2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posting links is fine if you're linking to a study, or trying to clarify a factual statement. But in the case of the Clinton foundation you can also find links that say it's much ado about nothing. Now, if you're arguing buying an audience shouldn't happen in politics you won't get much disagreement around here. But if you want to argue it's proof of extraordinary corruption you're fighting an uphill battle.
 
"These are stories that are made up, these are total fiction. You'll find out that, in the years to come, these women that stood up, it was all fiction," he said. "They were made up. I don't know these women, it's not my thing to do what they say. You know I don't do that. I don't grab them, as they say, on the arm."
"One said, 'he grabbed me on the arm.' And she's a porn star. You know, this one that came out recently, 'he grabbed me and he grabbed me on the arm.' Oh, I'm sure she's never been grabbed before," Trump said.
Click to expand...
Just can't help himself can he?
 
How far are we away from the next 3am twitter storm?

It looked like he was ramping up there today after just posting loads of links and stump stuff for a few days, i.e. not actually him doing it. It's only those 4 Obviously-Donald tweets so far today though.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
How far are we away from the next 3am twitter storm?

It looked like he was ramping up there today after just posting loads of links and stump stuff for a few days, i.e. not actually him doing it. It's only those 4 Obviously-Donald tweets so far today though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's sadly been a bit quiet today, even Denald hasn't been posting much either. :(
 
Silva said:
Posting links is fine if you're linking to a study, or trying to clarify a factual statement. But in the case of the Clinton foundation you can also find links that say it's much ado about nothing. Now, if you're arguing buying an audience shouldn't happen in politics you won't get much disagreement around here. But if you want to argue it's proof of extraordinary corruption you're fighting an uphill battle.
Click to expand...
@Rado_N asked what's the problem with a $12m donation to the Clinton foundation. I posted two links that show certain problems with the foundation. The first link talks about the types who donation to the foundation and the second link is a more in depth look at the charity side of the foundation, mostly in Haiti.

I wasn't trying to prove extraordinary corruption(Although I do think it's awful foundation) but simply pointing out why it could be worrying when a King donates $12m to the Clinton Foundation.
 
"Oh, I'm sure she's never been grabbed before," Trump said.
Click to expand...
I think that sentence gives it away - he did grab her.
 
In a scorching statement, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden blasted Fox News host Sean Hannity for his newfound love of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. “In 10 yrs @wikileaks has gotten nothing wrong & no one’s been killed bc of the info released. #freejulianassange #freeinternet for all,” Hannity tweeted over the weekend, continuing his recent trend of praising the man he once said was “waging war” on the U.S. and deserved to be arrested. In response, Hayden told Brookings Institute senior fellow Benjamin Wittes in a statement: “Hannity has entered the pantheon of a true propagandist.” Additionally, he wrote, “Fox News has almost entirely jumped the shark. They have given up any semblance of conservatism and focused on an almost visceral hatred of all things Clinton and Obama.” The four-star general—who has served in positions under Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama—concluded that Hannity reminds him a Bulgarian political official he met in the 1980s who, when asked what truth is, told Hayden, “Truth is what serves the party.”
Click to expand...
 
Sweet Square said:
@Rado_N asked what's the problem with a $12m donation to the Clinton foundation. I posted two links that show certain problems with the foundation. The first link talks about the types who donation to the foundation and the second link is a more in depth look at the charity side of the foundation, mostly in Haiti.

I wasn't trying to prove extraordinary corruption(Although I do think it's awful foundation) but simply pointing out why it could be worrying when a King donates $12m to the Clinton Foundation.
Click to expand...

I think it is far fetched to blame an charity foundation from accepting big donations regardless of the donation sender. I think most big charities around the world sometimes gets donations from utterly questionable people. In the end all that matters is if it the funds are used illegally or legally ( accusations really need to be based on solid information as proof ). In the end the millions of people who gets help don´t care if the money once belonged to an idiot. If you´re poor and need medicine or other help, then getting just that is the only concern as everything else is a rich mans concern. Also people like the Saudis spending their money like that at least makes some of the oil money being spend on something good for once. I honestly think you´re only being critical of the foundation due to the Clinton name as most foundations have issues generally speaking.
 
senorgregster said:
That's kind of my point. Bills have to be passed by both. If they don't have the house they won't get through the house.
Click to expand...
Right, so if the GOP controls both they'll pass GOP friendly legislation quite easily with no Democratic party check until the veto. And again, that's without taking into account the pretty massively important confirmation of judicial (and cabinet as IB said) nominations. Harry Reid says he's set everything up to be able to nuke the filibuster on supreme court appointees, but for that you need a majority in the senate.
 
senorgregster said:
That's kind of my point. Bills have to be passed by both. If they don't have the house they won't get through the house.
Click to expand...

