination. Wisconsin pretty much sums up why she lost.

alastair · 19-11-2016 01:42AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

During the primary campaign, and not after she secured the Dems' nomination. Wisconsin pretty much sums up why she lost.

It does? Then why did she lose Pennsylvania, where she campaigned incessantly, and right til the end, and win in Hawaii, which she never campaigned in at all?

FatherTed · 19-11-2016 01:58AM

nc6000 wrote: »

My original point was the she herself didn't bother to visit.

Actually she did in March. But what does it matter now? She didn't visit California either. The idea that these 8 or so close states decide the election and where the vast majority of campaign $$$ and time go to shows how messed up this system is. It is the counter argument to Republican supporters claiming the Popular vote is bad because the elections would be decided by the cities.

But I recognize the US is a Republic made up of states rather than a democracy.

PopePalpatine · 19-11-2016 02:05AM

alastair wrote: »

It does? Then why did she lose Pennsylvania, where she campaigned incessantly, and right til the end, and win in Hawaii, which she never campaigned in at all?

Trump campaigned incessantly in Pennsylvania too, and also ignored Hawaii. Despite Hillary's increased vote in that state, Trump was able to turn out his supporters far better.

nc6000 · 19-11-2016 02:33AM

alastair wrote:

Other than the two times she did.

This is becoming rather tedious.

My original point was that even though Clinton lost the Wisconsin primary to Sanders she thought Wisconsin would vote for her in the Presidential election without campaigning there herself once she won the Democratic nomination.

I wasn't talking about California or Hawaii or any other state.

I was making the point that she took Wisconsin for granted and ended up losing it.

Manic Moran · 19-11-2016 06:33AM

And if you remove the rural areas, the Democrats won the popular vote by more. Daft analysis.

Settling is not an admission of guilt, (and in this case, it specifically says as much in the settlement agreement). There are several reasons to settle, one obvious one is that it makes the problem go away. 25mllion isn't going to break Trump Inc, and by paying it, there will not be months of news reporting about a civil trial to distract or undermine anyone. Even if Trump would win, it may not be worth he hassle, and thus worth the 25mil

Christy42 · 19-11-2016 09:47AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

And if you remove the rural areas, the Democrats won the popular vote by more. Daft analysis.

Settling is not an admission of guilt, (and in this case, it specifically says as much in the settlement agreement). There are several reasons to settle, one obvious one is that it makes the problem go away. 25mllion isn't going to break Trump Inc, and by paying it, there will not be months of news reporting about a civil trial to distract or undermine anyone. Even if Trump would win, it may not be worth he hassle, and thus worth the 25mil

Paying $1,000,000 for breaking the laws of new York seems to be admitting at least some guilt.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/trump-university.html

Also I feel it in the public interest to see what their president has done.

ECO_Mental · 19-11-2016 10:45AM

There is no justice for Corrupt and Fraud Trump. There isn't much coverage on the main stream media as well, I would have thought they would be bit more of coverage. Media bias???

Count Dooku · 19-11-2016 01:16PM

ECO_Mental wrote: »

This is just a sad state of the world we live in now this is a guy saying that he just made news stories up for the laugh and most of the stuff was pro trump or anti clinton. Hillary didn't stand a chance when you get this type of stuff thrown at you all the time and people are gullible enough to believe it. Although he does say that he doesn't like trump. It make me angry

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-election-facebook-fake-news-creator-paul-horner-claims-responsibility/

"According to BuzzFeed, among the top 20 fake election-related articles on Facebook, most had a political bent that favored the Trump campaign; all but three were anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. Facebook users engaged with them more than 8.7 million times."

Sad sad sad

Say thanks to anti-Trump bias in nearly all USA MSM, who totally lost trust and it will take years to restore it. A lot of people would rather believe alternative media than Clinton puppets
And this is only tip of the iceberg

alastair · 19-11-2016 01:24PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Given that most on this list of 'collusion' are guilty of attending a press dinner to announce Hillary's campaign launch, it's not particularly convincing stuff. More of an ice cube than an iceberg tbh.

InTheTrees · 19-11-2016 01:27PM

alastair wrote: »

Given that most on this list of 'collusion' are guilty of attending a press dinner to announce Hillary's campaign launch, it's not particularly convincing stuff.

Good god. The fake news crap is getting silly.

Count Dooku · 19-11-2016 01:36PM

alastair wrote: »

Given that most on this list of 'collusion' are guilty of attending a press dinner to announce Hillary's campaign launch, it's not particularly convincing stuff. More of an ice cube than an iceberg tbh.

Visiting Russia Today dinner was more than enough to call gen Flynn as Russian agent
Both sides can play this game, especially when a lot of wikileaks shows coordination between Clinton campaign staff and media
Donna Brazile was a nice example

alastair · 19-11-2016 01:45PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Visiting Russia Today dinner was more than enough to call gen Flynn as Russian agent
Both sides can play this game, especially when a lot of wikileaks shows coordination between Clinton campaign staff and media
Donna Brazile was a nice example

I don't recall anyone here (or elsewhere for that matter) calling Michael Flynn a 'russian agent'. I do recall much hilarity at his claim that RT was pretty much the same as CNN. So, no, there seems to be one side (ie: you) playing this game of inane misrepresentation of the facts.

InTheTrees · 19-11-2016 02:13PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Both sides can play this game,especially when a lot of wikileaks shows coordination between Clinton campaign staff and media

But did it?

The fake news stories about wikileaks documents have become an epidemic.

Count Dooku · 19-11-2016 03:31PM

alastair wrote: »

I don't recall anyone here (or elsewhere for that matter) calling Michael Flynn a 'russian agent'.

