There isn't any reasoning with these people. It was another slap in the face that they are sheeple
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
There isn't any reasoning with these people. It was another slap in the face that they are sheeple
Why do they keep calling him Obama's estranged half brother? Surely it should be deranged half brother?
Rubio taking the high road on wikileaks. Hell frozen over?
He's always a class act.
I'll give the lady a pass. If she believes what she believes I'd hate Clinton too. If she feels that her son was left for dead then let her have her say. However he was in a very volatile situation. You can't go into a war without the thought you might die. God rest his soul and I might be way off on this
KellyAnne Conway is a fruit loop. She's lost the plot completely. It's like Alice in Wonderland and she's drank the kool aid but now she's coming round and she realises she's in a nightmare and completely fecked. She's now hedging her bets and trying her best to come out of this with whatever credibility she can and without destroying her reputation any further. She also looks like shit, and I mean real shit. She looks extremely ill, very, very gaunt, her eyes are hollow and sunken with YUUGE bags around and underneath them and she just looks physically exhausted whenever you see her on TV now. She's also exceedingly short tempered. Long gone is the bright eyed head of the campaign who was willing to debate any question and answered everything with a quip and a smile. Yet another Drumpf campaign manager resigned to the scrap heap.
Very impressed with Rubio. I think one of the Wikileaks emails suggested the Hillary campaign feared him the most, and understandably so. He's an intelligent, politically savvy guy. If the GOP are no longer run by the Bannon/Tea Party insane clown posse in 2019, I'd imagine Marco will be the leading candidate for Pres.
Trump tweet about he's ahead imminent.
I'd forgotten about him oddly enough but it makes sense it will be Rubio 2020. I hope to god it is him or Ryan over Cruz. Who will be the first candidate in the next cycle to talk about vision?
They talk about sexual assault from Trump like he was just speed dating.
He'd lose to Paul Ryan.
Yep. Rubio is the one who I think would have ran Clinton closest. Maybe Cruz, but he's too easily hated.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/1120/251
That's the leak which outlines Carson, Trump and Cruz as the preferred candidates.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/1120/251
That's the leak which outlines Carson, Trump and Cruz as the preferred candidates.
Those two should be the main contenders if the GOP manages to reclaim control of the party post-Trump.
The knives will be out for the Charlatans who helped Trump over the past 16 months.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/19/the-unforgivables-trump-s-top-collaborators.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/19/the-unforgivables-trump-s-top-collaborators.html
Giuliani is the one I hope comes out of it most damaged. Maybe Christie too; but Giuliani is the worst. I've never seen someone do so little and claim so much (seems to have used 9/11 to make himself out as some kind of hero).
I have no idea about this stuff. Is this a reputable poll or not? I've been taken in by polling data before. Is this meaningful or not? (slightly worried)
Stein at 6% is laughable. She probably won't break 1%.
Its clearly an outlier. Look at the others released in the past 48 hours.
CVOTER - Hillary +5
PRRI = Hillary +15
Rasmussen = Tie
SurveyUSA - Hillary +10
Selzer and Company - Hillary +9
FoxNews - Hillary +6
IPSOS - Hillary +5
The RCP Average is Hillary +6.2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
I've seen her at 3-4% in other polls, so 6% is high but doesn't seem outlandish. On the other hand if one poll shows Clinton up 15% with a 3-4% uncertainty and another shows Trump up by 1% with a 3-4% uncertainty that is not a statistical anomaly, someone is just out and out wrong.
Last edited:
IBD/TIPP was the most accurate pollster I hear. What the hell is going on ?
It releases a poll everyday, so let's see what tomorrow brings
It releases a poll everyday, so let's see what tomorrow brings
The green and libertarian tickets usually get less than 1% of the vote. Maybe this election will be an massive outlier, but I think both tickets have outpolled where they will ultimately land in 3 weeks time. I suspect too many people will shit themselves when they see Trump name on the ballot and give Hilary their vote.
That's what I read too, hence slightly worried.
Fox actually seems to have one of the more reliable polls this year, and a lot of conservative analysts have been saying that it's all done and dusted barring some incredible act of god.
Plus that is not what Don is saying in the slightest. He's asking people to sign up on his site to be poll watchers like!
Fox is a good pollster. forget the media side. It's rated A by 538.
The difference is that this year the level of dislike for both major candidates is so high I can easily see them (Lib + Green) totaling 10-15% of the vote.
I heard in 538 podcasts that Fox, MSNBC and a few other organizations use the same pollsters but derive results differently. Maybe it is so polarizing that Fox can't decipher anything else.
Fair point. Monmouth is the highest rated by them, and they currently have Clinton +12 nationally.
I think that's definitely an outlier, though.
Scottie is an arsehole. I can't stand the silly bitch, but she is quite funny. "Just because Trump said something doesn't mean he did it" Which is actually very true because he's completely full of shit, however saying he goes backstage at the beauty competitions is probably one of his statements you could actually take to the bank.
WOW! Massive news if true.
@Raoul I know this one will tickle you
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/roger-ailes-donald-trump-no-longer-speak?mbid=social_twitter
It's like Ren falling out with Stimpy or Satan falling out with Saddam or................ whatever, it's hilarious if true.
