Thanks for posting that mate. What a great but extremely sad video that is. He is probably one of the most intelligent, well spoken, articulate and insightful Republicans I have heard speak throughout this whole election process. What happened to him is a disgrace, thankfully he's intelligent enough to not judge or hate, but instead understand. I sincerely hope millions of Americans watch that interview and take a good long hard look at themselves and the party, or more the candidate that they are voting for and who they want to represent them.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for posting that mate. What a great but extremely sad video that is. He is probably one of the most intelligent, well spoken, articulate and insightful Republicans I have heard speak throughout this whole election process. What happened to him is a disgrace, thankfully he's intelligent enough to not judge or hate, but instead understand. I sincerely hope millions of Americans watch that interview and take a good long hard look at themselves and the party, or more the candidate that they are voting for and who they want to represent them.
How poetic that would be after the attempt to restrict voter registration.
It's scary to think that if his campaign was organized and if he had a ground game, Trump could be winning this easily.
Climate change induced voter suppression would be best
Oh for fecks sake.
Oh for fecks sake.
? Her maid was printing classified, White House briefings.
It's an important story but not one undecided should use this as an excuse to vote for Hitler.
Now, I know those numbers are rounded so this might be irrelevant. But I did the math.
If she has 51% of the first 63%, that's equal to 32.13% of the overall. 35% of the remaining 37% is 12.95% of the overall.
32.13 + 12.95 would give her 45.08% overall.
Now Trump, 41% of the early 63%, gives him 25.83. 51% of the remaining 37% would give him another 18.87% of the overall.
25.83 + 18.87 would give him 44.7% overall.
Last edited:
Number crunching for FL EV through Sunday.
It isn't irrelevant. Each 0.1% constitutes thousands of votes that would have to be made up.
I meant more basing the math I did off numbers which have presumably been rounded themselves for that tweet-as you said each 0.1% is important, so if say Hillary has 50.9% of the early vote instead of 51%, and there's only been 62.8% EV instead of the mentioned 63%, the final numbers would be different.
EDIT: My fault, I just noticed I said 'but this might be irrelevant'-that should be 'so this might be irrelevant'. Changing it now!
Floridada:
2016 General Election
Election Number - 10282 Election Date - 11/08/2016
Stats Type Republican Democrat Other No Party Affiliation
Voted Vote-by-Mail 1,043,610 974,163 64,039 454,422
Voted Early 1,359,561 1,461,536 84,633 710,717
Edit: ugh, why bother. I spent ages "formatting" it with spaces and it just ends up as glob anyway
2016 General Election
Election Number - 10282 Election Date - 11/08/2016
Stats Type Republican Democrat Other No Party Affiliation
Voted Vote-by-Mail 1,043,610 974,163 64,039 454,422
Voted Early 1,359,561 1,461,536 84,633 710,717
Edit: ugh, why bother. I spent ages "formatting" it with spaces and it just ends up as glob anyway
@unchanged_lineup
'Floridada'
2016 General Election
Election Number - 10282 Election Date - 11/08/2016
Type----------Republican----Democrat---Other----No Party Affiliation
Vote-by-Mail----1,043,610------974,163------64,039---------454,422
Voted Early----1,359,561------1,461,536------84,633-------710,717
'Floridada'
2016 General Election
Election Number - 10282 Election Date - 11/08/2016
Type----------Republican----Democrat---Other----No Party Affiliation
Vote-by-Mail----1,043,610------974,163------64,039---------454,422
Voted Early----1,359,561------1,461,536------84,633-------710,717
For anyone doubting the OH possibility
I'm not saying it's an absolute certainty, but it's in play bigly, and Dems' GOTV operation gives them an edge in a tight race.
I'm not saying it's an absolute certainty, but it's in play bigly, and Dems' GOTV operation gives them an edge in a tight race.
Cheers!!
538 has tightened its senate predictions. 50.1% likelihood of dem control, 49.9% Republican. However their most likely outcome is 51-49 in favour of the GOP, which would suck.
They still have Feingold as heavy favourite in Wisconsin.
I think an upset in Missouri and/or Indiana is needed, though I don't know how likely that is.
They still have Feingold as heavy favourite in Wisconsin.
I think an upset in Missouri and/or Indiana is needed, though I don't know how likely that is.
The Trumpette comments are so salty
The funny thing is their social media is full of polls that show 'Trump won the debate'/'Trump leads in X state'. Whereas that Kat lady is saying the same 'Trump voters defy polls' crap we saw earlier in this thread.