"Russian connections" was sounding like the biggest crime what he could commit

InTheTrees wrote: »

But did it?

The fake news stories about wikileaks documents have become an epidemic.

what else would you expect if every wikileaks revelations was showing how low can HRC sink for White House

Anyway, both sides played this game - do you remember this one for example?

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793234169576947712
https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/793237359508721669

26000 Elephants · 19-11-2016 04:22PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Both sides can play this game,

Alas, that is all these posts do. Game playing. All the while they deflect from the simple truth that Trump is in no way qualified for the position. And that he essentially lied his way into the White House.

$25m fraud settlement... I cant even.

26000 Elephants · 19-11-2016 04:28PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

"Russian connections" was sounding like the biggest crime what he could commit

Only a deplorable loon would think that.

oscarBravo · 19-11-2016 05:04PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Anyway, both sides played this game - do you remember this one for example?

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793234169576947712
https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/793237359508721669

What about that one? It appears to be true. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Count Dooku · 19-11-2016 05:05PM

26000 Elephants wrote: »

All the while they deflect from the simple truth that Trump is in no way qualified for the position.

like Reagan
anyway, it was a HRC campaign plan to make Trump as GOP nominee because he was looking like a most undetectable candidate
have a look on attachment
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

26000 Elephants wrote: »

And that he essentially lied his way into the White House.

Hillary outperformed him. After bedtime stories about her health only liberals could believe her

26000 Elephants wrote: »

$25m fraud settlement... I cant even.

he still looks like misbehaved toddler after Clinton Foundation

RobertKK · 19-11-2016 05:09PM

It depends who you like more:

Trump and his 'Russian connections'.
or
Hillary and her direct links with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Russia blamed for hacking in the US, annexing Crimea and supporting Assad.
Saudi Arabia linked with the 9/11 atrocity and along with Qatar are accused of funding ISIS, along with the most backward practices towards women and gay people.

Hillary would have kept the policies that Saudi Arabia favoured - the removal of Assad.
Trump has to prove he is not a warmonger as he has stated such.

I hope Trump works with Assad and Russia to sort out that mess.
Assad had a secular government and minorities were safe, the people the west and Hillary supported in Syria seem to be nothing more than at the very least a moderate brand of terrorist who helped to destroy their country.

alastair · 19-11-2016 05:12PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

like Reagan
anyway, it was a HRC campaign plan to make Trump as GOP nominee because he was looking like a most undetectable candidate
have a look on attachment
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

Hillary outperformed him. After bedtime stories about her health only liberals could believe her

he still looks like misbehaved toddler after Clinton Foundation

Reagan had years of State governance experience, following on from even more years of industry representation. Trump has zilch.

Hillary did outperform Trump. She got 1.3 million more votes than he managed.

The Clinton Foundation has precisely zero findings against it. I'd consider that about $25 million ahead, even ignoring the multiple judgements against Trump's business practice over the years.

alastair · 19-11-2016 05:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It depends who you like more:

Trump and his 'Russian connections'.
or
Hillary and her direct links with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Russia blamed for hacking in the US, annexing Crimea and supporting Assad.
Saudi Arabia linked with the 9/11 atrocity and along with Qatar are accused of funding ISIS, along with the most backward practices towards women and gay people.

Hillary would have kept the policies that Saudi Arabia favoured - the removal of Assad.
Trump has to prove he is not a warmonger as he has stated such.

I hope Trump works with Assad and Russia to sort out that mess.
Assad had a secular government and minorities were safe, the people the west and Hillary supported in Syria seem to be nothing more than at the very least a moderate brand of terrorist who helped to destroy their country.

Hillary had direct connections with Saudi and Qatar on account of having to actually govern. Trump will now have ample direct dealings with them too (ignoring his existing business dealings with them).

Your assessment of Assad, the FSA, and the nature of the dictatorship there are 'interesting' to say the least. No-one supports the bulwarking of Assad, outside Russia (half heartedly) and Iran.

alastair · 19-11-2016 05:21PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

"Russian connections" was sounding like the biggest crime what he could commit

So, that would be nobody actually calling him a Russian agent. Thanks for clarifying that, even if it's with yet more unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Count Dooku · 19-11-2016 05:24PM

alastair wrote: »

Hillary did outperform Trump. She got 1.3 million more votes than he managed.

Because Trump as proper businessman didn't pay much attentions to big cities and was doing only necessary things to win. Did you ever hear about efficiency?
She had way more money than Trump and the only choice he had was to spend his money efficiently
Cxdmk_FUcAE3Wo1.jpg:large

Hillary won 62M votes and 68M voters didn't vote for her, which makes argument about popular vote pretty useless

26000 Elephants · 19-11-2016 06:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Assad had a secular government and minorities were safe...

Something that trumps supporters seem adamant in unraveling in the US.

alastair · 19-11-2016 06:36PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Because Trump as proper businessman didn't pay much attentions to big cities and was doing only necessary things to win. Did you ever hear about efficiency?
She had way more money than Trump and the only choice he had was to spend his money efficiently

Hillary won 62M votes and 68M voters didn't vote for her, which makes argument about popular vote pretty useless

Other than being the most popular candidate, pulling 63.5 million votes -1.3 million more than Trump. I guess.

InTheTrees · 19-11-2016 07:07PM

RobertKK wrote:

Assad had a secular government and minorities were safe.

Rubbish. Tell that to the relatives of the tens of thousands massacred by the regime. The assad family are bloody dictators who have ruled for 40 years under emergency powers after suspending the constitution.

You're obviously a fan of the Ba'ath party, so why not tell us why you think they're so great? Is it all the wars they've started against israel? The invasion and occupation of Lebanon?

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments