2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm just pointing out that the last time this was "mainstream" it died off pretty quick because Jr ended up looking like he was doing a bit of philanthropy... "Feeding the starving African kids"

To me, it wouldn't help the campaign to stop Trump.
 
Hillary Clinton is as close to being the embodiment of everything I dislike in politics as anyone; and yet, with the way the executive has collected more powers over the last 15 years, having someone as volatile as Donald Trump in the White House is just dangerous.

The world is in trouble whatever happens.
 
I'm just pointing out that the last time this was "mainstream" it died off pretty quick because Jr ended up looking like he was doing a bit of philanthropy... "Feeding the starving African kids"

To me, it wouldn't help the campaign to stop Trump.

him donating the money it cost to kill those animals could have fed many more. he's a db like his dad.
 
Hillary Clinton is as close to being the embodiment of everything I dislike in politics as anyone; and yet, with the way the executive has collected more powers over the last 15 years, having someone as volatile as Donald Trump in the White House is just dangerous.

The world is in trouble whatever happens.

I don't get the impression the world is in trouble at all if Hillary gets elected. She's basically running on a platform that is an extension of Obama's blended with a few Sanders policies (anti-TPP, free College etc). Trump on the other hand would be catastrophic.
 
The 538 forecast. Which one do people look at normally? Polls-Plus, Polls-Only or Now-Cast? Because the Polls-Only forecast has Trump slightly winning.
 
The 538 forecast. Which one do people look at normally? Polls-Plus, Polls-Only or Now-Cast? Because the Polls-Only forecast has Trump slightly winning.

Its in constant Flux. Trump was ahead in the Now-Cast by about 7 a day ago and now Hillary seems to have nudged over 50% (probably based on the one poll that was released today and yesterday's Reuters/IPSOS poll).

There is something quite strange about Silver's Polls/Poll Plus/and Now-Cast - in that they both show AZ and MO as red despite the fact that polls in both states are pretty much break even. Not sure how he explains that one.
 
I don't get the impression the world is in trouble at all if Hillary gets elected. She's basically running on a platform that is an extension of Obama's blended with a few Sanders policies (anti-TPP, free College etc). Trump on the other hand would be catastrophic.

Pretty much. She's pretty uninspiring and probably a tad dishonest, but she's certainly not as dangerous as people make her out to be.
 

Its quite worrying, but until now there's no clear evidence. We know the DNC was hacked, and that according to the FBI, there's a high probability it was Russian hackers in concert with Russian intelligence. Trump has had significant business dealings in Russia, including hosting the Miss Universe pageant and a failed attempt at building a Trump tower in Moscow. His campaign manager Paul Manafort also worked for the former Putin stooge Victor Yanukovych.

This basically sums the entire thing up nicely.

 
From here it looks as though there is a lot of attention given to "alledged" dodgy practices by Hillary and virtually no follow up when allegations turn out to be unfounded. The virtual smell remains even after the so-called shit didn't hit the fan.
 
From here it looks as though there is a lot of attention given to "alledged" dodgy practices by Hillary and virtually no follow up when allegations turn out to be unfounded. The virtual smell remains even after the so-called shit didn't hit the fan.

It's because of how much the Clinton(s) are hated by the right. Pathological hatred* makes it likely you will believe the worst regardless of evidence.

And thus the flip side is also true. There were such obvious witch-hunts from the right that large parts of the left rallied around to them. Which meant that things that would have been scandalous for anyone else aren't taken seriously.


Take Juanitta Broadrick. Look at that link and tell me what the reaction would be to it if those allegations were against any other person. Specifically, what Gloria Steinem or any credible feminist would say about the alleged rapist and his wife who allegedly told the victim to keep quiet.

For an idea of how far this goes, to impeach Clinton for lying about a BJ was just ridiculous. But prominent people had closed ranks so tight around the Clintons, a feminist publicly said Monica Lewinsky should start renting out her mouth to the highest bidder as a future career.

Then look at her email scandal. For 5 years the right has been chasing the ghost of Benghazi, where she allegedly didn't save an ambassadors life or lied about who killed him (their allegation keeps shifting). In the course of that they stumbled onto the email scandal, where she violated rules she herself set up about secure communications. But they kept hammering away at Benghazi, and for a long while talking about emails was as taboo as talking about Benghazi (Bernie in the debates, when asked to attack her on that: "The American people are sick of hearing about your damn emails, let's debate policy")

The GOP grilled her when she was appointed SoS about potential conflicts of interest with her work and the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation has been getting money from foreign governments she was dealing with directly as SoS, including authoritarian regimes, and with high-profile companies with whom she was working (for example the banks that were financing the Keystone XL pipeline). It just so happened that the bank donated to the Foundation around the time she expressed positive sentiments about the pipeline. And in another coincidence the Foundation would get money from a foreign government and around the same time the US would approve arm sales.


