2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I take it you're not best buddies with @fcbforever man - bit of history between ya's?
Oh, on a side-note - Bernie would have my vote also; what's not to love about the guy?!
It's more nuanced than that. He was deputy director with a long tenure at the time Barry appointed him and such appointments usually are to be done as nonpartisan as possible. That doesn't excuse his very public theatrics this cycle regarding the Clinton emails investigation. A former FBI director of communication called him out on that back when he made that press conference announcing the result in July. Basically, he said the bureau needs to be above the fray as much as possible and all the public needs to know is guilty/not guilty, not commentary like 'extremely careless'. He's out to protect his own reputation, not the bureau's traditions/protocols, as evidenced by this faux furore.
That Marist poll is shite. I recommend following Jon Ralston on Twitter. He's the go-to guy on Nevada politics. Called out that poll in an interview with Chuck Todd on MTP and even he has to concede that his network's poll Hispanics numbers are iffy.
Early voting in FL and NV for those who have followed the pattern are extremely favourable to Clinton.
We'll see what happen with crooked Hillary
The problem now lies in getting a fair assessment of what is actually going on. The anti Trump crowd will try to sweep this under the rug since Satan would be a better president than Trump while the Trump supporters will push this story to the moon since they literally have had nothing else in this shitstorm of an election.
I left being reassured it was only 3 emails and this wasn't being reopened to reading it's now a substantial amount of emails.
Feck my life. And Trump. Always feck Trump.
I left being reassured it was only 3 emails and this wasn't being reopened to reading it's now a substantial amount of emails.
Feck my life. And Trump. Always feck Trump.
Fair point. Hillary definitely has her skeletons, and she doesn't seem to help herself at times, but she has been under massive scrutiny her whole political life. To become as powerful as she has become doesn't come without getting involved in shady activities to some extent or another, especially when she's been living among the elite class. The obession that her opponents have with her is likely the driving force behind why so much dirt comes out on her, making her look uniquely corrupt, when she's probably no worse or better in that regard to others who have been in the game for as long.
And yes, she is what she is, and people still support her. It's not that mind boggling when people look the other way when something else comes out about her. I mean, this country voted in George W. Bush twice. And consider what he said behind closed doors or what he deleted that would look really bad on his part. Even the Republican messiah in Reagan was a total hypocrite, yet he's revered as a great president. And then consider what the think tanks who support these candidates say regarding the influence of other countries' politics. It's definitely not exclusively Hillary and the Democrats who have that mindset with Palestine or Assange for example.
Sorry if these thoughts seem jumbled or rant-like. You may just as well be aware of everything I'm saying.
Clinton should have that as part of a revised new slogan - "Stronger Together - She's Not As Bad As Her Opponent"
I'd vote for her - damn straight i would!
How come the media only reports on the worst trump fans?
I refuse to believe they are all as bad as the ones we see every day in the media
I think both candidates are terrible people and not fit to run any country. but the bias in the media against his campaign and especially his supporters is astonishing. On here too in fainress. It was bad in the last election, but this one is taking the piss.
I feel sorry for the genuine ones. I get why some of them will vote for him. I also am guessing the polls cannot be trusted. If every trump fan is labelled a racist, many of them will not admit to voting for him now. But on the day they might turn out
I refuse to believe they are all as bad as the ones we see every day in the media
I think both candidates are terrible people and not fit to run any country. but the bias in the media against his campaign and especially his supporters is astonishing. On here too in fainress. It was bad in the last election, but this one is taking the piss.
I feel sorry for the genuine ones. I get why some of them will vote for him. I also am guessing the polls cannot be trusted. If every trump fan is labelled a racist, many of them will not admit to voting for him now. But on the day they might turn out
I know a bunch of them including my parents. They are exactly as they are portraid.
Cher goes into meltdown.
Lol. Wtf. Is she on peyote?
I love this version
God Emperor Duckface!
We are doomed. Blacks love him! Hispanics love him! They are going to win bigly!
Hoe can this be legal?
Those stats pretty much tell me, Trump is fecked.