You don't necessarily need complete control to govern. If Dems can get within ~ 10 seats of the majority, they will force Ryan to do business with them, especially with the Freedom Caucus kicking him in the nuts any chance they get. There won't be any grand bargain to be made but passing the budget, infrastructure bills etc... should be realistic. Party line issues like gun, healthcare and student debt are off the table but I don't expect the gridlock to be as bad as it is now within the next two years under that scenario.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
You don't necessarily need complete control to govern. If Dems can get within ~ 10 seats of the majority, they will force Ryan to do business with them, especially with the Freedom Caucus kicking him in the nuts any chance they get. There won't be any grand bargain to be made but passing the budget, infrastructure bills etc... should be realistic. Party line issues like gun, healthcare and student debt are off the table but I don't expect the gridlock to be as bad as it is now within the next two years under that scenario.
Click to expand...

Even if you do win the house and senate, Any major issue has to be passed with an absolute majority anyway isn't it? I'd say the gridlock issues may still persist, but as you said it'll be less prevalent especially on issues like infrastructure bills. Republicans won't want a 'No to everything attitude' else they are looking at another 8 years*

*provided Shillary wins
 
More hilarity, or perhaps trumplarity...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-tv-ads-trump_us_580e34b2e4b000d0b157b24f
Republicans Threaten Lawsuits Over TV Ads Linking Them To Donald Trump
Saying a candidate supports Trump is basically defamation, they argue.

WASHINGTON ― Some Republicans are running so far away from their party’s nominee that they are threatening to sue TV stations for running ads that suggest they support Donald Trump.

Just two weeks before Election Day, five Republicans ― Reps. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), David Jolly (R-Fla.), John Katko (R-N.Y.) and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican running for an open seat that’s currently occupied by his brother ― contend that certain commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee provide false or misleading information by connecting them to the GOP nominee.

Trump is so terrible, these Republicans are essentially arguing, that tying them to him amounts to defamation.
Click to expand...
 
Meeeeeanwhile....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ion-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/
Exclusive investigation: Donald Trump faces foreign donor fundraising scandal
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is facing a fundraising scandal after a Telegraph investigation exposed how key supporters were prepared to accept illicit donations from foreign backers.

Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.

In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain “influence” if Mr Trump made it to the White House.

Last week Eric Beach, the PAC’s co-chairman, confirmed to the reporters at an event in Las Vegas that their client's support would be "remembered" if Mr Trump became president.

Undercover reporters posing as consultants acting for a Chinese benefactor approached specific pro-Trump and pro-Clinton fundraisers and groups after receiving information that individuals were involved in hiding foreign donations.

Sources also said PACs, “independent” organisations that can raise unlimited sums of money to lobby for or against particular candidates, were being used to circumvent rules.

The pro-Clinton organisations did not respond to initial approaches. But earlier this month an undercover reporter spoke by telephone to Eric Beach, co-chairman of the pro-Trump Great America PAC, which has the backing of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr Trump’s most senior advisers, as well as the billionaire's son Eric.

The reporter said a Chinese client wished to donate to the PAC to support Mr Trump's campaign.

Mr Beach appeared interested despite raising concerns about his nationality and saying he would need to know the donor’s identity.

He suggested the donation could be put through a social welfare organisation called a 501(c)(4) - or C4 - , which unlike a PAC is not subject to a blanket ban on receiving foreign money, and not required to name donors. He stressed in an email that "any path we recommend is legal".

The reporter then received an email from Jesse Benton, a senior figure at the PAC until being convicted in May in connection with buying a senator’s endorsement on a prior campaign. He said he was a “consultant” and that Mr Beach had not wanted a “paper trail” of contact. He and the PAC later denied that he had worked for it at all since May.

Mr Benton proposed channelling the donation through his own company to mask its origin. It would then be passed on to two C4s before being donated by them to the PAC, or simply used to fund projects the PAC had already planned.

Mr Benton said the $2 million, for which he would submit an invoice for “appearances” would “definitely allow us to spend two million more dollars on digital and television advertising for Trump.” The Chinese benefactor's generosity would be “whispered into Mr Trump’s ear.” He said he had previously helped US donors conceal donations.

Mr Beach then said at the Vegas event last Wednesday: "Trump knows that you know, people have stuck with him … I’m not gonna twist your arm or anything, I just think that there’s no way that this group, and you guys have been participating indirectly or directly, won’t be remembered."
Click to expand...
 
WOW!