To anyone unfamiliar, watch at your own peril
Gets me every single time. Pure batshit. Actually, that's the perfect video to accompany Drumpf campaign.The decision to pull out of Florida Senate race looks really stupid right now. Even with his incumbent advantage and money advantage, Little Marco is barely above. If none of Hassan, Ross, Kander, Bayh pull through, it'll sucks ball, and looks likely gonna be that way.
KellyAnne just called the guy at the rally a democrat plant and blamed him for the fact that her candidate's crowd physically assaulted him for holding a sign.
She'd have to look up, through a telescope, to see the bottom of the barrel.
Last edited:
The FBI’s problems start at the top, but they don’t end there
The FBI has what experts like Charles and Miller describe as a disproportionate number of Republicans and other conservatives. It’s also one where, if media reports are to be believed, some agents are openly and vocally supporting Trump’s candidacy.
In the words of one anonymous agent quoted by the Guardian, some FBI personnel see Clinton as “the anti-Christ,” and “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.” The FBI, the agent said, “is Trumpland.”
The willingness of some agents to break with FBI policies about discussing open investigations in the run-up to an election has been evident for days. The first leak came over the weekend, when unnamed sources told the Wall Street Journal about a bitter power struggle between agents in the FBI’s New York office who have been probing the Clinton Foundation and career prosecutors in Washington charged with deciding whether to bring a case.
According to the Journal, the FBI investigators believed they had enough evidence to merit an aggressive investigation, using subpoenas and other powerful tools, into whether donors to the Clinton Foundation had received preferential treatment from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Prosecutors in Washington, backed by some senior officials at the FBI, refused to greenlight the probe.
All government agencies leak, but comments from unnamed FBI officials carry extra weight because many Americans are predisposed to trust law enforcement more than they do other institutions like Congress or the White House. That’s part of what makes the FBI’s involvement in partisan squabbling so different — and so dangerous.
The next apparent leak came Thursday, when Fox News, citing unnamed sources, reported that indictments were “likely” in the Clinton Foundation case.
“We talked to two separate sources with intimate knowledge of what's going on with the FBI investigations,” Fox News anchor Bret Baier said on air to his colleague Brit Hume. “The investigations will continue, there is a lot of evidence. And barring some obstruction in some way, they believe they will continue to likely an indictment."
According to a detailed report by CNN, other news outlets almost immediately began pushing back at the Fox News story and saying no indictments were coming. Fox News originally stood by the reporting, but Baier later said he had spoken “inartfully,” implicitly walking back his own initial reporting. Baier made the retraction explicit on Friday, calling his report “a mistake.” But the damage was done — Baier’s apology is getting much less coverage than his initial comments. As of Friday afternoon, the original, inaccurate story still appeared on Breitbart and Sean Hannity’s webpage.
Some in the Clinton campaign, meanwhile, say the Fox News report was leaked by the FBI to damage Clinton and ensure that negative stories about the foundation dominated another of the final days before the election. In a statement Thursday night, campaign spokesperson Brian Fallon called on the FBI to publicly "put a stop to these baseless Fox News reports."
Douglas, the Penn State professor, says that the negative impact of Comey’s letter to Congress has been significantly magnified by the recent series of leaks.
“It seems unreasonable to conclude Comey is directly behind them, but it is reasonable to conclude he has lost control over the FBI,” Douglas said. “The leaks probably reflect a fractured FBI culture under his leadership where some partisan agents or employees have seen the director act in an apparently political manner and felt compelled or motivated to do the same, revealing their political biases, via leak.”
Miller, the former Justice Department spokesperson, said some FBI agents have “taken a really hard partisan line and are just kind of blinded by their anger and hatred toward Hillary Clinton.
“Comey through his conduct has sent a signal that it’s okay to treat Hillary differently,” he said. “When you see the director act that way, it frees up other agents to do the same.”
Kelly Langmesser, a spokesperson for the FBI’s New York field office, declined to comment on whether the bureau had opened an internal probe designed to find the leakers in her office who may have spoken to the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
The end of the election is being dominated by leaks. That’s a problem.
We’re nearing the end of one of the nastiest presidential campaigns in US history, where the nominee of a major American political party has called for jailing his opponent, said he might not concede if he’s defeated at the ballot box, and used openly anti-Semitic rhetoric to assert that a shadowy cabal of international financiers was working to rig the election and destroy the US.