Just finished my mail in ballot for Florida. Feels great adding another tally to the eventual winner.
Well I'm not going to accept a man as that just because people on the internet say he is
It's not exactly difficult to find himself talking about, or doing, the things described though. Unless you've been living under a rock. And I don't mean to sound like a dick or to sound condescending...I'd argue if you pay even the most remote attention to what's on the news, you'll have heard him talking about groping women and talking shite.
Exactly. In his own feckin voice.
Put it this way, if I started saying disgusting, boastful things about women here, repeatedly, why would anyone have any reason not to think that's my actual opinion and that's how I would actually behave?
Giving a TED-talk to the jewish press while not being in any position of power is certainly not "openly advocating rigging an election".
I doubt anyways you get what rigging means. There's a difference between supporting the side you want to see to win and commencing actual illegal activities.
By your definition, Angela Merkel is probably rigging the American election when she tells people she doesn't want Donald Trump to be President.
By that definition, the whole world is rigging the American election.
But hey, I'm glad you are not American!
I take it you're not best buddies with @fcbforever man - bit of history between ya's?
Oh, on a side-note - Bernie would have my vote also; what's not to love about the guy?!
Bernie would have been a possible choice this circle, albeit probably in no other. His two biggest problems were always his age and his stance on gun rights.
And yes, we have a bit of history. I dislike throwing claims around without any knowledge to back it up.
Totally agree.
I like to believe I'm objective (I have no skin in the game), but to have a fair debate (whether on here or social media or in person) I just HAVE to lean towards defending Trump because the discussion becomes so biased (ie not even a debate).
Felt the same about Brexit (although I had some mild views about which way to lean), but the anti-Brexit patronising chatter meant I had to be more hard-hitting than even I wanted to be, if that makes sense.
She said "we should have made sure we DID something to determine who was going to win", that's very much different from conveying a preference for who you want to win. It's an unacceptable statement for any democratically elected politician, not least a future US presidential candidate. Couple that to the dodgy antics of the DNC during the primaries and its not hard to see why the "crooked" label sticks.
There's no bias against Trump.
The fact that he's admitted, live on air, to not paying federal income tax is hardly discussed now...despite the fact that it's massive. The fact that he's labeled climate change, perhaps the biggest problem our generations will face, a Chinese hoax is hardly ever discussed at all. Even the fact he's admitted that he gropes women, with multiple people coming out to corroborate this, isn't discussed all that often. His actual, proper policies are largely batshit insane, justified by "we'll make better deals" are very rarely, if ever, given proper, actual scrutiny, with the media instead going for personal narratives because they draw in more viewers. The fact he's actually admitted he may not concede this election if he loses is given little scrutiny. The fact he calls it rigged, with no proper evidence to suggest this, is hardly ever given scrutiny.
There's no media bias against Trump, or at least not the proper bias he claims there is...unless you want to claim news broadcasters with an agenda is a widespread bias when he's had plenty on his side. If Trump wants the media to stop going so hard on him, he should stop spouting ridiculous, unverified shite. Of course, he won't, but that's how he'd get less scrutiny.
The fact that he's admitted, live on air, to not paying federal income tax is hardly discussed now...despite the fact that it's massive. The fact that he's labeled climate change, perhaps the biggest problem our generations will face, a Chinese hoax is hardly ever discussed at all. Even the fact he's admitted that he gropes women, with multiple people coming out to corroborate this, isn't discussed all that often. His actual, proper policies are largely batshit insane, justified by "we'll make better deals" are very rarely, if ever, given proper, actual scrutiny, with the media instead going for personal narratives because they draw in more viewers. The fact he's actually admitted he may not concede this election if he loses is given little scrutiny. The fact he calls it rigged, with no proper evidence to suggest this, is hardly ever given scrutiny.
There's no media bias against Trump, or at least not the proper bias he claims there is...unless you want to claim news broadcasters with an agenda is a widespread bias when he's had plenty on his side. If Trump wants the media to stop going so hard on him, he should stop spouting ridiculous, unverified shite. Of course, he won't, but that's how he'd get less scrutiny.