Just watched "The Circus" On Sky, I seriously recommend it to anyone interested in this election, it's absolutely fascinating and shocking. That bumblecnut Roger Stone is on it, described as being satan, and to be honest, that's not far from the truth. He really is an odious despicable man, not just in personality but also in appearance too. The prick wears a bowler hat throughout the entire interview, and while he's eating which instantly shows him to be a rude, ignorant cnut but it's his beady eyes that are way too close together and his fecking odd pointy teeth that resemble those from the film Coneheads. Ugh, he gives me the shivers for sure. He also looks as if he has the down syndrome gene, it's so strange, he just doesn't look real, like a caricature of himself. So odd. He's also clearly drunk as feck in his interview, and openly says WikiLeaks has much more to release and Trump hasn't lost as and I quote verbatim "nothing is over until WE say it is" FFS!

@Dwazza Tucker appears on it briefly and although he doesn't appear to be drunk, and for once is surprisingly poorly dressed, but I notice he has an elastic band on his wrist, and anyone with or previously having substance issues will know exactly what that is for and why he is wearing it.
 
Noticed a rightie post some nonsense about the Clintons are already moving into the White House according to a Bulgarian newspaper. :rolleyes:

I saw this meme on an Alan Colmes post this afternoon.

14793991_10154629654552311_887290260_n.jpg
 


You just have to grudgingly respect her. The sheer amount of bs she can spin is phenomenal.

Kornacki nailed her on a couple of occasions though.
 
peridigm said:
You missed my point. The Facebook stream was live and raw comments, not something presented to you by ABC, CNN, or FOX.
And how is it scientific when the pollsters are targeting a specific demographic?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...em-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples
Click to expand...

Pollsters are trying to calculate the composition of the electorate that comes out to vote. If you don't weight the poll by demographics or target certain communities, you'll end up with a very inaccurate poll, which happen to be Trump's favorites. Internal polls are better than the public/media polls. If Hillary didn't have internal polling saying she was up big in certain swing states, she wouldn't have reallocated resources and personnel to places like Arizona, Georgia, or Utah. Obviously she's not neglecting the swing states that could still move (like NC, Ohio, or Florida) but she's got more freedom to try to expand the map. It also forces Trump to dedicate resources to states that should be safe for him. At least hypothetically speaking. He and his campaign are so incompetent that they may not realize it. He gave what was supposed to be a "major" speech in Gettysburg this weekend in a state he's down by about 7%. It was a waste of time, not to mention the fact that it's insulting to the men who died there and to the president he was trying to associate himself with.

In 2012, the GOP claimed polls were skewed. They were wrong then, and Trump's people are wrong now. The Democrats have a margin in registrations and their ground game in Presidential elections helps take advantage of that. In mid-terms, they don't do as well, but the difference in the ground game in 2012 and 2016 is huge.
 
Sir Matt said:
Pollsters are trying to calculate the composition of the electorate that comes out to vote. If you don't weight the poll by demographics or target certain communities, you'll end up with a very inaccurate poll, which happen to be Trump's favorites. Internal polls are better than the public/media polls. If Hillary didn't have internal polling saying she was up big in certain swing states, she wouldn't have reallocated resources and personnel to places like Arizona, Georgia, or Utah. Obviously she's not neglecting the swing states that could still move (like NC, Ohio, or Florida) but she's got more freedom to try to expand the map. It also forces Trump to dedicate resources to states that should be safe for him. At least hypothetically speaking. He and his campaign are so incompetent that they may not realize it. He gave what was supposed to be a "major" speech in Gettysburg this weekend in a state he's down by about 7%. It was a waste of time, not to mention the fact that it's insulting to the men who died there and to the president he was trying to associate himself with.

In 2012, the GOP claimed polls were skewed. They were wrong then, and Trump's people are wrong now. The Democrats have a margin in registrations and their ground game in Presidential elections helps take advantage of that. In mid-terms, they don't do as well, but the difference in the ground game in 2012 and 2016 is huge.
Click to expand...
The first thing you should've mentioned is the website he linked to contains articles by the likes of George Washington and Tyler Durden. It's not to be treated seriously.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
The first thing you should've mentioned is the website he linked to contains articles by the likes of George Washington and Tyler Duden. It's not to be treated seriously.
Click to expand...

I was trying to be educational. I realize some people are delusional or willfully misinformed, but I didn't think it'd help to point that out. :lol:
 
If Clinton is now 12% ahead as the last poll I saw predicted surely he is dead and gone? I can't see many undecideds thinking "Nah, he isn't such a bad bloke" come election day.
 
Wibble said:
If Clinton is now 12% ahead as the last poll I saw predicted surely he is dead and gone? I can't see many undecideds thinking "Nah, he isn't such a bad bloke" come election day.
Click to expand...

The polling average is about 5-6 % at the moment, which is closer to where the final numbers will be imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.