@Raoul I know this one will tickle you
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/roger-ailes-donald-trump-no-longer-speak?mbid=social_twitter
It's like Ren falling out with Stimpy or Satan falling out with Saddam or................ whatever, it's hilarious if true.
WOW! Massive news if true.
@Raoul I know this one will tickle you
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/roger-ailes-donald-trump-no-longer-speak?mbid=social_twitter
It's like Ren falling out with Stimpy or Satan falling out with Saddam or................ whatever, it's hilarious if true.
Hehe....I'd imagine it probably had something to do with Ailes advising Trump on what to do and Trump tellling him he would rather wing it the rest of the way. I'd also guess that Ailes is no fan of Bannon's tactics.
I know which one I believe.
It depends on how you see China as the country at least historically. The current country have been full of many kingdoms with warlords with some similar cultural identity before it was united again. The unification of the current China territory i would say originated as an international conflict and the making of it was brutal ( it really is just semantics but both ways of looking at it can be justified ). Yes the Japanese were the aggressors but it is still an international conflict even though they were the victim here. The peace is crucial to the American power in this region though as that is the foundation of the economic and political development that benefits the Americans greatly. It cost a lot of money to keep the American military power in the region and the added trade with South Korea and Japan help pay for the military bases there. If the region was at full blown war the operational costs would be sky high and problematic long term. So in my opinion keeping the peace is crucial in keeping the influence ( power ) there.
The Japanese people are tired of dealing with drunken American soldiers and the social problems that have risen like rape cases (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/sexual-assaults-us-military-japan-prison-unlikely ) and this have caused big problems between them in recent times. I don´t think the Japanese government wants the bases gone though until they have sufficient military capability on their own. They have to react to these cases with harsh words in public though as they want to be re-elected to public office again.
DPRK are not an direct threat to America currently, but they are to the South Koreans and by that connection an serious threat to American interests in the region. The Chinese don´t want an war either as they would end up with millions of refugees and this would be costly and problematic for them.
International law really is murky waters as they get bend and broken by all the big players including U.S.A. They are only worth a lot if all played by them especially U.S.A to give them legitimacy, when U.S.A breaks them so carelessly they devalue the rules greatly. The Annexing of land can´t be allowed no matter what though as that is legitimating military conquest and this need to be dealt with so no other country gets the same funny ideas. We are going to disagree greatly on NATO as the aggression from the current Russia government validates its existence. There is no excuse for Russia annexing land and every country along the Russian boarder most decide for them selves if they want to join NATO or not. It is not op to Russia to decide such things on behalf of sovereign states. You could argue that if Russia treated its neighbours better then these countries would not bother to seek protection with NATO membership.
Last edited:
I think that sounds spot on. I also think the old saying "Too many cooks" is especially applicable to this scenario. I can't see Aisles, Bannon or Trump listening to much anyone says. Everyone thinking they know best, and everyone thinking they are in charge and the most important person in the room. A recipe for disaster for sure.
Yeah, I thought exactly the same when I read it.
Is that the first time he's gone ahead?
Whuuuuuut.
Who is the McMullin guy?
I am a noob so please bear. How can a person who isn't running nationally run for one state alone?
Edit: I've looked him up.
@Red Viking another very good post (I won't quote it because of its length).
I think we mostly agree, except on the issue of NATO which becomes a chicken/egg scenario depending on viewpoint, really.
This is very true. The only thing I'd say is that any country (considered a military power) would respond almost identically to the Russians if faced with an encroachment upon their traditional sphere of influence. There was an agreement with NATO made in the 80s that they would not advance toward traditionally Russian controlled spheres. NATO has sought to break that agreement at every turn since. As Stockham notes:
So, whilst I agree that Russian annexation can't be given a free hand, it does have to be seen in a wider context -- one that can't simply exculpate NATO's involvement. Sure, countries can decide to join NATO, but NATO should never have sought to expand to the East, and should have simply made known that those applications would be ignored. In all honesty, NATO hasn't had any legitimacy since the Cold War. We'll likely disagree on this, but I can at least understand your viewpoint (it's a relatively common one, after all).
I think we mostly agree, except on the issue of NATO which becomes a chicken/egg scenario depending on viewpoint, really.
This is very true. The only thing I'd say is that any country (considered a military power) would respond almost identically to the Russians if faced with an encroachment upon their traditional sphere of influence. There was an agreement with NATO made in the 80s that they would not advance toward traditionally Russian controlled spheres. NATO has sought to break that agreement at every turn since. As Stockham notes:
So, whilst I agree that Russian annexation can't be given a free hand, it does have to be seen in a wider context -- one that can't simply exculpate NATO's involvement. Sure, countries can decide to join NATO, but NATO should never have sought to expand to the East, and should have simply made known that those applications would be ignored. In all honesty, NATO hasn't had any legitimacy since the Cold War. We'll likely disagree on this, but I can at least understand your viewpoint (it's a relatively common one, after all).
He's a Republican protest candidate who entered the race so normal Republicans could vote for someone they could bear, without the future political baggage of having voted for Trump. He is a mormon, so his numbers in Utah aren't entirely surprising, although not too many people thought he would win the state.
Where do you rate the chances of an electoral college deadlock and the House getting to pick the next POTUS?
- Status