*And the more I read about them the more pathological is my hatred toward them.
 
Last edited:
He's only gone and fecking attacked Khizr Khan and his wife now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-khizr-khan_us_579ce135e4b0e2e15eb61dd9?

The man really has no shame at all. Hopefully this will bring him down, he's taking uber shit for this one, and rightly so. What a cnut.


Well, when you could be fecking one of Jeffery Epstein's potential superstar models but you are tired from making money to pay your loyal employees or causing your little finger to fail, that's a sacrifice in some people's eyes.
 
Last edited:
I don't get the impression the world is in trouble at all if Hillary gets elected. She's basically running on a platform that is an extension of Obama's blended with a few Sanders policies (anti-TPP, free College etc). Trump on the other hand would be catastrophic.

My main concern with her is that she has a very expansionist view on foreign policy - more than Obama, who already seems quite expansionist.
 
I don't get the impression the world is in trouble at all if Hillary gets elected. She's basically running on a platform that is an extension of Obama's blended with a few Sanders policies (anti-TPP, free College etc). Trump on the other hand would be catastrophic.
She will u turn on that as soon she get's into the white house.
 
It's because of how much the Clinton(s) are hated by the right. Pathological hatred* makes it likely you will believe the worst regardless of evidence.

And thus the flip side is also true. There were such obvious witch-hunts from the right that large parts of the left rallied around to them. Which meant that things that would have been scandalous for anyone else aren't taken seriously.


Take Juanitta Broadrick. Look at that link and tell me what the reaction would be to it if those allegations were against any other person. Specifically, what Gloria Steinem or any credible feminist would say about the alleged rapist and his wife who allegedly told the victim to keep quiet.

For an idea of how far this goes, to impeach Clinton for lying about a BJ was just ridiculous. But prominent people had closed ranks so tight around the Clintons, a feminist publicly said Monica Lewinsky should start renting out her mouth to the highest bidder as a future career.

Then look at her email scandal. For 5 years the right has been chasing the ghost of Benghazi, where she allegedly didn't save an ambassadors life or lied about who killed him (their allegation keeps shifting). In the course of that they stumbled onto the email scandal, where she violated rules she herself set up about secure communications. But they kept hammering away at Benghazi, and for a long while talking about emails was as taboo as talking about Benghazi (Bernie in the debates, when asked to attack her on that: "The American people are sick of hearing about your damn emails, let's debate policy")

The GOP grilled her when she was appointed SoS about potential conflicts of interest with her work and the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation has been getting money from foreign governments she was dealing with directly as SoS, including authoritarian regimes, and with high-profile companies with whom she was working (for example the banks that were financing the Keystone XL pipeline). It just so happened that the bank donated to the Foundation around the time she expressed positive sentiments about the pipeline. And in another coincidence the Foundation would get money from a foreign government and around the same time the US would approve arm sales.


*And the more I read about them the more pathological is my hatred toward them.
That rape allegation thing is deeply disturbing. The rest - not so much. I do wish there was a better alternative but having Hillary in the white house is a lot safer than giving Trump the codes and keys.
 
Good start of the week for Drumpf

The lift (elevator) story is pretty dull, just shows how inept Trump's team are, but it's the bit right at the end I find interesting where Drumpf himself yet again feels the need to shout and criticise someone without understanding what he is talking about. The constant need to belittle everyone, it just smacks of hypocrisy when he starts ranting on about wanting the best for everyone. He clearly couldn't give a shit.

In other news. #TrumpSacrifices has gone UBER-VIRAL! I've just checked my Twitter feed and it's just full of Trump sacrifices, many from famous or well respected people too. On top of that the shit he is getting for attacking the Khan family doesn't seem to be abating either. Fingers crossed Trump feels the need to reply and defend himself from all the shit he's getting :lol:
 
Last edited:
The map is looking increasingly daunting for Trump. If Hillary holds serve in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Virginia - it will be game over.

Alternatively if she wins Florida, Penn, and Wisconsin (completely realistic) - its game over.

http://www.270towin.com/
 
They should just get rid of Stein in the questioning. She's too low to be remotely relevant to the outcome.
 
4% of Hillary voters would support putting her in jail, and 2% think she has ties to Lucifer.
 
It's revealing how Trump phrases things. Why not just tweet 'Captain Khan was a hero, but (etc etc)'? The reason is disrespectful of Khan's sacrifice: because it took place '12 years ago', we're supposed to think that sacrifice was pointless and irrelevant.
 
Silver's Now-Forcast has changed again Hillary at nearly 57% now - up from low 40s a week ago and 50 this morning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.