The reference there is not to Hillary but the Democrat chair DWS. Who is as despicable as it gets, without looking at her associations with Hillary. (Re-opened the lobbying doors Obama had partly closed, pro-Israel hawk)
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The reference there is not to Hillary but the Democrat chair DWS. Who is as despicable as it gets, without looking at her associations with Hillary. (Re-opened the lobbying doors Obama had partly closed, pro-Israel hawk)
CBS/NYT poll out today has Clinton+6
All is right with the world again
All is right with the world again
I see!
It was 3am. I don't click links at such an hour. Just take my chances and hope for the best.
CBS/NYT poll out today has Clinton+6
All is right with the world again
Why should we believe the CBS NYT poll and not these? All three came out today.
FOX News Clinton 42, Trump 45 Trump +3
Rasmussen Reports Clinton 37, Trump 42 Trump +5
Explained in previous page. Oversampling of Republicans.
RR is a joke in most credible pollsters' eyes. If we believe them, we'd be heading into President Romney's reelection now.
I bet you already know the reason and it's a rhetorical question.
Trump enjoyed a bounce after he finished off Cruz but in the absence of consistent polling data showing Trump with a 2-5 point lead I'm inclined to believe that Clinton still has a 2-5 point lead on Trump, nationally.
Hillary has to get through Bernie and put away the threat of indictment. If she can do both she'll bury Trump.
Hillary has to get through Bernie and put away the threat of indictment. If she can do both she'll bury Trump.
Neither Fox, nor Rasmussen 'polls', should be called polls. They are cooked numbers to give the impression that Trump is winning.
I actually analyzed one of Rasumussen polls some time ago, and it was hilarious. Every state they gave to a Democrat, was always won from a Democrat, but on the other side, they usually give 3-5 states to Republicans which are won from Democrats.
I'd probably agree on Rasmussen, but the Fox poll has a bit more credibility as in other networks accept Fox's methodology as on par with other prominent polls and routinely use the Fox poll alongside the likes of CNN/ORC etc.
New Ipsos/Reuters poll, Clinton +5.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016ReutersTrackingCorePolitical5182016.pdf
Caveats: big MoE on independents (7.7) and large number of undecideds (23%).
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016ReutersTrackingCorePolitical5182016.pdf
Caveats: big MoE on independents (7.7) and large number of undecideds (23%).
How long will take for the "bringNaniBack" to comment?
Typical, a complete bunch of cnuts and an absolute cnut endorse a tremendous cnut. They all deserve each other.
EDIT! Sorry for the profanity there but I don't think there is any other (or more apt) word to describe Piers Morgan, the NRA or Drumpf.
He gave that interview a while back. Quite right too. Vote for the best of a shit bunch.
Jon Stewart was on David Axelrod's podcast recently. He's fecking awesome. It's a shame he's not commentating these days.
If there was any doubt how fecking thick Drumpf is, he goes and removes any doubt. Priceless
The last shred of Christie's dignity just went down the toilet
OreogateHe's such a dick - haha
"Don't feel bad Chris, for either of us"
"Don't feel bad Chris, for either of us"
Yet more complete and utter bullshit from Drumpf! Outright LIES! so easily checked too. What a fecking moron. It actually makes me mad people will vote for him. What does he have to do? How many lies before people wake up?
http://contemptor.com/2016/05/20/tr...m-to-london-cameron-says-trumps-full-of-crap/
http://contemptor.com/2016/05/20/tr...m-to-london-cameron-says-trumps-full-of-crap/
Yet more complete and utter bullshit from Drumpf! Outright LIES! so easily checked too. What a fecking moron. It actually makes me mad people will vote for him. What does he have to do? How many lies before people wake up?
http://contemptor.com/2016/05/20/tr...m-to-london-cameron-says-trumps-full-of-crap/
I look fwd to you doing the same of for Clinton. You'll have a field day.
Are you being serious? Clinton lies, I have pointed out many of her faults and lies, and personally I don't like her either, but if it came between her and Drumpf then there really is only one choice and it's a no brainer. The man is a moron, an extremely stupid, nasty one at that. It's strange how the rest of the world can see it, yet vast portions of America can't, or are having trouble doing so.
I don't like David Cameron, far from it, but I am with him 100% on this one, and so glad he is refusing to back down or retract his words, and even more impressed that he has doubled down on them. As I have said before, ALL the worlds leaders need to attack this fecking buffoon and say it how it is. It will be a travesty if he is elected and he will piss off so many people. America really will have very few allies if this clown is in charge, and that will be extremely sad imho.
The gap between the Clinton-Trump and Bernie-Trump H2H averages is now 11 %age points (+10.8 ; -0.2).
If ever the superdelegates had a duty to step in and stop the stupidity of the voting masses...
If ever the superdelegates had a duty to step in and stop the stupidity of the voting masses...
