2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, I wouldn't seek to make equivalencies here. On social issues, the GOP is off the scale in terms of backwardness. I acknowledge that. It's the sole reason I can tolerate the notion of Clinton winning. But there's an element of "hope for the best" -- that she doesn't mean what she says -- when she speaks about upping tensions with Russia in Cold War terms.
So should Putin be allowed to steamroll all the former Soviet countries because I'm sure that is his plan.
 
The Republicans have gone too far right for the right. They'll need to reform after this.

There is actually quite a lot of joy to be found in the notion of Republicans having to endure two terms of America's first black president followed by at least one term of America's first female president (whose surname is Clinton :lol:).

A careful alignment to central right would help them regain the social-liberal but otherwise conservative bloc.
 
I think this is going to be closer than people think.

Beware the silent Trumper
 
I'm in no way shape or form suggest that I'm some kind of authority on US history. @Carolina Red and @adexkola to name but two are very knowledgeable and the former especially has linked to a lot of interesting tidbits in this thread or others regarding their founding, constitution or electoral process. I just have a beef with the 'two worst candidates ever' stuff because even with just a cursory glance, there were plenty of less qualified, more destructive and personally repugnant candidates/president than Hillary Clinton, and you needn't even dig very deep for that.

The Cheeto Jesus is in a league of his own, granted, even though George Wallace just for one would run him pretty close.

And your last sentence may be right and you are perfectly entitled to feel that way, but it doesn't change the facts. Isn't fact what leftys pride ourselves on?
Palin on the McCain ticket puts them close to the bottom with Trump and Wallace.
 
A careful alignment to central right would help them regain the social-liberal but otherwise conservative bloc.
Yeah, they need to move toward the centre if they want to retain any relevance. As of now they're just way out on the right. They're losing moderates as a result.
 
Kellyanne visibly ageing by the day


No details whatsoever about what Trump actually means by "rigged".

She look exhausted from spouting the same bullshit fifty times a day and then have it blown back in her face at 4am by the dirty groper.
 
So should Putin be allowed to steamroll all the former Soviet countries because I'm sure that is his plan.

Any invasion of a NATO country will be met with war. Not willing to chance Trump in the White House, but I doubt that even him would be foolish to ignore the blatant invasion of an ally, against the cries of every prominent official.

I have an issue with Hillary's hawkishness, and her annoying level of affection for Israel. I see boots on the ground in our future if Hillary is president, but still, she's the safer bet.
 
I highly recommend watching a film/documentary called "HyperNormalisation" that's very relevant to this election (and many other things besides). It's available on the BBC iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation

"Our world is strange and often fake and corrupt. But we think it’s normal because we can’t see anything else. HyperNormalisation - the story of how we got here."
 
So no, then?
NATO - who I believe more than the Kremlin - reported multiple breaches of Baltic sea and other territories by Russians. Likewise, I don't believe for a second that Russia haven't send soldiers and equipment to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine since it is documented, most notably relatives of dead soldiers shut down when the dared to speak up, subsequently Kremlin passed a bill to silence anybody speaking about things like it.

Putin will without any doubt take Ukraine, and I doubt his appetite stops there. #makeRussiagreatagain
 
NATO - who I believe more than the Kremlin - reported multiple breaches of Baltic sea and other territories by Russians.

Putin will without any doubt take Ukraine, and I doubt his appetite stops there. #makeRussiagreatagain
The problem with believing NATO is that NATO's expansionist policies (mainly into the Russian sphere of influence) is more or less the entire reason Russia annexed the Crimea.

This should probably go in CE chat. Going off topic.
 
Last edited:
The problem with believing NATO is that NATO's expansionist policies (mainly into the Russian sphere of influence) is more or less the entire reason Russia annexed the Crimea.
That's Russia's lame excuse which I don't buy. The mere fact UdSSR fell apart, i.e. Ukraine separating, was a big blow for Putin and his alikes who never really accepted the independence.
 
On the CNN poll.....



Their LV screen actually benefited Clinton in OH. Adjusted for house effect and it's a toss up race, pretty consistent with what we've seen thus far in the Midwest. Early voting in Dem strongholds like Cuyahoga and Franklin is down as well (-18/-31% compared to 2012).

I think what we are seeing is a realignment of the map, accelerated by the God Emperor. Dems future lay in Southern states with high minorities population as well as hubs of college educated whites and the usual West Coast/ New England states. GOP on the other hand take all of Middle America with their aging, less educated and whiter population. Drumpf is running about ten points worse than Mittens in the South and that's where a lot of Clinton's votes are coming from.
 
A YouGov of Georgia has Clinton up by 3 as well.
 
Other than Arizona, I don't think Clinton should waste any resources on the other red states: Georgia, Alaska, Texas or Utah. It will be difficult winning any of them, and there's no benefit on doing so* other than for the headlines. She should spend any extra resources on helping the down ticket.



* unless the senate/House race in any of these four states is close as well. I'm not following the congressional elections.
 
Other than Arizona, I don't think Clinton should waste any resources on the other red states: Georgia, Alaska, Texas or Utah. It will be difficult winning any of them, and there's no benefit on doing so* other than for the headlines. She should spend any extra resources on helping the down ticket.



* unless the senate/House race in any of these four states is close as well. I'm not following the congressional elections.
If you can challenge in Arizona, you've got a good chance in Georgia, and it's worth almost as many electoral votes as Ohio. She's raising $150m a month compared to his $100m (not including super pacs), so they can afford to spread their resources.
 
They should wait til he's asleep and move his bed out onto the pavement (sidewalk for our American friends).
 


Trump hasn't lead a poll in Florida by more than 1 in over a month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.