The final days of the election, though, aren’t being used for a discussion of any of those issues, nor of the deep and substantive policy differences between Trump and Clinton. Instead, they’re being dominated by leaks, counter-leaks, and a growing partisan war over the independence of the FBI.
That is a dangerous path for the country to be going down, regardless of who wins the White House. If Trump is elected, he could theoretically use one of America’s most powerful security services to probe his rivals. Even if no charges were brought, simply complying with federal investigations is so costly that such probes would have a chilling effect on political dissent.
Trump and his top aides wouldn’t even have to explicitly order the FBI to take such steps. As Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution wrote in an essay for the blog Lawfare this past summer, a Trump administration would simply need to make sure that loyalists were put into key jobs like attorney general that shared the new president’s desire to go after his enemies and were able to read between the lines of what Trump said to understand what he wanted done.
A hostile FBI could also help derail a Clinton presidency. Hillary Clinton, if elected, would take office with at least two open FBI investigations into the activities of her family and closest aides. A constant series of leaks about the probes could damage Clinton’s public standing while handing Republicans on Capitol Hill new material to use in what GOP leaders have already said will be years of Congressional investigations.
The FBI’s intrusion into politics also carries risks for the bureau itself. The FBI’s ability to do its work depends on the public at large, and the bureau’s overseers on Capitol Hill, seeing it as a nonpartisan entity that uses its vast powers without regard to political party or affiliation. An FBI that came to be seen as an extension of a Trump White House or a partisan opponent of a Clinton one would forfeit much of that moral and political standing.
Earlier this week, I asked Steven Aftergood, the head of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy program, about Comey and the other anti-Clinton leaks seeming to come out of the FBI.
“The FBI is a bad place because whether by design or not it’s interfering in the presidential campaign,” he said at the time. “People are arguing about Comey’s motivations, but speculation aside, the reality is that the FBI’s actions in the final weeks of the election have taken center stage, and that’s not where they should be.”
Aftergood made those comments Tuesday, before this latest round of anti-Clinton leaks by the FBI. His description of a bureau largely out of control was true then, and seems even truer now. There's no question disgruntled agents have violated the FBI's internal rules against secrecy. In less than a week, we’ll also know whether they impacted one of the most climactic elections in American history.
The FBI has what experts like Charles and Miller describe as a disproportionate number of Republicans and other conservatives. It’s also one where, if media reports are to be believed, some agents are openly and vocally supporting Trump’s candidacy.
In the words of one anonymous agent quoted by the Guardian, some FBI personnel see Clinton as “the anti-Christ,” and “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.” The FBI, the agent said, “is Trumpland.”
The willingness of some agents to break with FBI policies about discussing open investigations in the run-up to an election has been evident for days. The first leak came over the weekend, when unnamed sources told the Wall Street Journal about a bitter power struggle between agents in the FBI’s New York office who have been probing the Clinton Foundation and career prosecutors in Washington charged with deciding whether to bring a case.
According to the Journal, the FBI investigators believed they had enough evidence to merit an aggressive investigation, using subpoenas and other powerful tools, into whether donors to the Clinton Foundation had received preferential treatment from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Prosecutors in Washington, backed by some senior officials at the FBI, refused to greenlight the probe.
All government agencies leak, but comments from unnamed FBI officials carry extra weight because many Americans are predisposed to trust law enforcement more than they do other institutions like Congress or the White House. That’s part of what makes the FBI’s involvement in partisan squabbling so different — and so dangerous.
The next apparent leak came Thursday, when Fox News, citing unnamed sources, reported that indictments were “likely” in the Clinton Foundation case.
“We talked to two separate sources with intimate knowledge of what's going on with the FBI investigations,” Fox News anchor Bret Baier said on air to his colleague Brit Hume. “The investigations will continue, there is a lot of evidence. And barring some obstruction in some way, they believe they will continue to likely an indictment."
According to a detailed report by CNN, other news outlets almost immediately began pushing back at the Fox News story and saying no indictments were coming. Fox News originally stood by the reporting, but Baier later said he had spoken “inartfully,” implicitly walking back his own initial reporting. Baier made the retraction explicit on Friday, calling his report “a mistake.” But the damage was done — Baier’s apology is getting much less coverage than his initial comments. As of Friday afternoon, the original, inaccurate story still appeared on Breitbart and Sean Hannity’s webpage.
Some in the Clinton campaign, meanwhile, say the Fox News report was leaked by the FBI to damage Clinton and ensure that negative stories about the foundation dominated another of the final days before the election. In a statement Thursday night, campaign spokesperson Brian Fallon called on the FBI to publicly "put a stop to these baseless Fox News reports."