The gap between the Clinton-Trump and Bernie-Trump H2H averages is now 11 %age points (+10.8 ; -0.2).
If ever the superdelegates had a duty to step in and stop the stupidity of the voting masses...
I agree entirely. What is the reason for them not doing so? Is it money? power? or is it because there is still a firm belief that Hillary can beat Drumpf in the GE and that Bernie, if choses as a GE nominee won't hold those popularity figures with a national audience, especially so once the predictable "communist and communism" attacks start on his policies and ideals?
In the new ABC poll, which has Clinton +6 among all adults but -2 with registered voters, she's -13 when it comes to taxes, and her position is no new taxes on the middle class.
If you think Bernard is going to do better with his raising taxes across the board, you are in for a rude awakening. I don't remember which, but either Slate or Vox has run a response evaluation and support for him dropped markedly when they start explaining his positions on the economy.
Edit: This should settle it.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May22.html
Edit 2: updated with h2h numbers in the poll.
Last edited:
I think he will do a better job on the economy and national security than Hillary.
I care less about (social) issues and I couldn't give two shits about the special relationship or lack thereof with a small island in Europe.
What, the island that backed you up throughout all recent troubles? The one that fought side by side with you in illegal wars and conflicts, the ONE country that constantly sides with you no matter what? The one that wrote the document your whole constitution, religion, morals, and laws are based around (Magna Carta) But you do care about a football club from that small island though?
Too funny.On your other points, Trump wouldn't do better on economy, he's a fecking moron and a thief, he has already upset many countries with his hyperbole and rhetoric and it would be worse if he got elected. He also wants to remove the regulations recently imposed on the banks after the financial crisis. You know, the ones that got you and the rest of the world in that mess and caused a huge worldwide recession that nearly turned in to a depression?
As for national security
Trump would be the worst thing you could ever imagine. He would put a massive bulls-eye on America and make it a prime target for all terrorist groups, foreign AND domestic. But it will be ok though, because like you, Trump wont care about help from any other country, especially the one that has had your back since the second world war. It's a good job too, because nobody else would help you with Trump in charge because he will have pissed most of them off. He's doing a damn fine job of doing that already, and he's not even elected. That's not mentioning how much hate he is currently breeding in your own country, especially between minority races. Only a fool could believe Trump would be anything but exceedingly bad and dangerous if elected. Unfortunately for the saner, more intelligent Americans, It appears they may be outnumbered.There's of course no possibility that Bernie could improve on "understands my problems" and "bring needed change " numbers - the very same numbers that have helped him throughout the primaries...
Oh and I thought Slate was mind-control which we shouldn't be reading?
I just got polled for the upcoming CA primary. They asked me who should be Trump's VP and I couldn't think of anything so just said Bozo the Clown. It seemed appropriate.
I have no time for opinion pieces, but relevant data, polling or anything scientific is not to be scoffed at.
Also grant you 'understands my problems', but 'bring needed change', nah. There's a reason no Dem has won a 3rd consecutive term since 1952. There's a fatigue after a two term presidencies that's acknowledged by most politicos. Running with the D tag to your name won't help.
The economy will decide the election. Pay attention to that and Obama's approval rating. Favourability is a wash.
Also, you seem to ignore the 2008 h2h I posted
Have you not at least looked at the statements he made in this election and fact checked them before you arrived at this conclusion?
I have no time for opinion pieces, but relevant data, polling or anything scientific is not to be scoffed at.
Also grant you 'understands my problems', but 'bring needed change', nah. There's a reason no Dem has won a 3rd consecutive term since 1952. There's a fatigue after a two term presidencies that's acknowledged by most politicos. Running with the D tag to your name won't help.
The economy will decide the election. Pay attention to that and Obama's approval rating. Favourability is a wash.
Also, you seem to ignore the 2008 h2h I posted
I don't have much of a comment on it; I'm surprised by how well she was doing. Obama's numbers shot up after the crash and Palin; till then he was trailing.
In 'Game Change', Halperin said that even when Obama was trailing, McCain's inner circle was worried because of his deficits with women, which lead to Palin.
And as evidenced by this poll, a major terrorist attack won't help Trump much, if at all. The economy tanking, however...
What, the island that backed you up throughout all recent troubles? The one that fought side by side with you in illegal wars and conflicts, the ONE country that constantly sides with you no matter what? The one that wrote the document your whole constitution, religion, morals, and laws are based around (Magna Carta) But you do care about a football club from that small island though?
On your other points, Trump wouldn't do better on economy, he's a fecking moron and a thief, he has already upset many countries with his hyperbole and rhetoric and it would be worse if he got elected. He also wants to remove the regulations recently imposed on the banks after the financial crisis. You know, the ones that got you and the rest of the world in that mess and caused a huge worldwide recession that nearly turned in to a depression?