This is what caused many to be angry, because of the media coverage at the time of the brexit vote. The constant leering by media pundits, journalists, etc by saying those voting for brexit are racist and xenophobic is what galvanised some of the leave vote.
Since nobody "did" anything, what do you assume "doing" something means?
And as somebody here said, it's not exactly surprising the DNC did not react warmly to a non-democratic candidate hijacking their ticket. The American democrats are far from my political standpoint, but I can still understand it.
And here as well, nothing actually happened.
Not really, I've never heard of him tbh, until I've noticed him signing off most his posts with a snide insult or condescending final note. I just think he has difficulties communicating with adults, but I'm sure there's a decent poster in him somewhere.I take it you're not best buddies with @fcbforever man - bit of history between ya's?
I was okayish with Hilary on the basis that she'd appeal to a wide variety of voters and was the best placed candidate to defeat Trump. If she loses, though, I don't see how the argument she was the best choice can be justified when it'd almost certainly be down to her own dishonesty and people finding her to be too corrupt/crooked.
I think Biden would've been the ideal candidate overall, not disliked in the same way Hilary is, but not too far left/too much of an outsider like Sanders.
She advocated that the Palestinian election should be fixed in favour of the Israelis. If that's the sort of diplomacy and underhand tactics we can expect from her in the future then she's not fit for office. She wouldn't be the first to be like that, but let's not pretend she's a genuine progressive ticket.
Her accusations towards the Russians have now painted her as a huge hypocrite in hindsight.
I love this version
Must admit I prefer the original, but this is good too.
This.
I'd even say the media had been very lenient with him till the Billy bush fiasco. Any other candidate would have been run out of town since last year.
It's not just people on the internet though. You could accept him as those things based on what he has actually said himself, or what the women who have accused him inappropriate behaviour have said, or what various politicians have said, or what various commentators have said, or what various investigations by reputable journalists have said, or any number of other sources.
It's like saying "I'm not going to accept OJ is a murderer just because people on the internet say he is". The evidence reaches a bit beyond that.
To be clear, I'm not in the 'outraged' camp on this, it's exactly the type of behaviour we all know politicians of all stripes engage in.
But as for nobody actually 'doing anything', well the fact is the push for those elections was perhaps the very last act of the Bush administration's disastrous 'democracy' campaign in the Middle East, with the Hamas victory signalling its death knell. What's interesting is that in the aftermath of the Hamas victory, the US certainly got majorly involved on the side of Fatah, its support for Abbas and co. playing a considerable (although debated) role in driving Gaza to civil war in 2007 when Hamas violently seized control of the Strip.
Weird article by the way - on the one hand it's trying to make Hillary look bad by screwing the Palestinians; on the other hand, it's trying to portray her committing the sin of drawing a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. Basically it wants to have its cake and eat it. I guess this explains it...
It's genuinely incredible people think he's been given harsh treatment. Hilary is being scrutinised to feck over accidentally deleting emails, and is now being heavily scrutinised for something which remains partly skewered. She's corrupt, yeah, but she's nowhere near as bad as Trump, who has managed to have so many gaffes that he's gotten to the point where they're almost not newsworthy now. I'll say again: a Presidential candidate admitted, live on air, he doesn't pay his federal income tax, and it's almost been forgotten now. Media bias my fecking arse.
Mind your language. Or use punctuation at least.
I know Kushner is the publisher. That's why i suggested its a non story, as he's clearly trying to help his father in law out. Kushner was also the driving force, alongside Steve Bannon, of rolling out the Bill Clinton accusers before the 2nd debate.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't an accident.
I have problems discussing politics with people lacking knowledge of procedures and actively scrutinizing things to fit their agenda, like here:
She just didn't say anything like that. She didn't. Even ignoring the fact that her telling the Israeli media doesn't mean shit about what she actually intends to do.
Don't be mistaken, I would have preferred someone else getting the ticket. But as someone here already said, the shit that is been thrown at her while Trump has said and done noumerous things that would have ended all presidential campaigns in the history of the United States, actively advocating an image of both being unfit to serve, is unbelievable.
- Status