Douglas, the Penn State professor, says that the negative impact of Comey’s letter to Congress has been significantly magnified by the recent series of leaks.
“It seems unreasonable to conclude Comey is directly behind them, but it is reasonable to conclude he has lost control over the FBI,” Douglas said. “The leaks probably reflect a fractured FBI culture under his leadership where some partisan agents or employees have seen the director act in an apparently political manner and felt compelled or motivated to do the same, revealing their political biases, via leak.”
Miller, the former Justice Department spokesperson, said some FBI agents have “taken a really hard partisan line and are just kind of blinded by their anger and hatred toward Hillary Clinton.
“Comey through his conduct has sent a signal that it’s okay to treat Hillary differently,” he said. “When you see the director act that way, it frees up other agents to do the same.”
Kelly Langmesser, a spokesperson for the FBI’s New York field office, declined to comment on whether the bureau had opened an internal probe designed to find the leakers in her office who may have spoken to the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
The end of the election is being dominated by leaks. That’s a problem.
We’re nearing the end of one of the nastiest presidential campaigns in US history, where the nominee of a major American political party has called for jailing his opponent, said he might not concede if he’s defeated at the ballot box, and used openly anti-Semitic rhetoric to assert that a shadowy cabal of international financiers was working to rig the election and destroy the US.
The final days of the election, though, aren’t being used for a discussion of any of those issues, nor of the deep and substantive policy differences between Trump and Clinton. Instead, they’re being dominated by leaks, counter-leaks, and a growing partisan war over the independence of the FBI.
That is a dangerous path for the country to be going down, regardless of who wins the White House. If Trump is elected, he could theoretically use one of America’s most powerful security services to probe his rivals. Even if no charges were brought, simply complying with federal investigations is so costly that such probes would have a chilling effect on political dissent.
Trump and his top aides wouldn’t even have to explicitly order the FBI to take such steps. As Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution wrote in an essay for the blog Lawfare this past summer, a Trump administration would simply need to make sure that loyalists were put into key jobs like attorney general that shared the new president’s desire to go after his enemies and were able to read between the lines of what Trump said to understand what he wanted done.
A hostile FBI could also help derail a Clinton presidency. Hillary Clinton, if elected, would take office with at least two open FBI investigations into the activities of her family and closest aides. A constant series of leaks about the probes could damage Clinton’s public standing while handing Republicans on Capitol Hill new material to use in what GOP leaders have already said will be years of Congressional investigations.
The FBI’s intrusion into politics also carries risks for the bureau itself. The FBI’s ability to do its work depends on the public at large, and the bureau’s overseers on Capitol Hill, seeing it as a nonpartisan entity that uses its vast powers without regard to political party or affiliation. An FBI that came to be seen as an extension of a Trump White House or a partisan opponent of a Clinton one would forfeit much of that moral and political standing.
Earlier this week, I asked Steven Aftergood, the head of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy program, about Comey and the other anti-Clinton leaks seeming to come out of the FBI.
“The FBI is a bad place because whether by design or not it’s interfering in the presidential campaign,” he said at the time. “People are arguing about Comey’s motivations, but speculation aside, the reality is that the FBI’s actions in the final weeks of the election have taken center stage, and that’s not where they should be.”
Aftergood made those comments Tuesday, before this latest round of anti-Clinton leaks by the FBI. His description of a bureau largely out of control was true then, and seems even truer now. There's no question disgruntled agents have violated the FBI's internal rules against secrecy. In less than a week, we’ll also know whether they impacted one of the most climactic elections in American history.
That's a point.
These people are properly nuts
There's so much paranoia among the right in America. I've heard people quite close to me say "when the communists and Muslims take over this country, there's a lot we'll regret doing or not doing."
Any voter who doesn't vote because some polls are showing their candidate is behind, deserves to have their candidate lose.
Sadly, although I agree with you, the inconvenience of the Electoral Day system for a lot of people only serves to fuel this apathy, especially if it's seen as a 'no hope' scenario.
Wont that als work in making dem voters more complacent also though?
Trump uses 270towin, he's just like us!
You referring to the New York Times article? It makes him sound like a man on the edge and every bit as eccentric as we know him to be. It's pretty funny.
That's simply not true, there's no indication at all that Trump is able to break his ceiling.
Perhaps. I've always felt Americans love to back a 'winner' though.
- Status