As for national security
On the economy - the US Congress/administration are so incompetent that they are arbitrarily handing $Billions of US tax revenue away. Take Google, Apple or Amazon; when they earn international profits, those are returns on R&D that was almost exclusively conducted in the US. Yet the bureaucrats in charge, have allowed these US companies to relocate their intellectual property abroad to Ireland, Bermuda, Cayman, Luxembourg and other tax havens through arcane and non-transparent accounting moves. So basically Google's IP (initially funded by the National Science Foundation) is actually claimed by the company to reside in Bermuda, out of the reach of IRS.
One example - Apple profits booked in a foreign country, say Germany, are shifted back to Ireland where there's prolly a sweet deal of 0-1% tax rate. Then the Irish profits are shifted further onward to Bermuda, where tax rates are zero. $100mm in profits in Germany, are paid as a royalty to an Irish based subsidiary of Apple. Then Apple pays no taxes in Germany (since gross revenues are offset by royalty payments) and the $100mm in royalty are booked in Ireland. Then these profits are brought back to the Caribbean tax heavens - the Irish subsidiary pays a "royalty" to the Cayman sub and voila, $100 mm is back in the Caribbean tax free (minus a small haircut in Ireland).
Now if all of Apple's overseas subsidiaries were to be consolidated into one corporate account, and all the company's profits earned on US intellectual property were consolidated into one bottom line, these accounting maneuvers wouldn't matter. Apple's $100mm German sales would hit the US corporate account bottom line where it belongs. But in fact, the opposite is true - un-repatriated "foreign earnings" of US Companies are deferred under the tax code, so that's untaxed. Basically, American companies are sitting on more than $2 TRILLION of accumulated profits that they've booked abroad in this manner to avoid US corporate taxes.
Take Gilead for example, which owns Sofosbuvir, a drug to cure Hepatitis C. Gilead bought the drug from drug developer Pharmasett, which did all the R&D in the USA. Yet the intellectual property on the drug is claimed by Gilead to be Irish for tax purposes. So, when Gilead fleeces US govt by charging $1,000 for a drug that costs $1 to manufacture, and the money is paid by the US Govt to pay for the treatment of a US citizen in the US, Gilead has the balls to book the US profits in Ireland. You can't make this shit up.
Trump has been the only one of the remaining candidates that has talked about the issue. He's talked about lowering the corporate tax, or an amnesty that would allow that money to be brought onshore. He's talked about "bad trade deals", and spoken about in protectionist terms as well, and how he wouldn't eat another Oreo. Fine, that's what the masses understand, as opposed to drawing the fecking diagram containing 50 subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles!!!
I'm not sure what Clinton's policy on the matter is, but I'm assuming as Obama MK2, she doesn't have a clue.
And Bernie is probably busy pontificating on just redistributing the wealth.
Also, while you mention regulations, Billary's close relations with Wall Stree helped stoke two financial bubbles (99-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great recession. In the 90's they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose financial fraud, manipulation and toxic assets and eventually collapse. In the process, Billary won elections and got mighty rich.
On national security - Clinton is always on the side of intervention. Foreigners always believe that GOP are the neocons and the Dems act as doves to counterbalance the warmongering. This is not true - both parties are divided between neocon hawks and doves who don't want the US involved in unending wars. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American force and war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Bill instituted an official US policy to support regime change in Iraq (see Iraq Liberation Act) which laid the foundations of the Iraq war in 2003. Of course by then, Hillary was a senator and a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq which caused thousands of lives, cost trillions of USD and caused more instability in the region than any other single decision in modern foreign policy.
As Secretary of State she was among the most militaristic and disastrous in modern US history. Let's talk about Libya and Syria.
On Libya, she's gotten flack over Benghazi, but her support in overthrowing Qaddafi has been far worse. She promoted regime change in Libya, which not only was in violation of international law but also counter to basic judgment. Libya descended into civil war and unsecured arms stashes quickly spread and fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, spawned war in Mali and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Of course, at the time she quipped on Qaddafi that "we came, we saw, he died".
In Syria she again promoted regime change, demanded that al-Assad be removed and thought this would be quick, costless and successful. Her declaration at the time was "Bashar must get out of the way" etc. Of course, no place on the planet is more fecked up today than Syria, and no place poses a greater threat to US security. 10 million Syrians are displaced, refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean and undermining the stability of Greece, Turkey and the EU. ISIS of course has moved in and used Syria as the base for worldwide terror attacks.
She's also supported NATO expansion (why?) at every turn, including Ukraine and Georgia, against all common sense. Of course, poking the Russian bear in the eye has led to counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine, so as Secretary of State she's presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia. Add that to her glowing CV.
Is it bad judgment? Does she blindly trust the CIA? Does she want to show that as a Democrat she will be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign backers? I don't know, and I don't care. Whatever the reasons, she's got an awful record and for that I don't want her to run the country.
If it takes a clown in her stead, so be it.
- Status