Assuming all likely voters vote I get Hillary 46.3% Trump 45.9% .
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Assuming all likely voters vote I get Hillary 46.3% Trump 45.9% .
Agreed. Bush's team lost how many?
The topline was Clinton ahead by 1, yeah. But there's also a NYT one out with Trump +4.
It's even closer. But chances everyone votes...
Last time I'll do it, but irony alert re: being a child because I'm calling out child-like (false) name calling. But there we go!
ps. I think he's as much of a stubborn outrageous chap as the next person, but I'd never intentionally try and lose the arguement or make my points less heard by this child-like weird renaming!
At the moment, with postal plus early votes Trump is 10k up. Trump ahead on mail voting, Clinton ahead on early voting.
Dem postal ballots are lagging way behind Rep though and they would give her a decent win if they actually all voted.
Edit: Source by the way https://countyballotfiles.elections...eports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
If his immigrant great-grandfather hadn't changed the spelling of his name, do you think he would be running for president right now? Trump's the one who started banging this drum, after all.
See I don't think it's as massive a deal as many make out, and you seem to forget Colin Powell, Condy Rice AND G W Bush all did pretty much exactly the same thing. Feck, GW lost 22 million emails before finding them again, and that was while he was President. I look at this quite similar to the UK Press phone hacking and I guarantee you that EVERYONE was doing exactly the same thing. I think it's a can of worms that the Republicans probably wish they didn't open and it will probably come back to bite them on the arses.
That's not defending Hillary, but she was investigated and she apologised, numerous times. Whether you agree with the findings and (lack of) punishment, well that's up to you. The Republican party have to deal with it too. The rest of us have accepted the results and her apology and have moved on with it.
This is what I mean, hypothetical what-ifs; I have zero interest in debating. Not worried about the spellings of names thanks.
Will focus energies on their policies, demeanour, political-ability and ultimately abilty to lead the free world. Thanks anyway though!
Second-generation immigrant, married to immigrant, has policy to kick immigrants and their families out.
*illegal immigrants
edit: it's not even illegal immigrants, I think he means illegal immigrants with a criminal record based on what I can see (?): https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration
You'll struggle to find anything concrete, his views change weekly. I'm not even sure he knows whether he means illegals or not.
I don't envy the programmer who writes Drumpfs policies on his website, he must have to keep changing them every 5 minutes. Changes them so many times it will make your head spin.This, I'm afraid. He's had enormous swings, having a broadsword swipe "ALL immigrants are criminals" approach at the start of the primaries, to softening a few weeks ago, to back to hardline rhetoric again lately.
disclaimer: I don't particularly support him and am playing the devil's advocate (tbh I'm more about the election on a macro level and understanding why people would vote for him or Hillary and the trends of society and the world, etc etc).
Not sure I agree with the bold part, I can see a 10point 'plan', the key issues and highlights of how he's different to HRC in this area.
Not been keeping a close eye on this particular area tbh though, so you may be right re: flip-flopping, although I don't seem to remember seeing any press reports saying such though.
Then you really haven't watched much or been reading much about the election at all.
He literally changes his mind depending on who and when he is speaking.
He supported open world borders as recently as 2013.
He does have his 10-point plan, but parts like the wall are totally and completely unworkable and will just not happen. His whole 10-point plan falls apart as soon as that becomes evident.
Fair points, but:
And this is why politicians lie. They are pressed for visions of what they want, ridiculed till they do, succumb and come up with (potentially wacky) ideas as a result i.e. build a wall, close guantanamo in 100 days, etc - then are ridiculed again when they are forensically examined i.e. so what exactly does brexit mean, how exactly will be negotiate with the EU, where will the Guantanamo guys go, how will you make Mexico pay for it.
It's tough (not sarcastic), I think I genuinely have some sympathy with people running for office...
All I can say is WOW!
Fair points, but:
And this is why politicians lie. They are pressed for visions of what they want, ridiculed till they do, succumb and come up with (potentially wacky) ideas as a result i.e. build a wall, close guantanamo in 100 days, etc - then are ridiculed again when they are forensically examined i.e. so what exactly does brexit mean, how exactly will be negotiate with the EU, where will the Guantanamo guys go, how will you make Mexico pay for it.
It's tough (not sarcastic), I think I genuinely have some sympathy with people running for office...
But the problem with Trump isn't just that he lies, or tries to come up with outlandish policies...it's that his entire outlook seems to change whenever it suits him to the point where there is no continuing logical consistency to what he believes in. Once you get past that, all you can really see is a desperate arsehole of a man who's created a cult around him and will try to achieve power through any means necessary.
I'm hugely (tremendously) anti-Trump but there's a fan-fic tone to that exchange. A little bit like "my United supporting mate said he thinks Ferguson is corrupt".
That bit from Khan/Reich does sound like made up nonsense. We wouldn't believe it had it come from the other side.
I get that completely, I was just more saddened at how utterly spineless many of these so called leaders actually are. Although I wouldn't put it past Reich to elaborate the truth a little.With due respect, can you not substitute Trump's name with Hillary's, or other people around the world running for office (perhaps a bit more diluted)?
Not really. Hilary's corrupt as feck but within the past couple of decades you can see some element of consistency within her beliefs, policies and alignment. She's at least been a Democrat for a considerably long time...Trump's not even really a Republican.
That's the kind of false equivalency that's allowed Trump to be treated like an everyday candidate. He's not.
hmmm I'm not so sure (this is not about Trump or Hillary for me), but via a quick Google Search as an example see below.
For me is it not just the way the (political) game is played (throughout the world)?
Last edited by a moderator:
No, not at all. And to add to @Cheesy and @Ubik's already adequate answers, I would advise you to go and watch Michael Moore's new film Trumpland. It put's Hillary in a completely different light and adds a new dimension to her. Obviously it's a MM film, but I found it to be very open and honest, and well constructed, and definitely worth a watch. It will also debunk or help explain her positions on a number of issues too.
hmmm I'm not so sure (this is not about Trump or Hillary for me), but via a quick Google Search as an example see below.
For me is it not just the way the (political) game is played (throughout the world)?
No one's trying to argue she hasn't changed her opinion as she's come more into the spotlight and as time has moved on, but at least in her general political alignment and party there's been some form of consistency. Again, Trump isn't even an actual Republican. Three years ago he was advocating open borders and now is taking a hardline stance on immigration. That's a far, far bigger change than anything we've seen from Hilary.
Oh shit, he's found his phone again. Here we go.................
Well as an example Theresa May was publicly in the 'Remain' camp (for Brexit) but is now PM of a nation that is leading the nation out of it, and I have no problem with that.
I'm not sure of your point tbh.
Are you talking about Hillary?
She says one thing in public, and the opposite on her speechs to goldman sachs...
Which version Of Hillary to believe?
Naive to think Trump is the only one lying to get to power.
I know, even Google are in on it now too. Brilliant! And Twitter, jeez, imagine if he got banned? What would he do then?
The first reply
hmmm I'm not so sure (this is not about Trump or Hillary for me), but via a quick Google Search as an example see below.
For me is it not just the way the (political) game is played (throughout the world)?
FFS Spoiler that.
sounds like something HRC or staff would say via email!- Status