2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
That talk seems to have evaporated in the past few weeks as the Trump campaign his begun to self-destruct.
At this point, I would say that more liberals fear that Republicans may come to their senses before the convention in time to take the nomination away from him and nominate someone who is actually electable...
King Obama/Jade Helm '16
But that was accurate when he was close to Hillary in the polls. I certainly feared a Trump presidency. Still do, in fact -- anything's possible between now and November. We haven't even had any debates yet. If Trump simply avoids saying anything incredibly offensive and instead relies on his down-to-earth charm, of which Hillary has none, that could move a sizable number of independent voters to his side of the line.Quote: ams288Remember the good old days when people like AZDuffman and EB pretended that liberals "feared Trump"...?
Edit: Okay, upon reading the link I think you meant do we fear having Trump as the nominee, vs. some other (more electable) candidate. Hell no. If liberals wanted the easiest race possible, we couldn't have done better than Trump. That doesn't mean it's impossible for him to win (and I fear such a possibility), but it does mean that he'll have a harder time winning than just about any other Republican candidate (which I'm celebrating).
Now Trump is basically having a Twitter meltdown. Tweeting anything and everything that comes to his mind.
You know he's desperate when he has to tweet this:
Quote: realDonaldTrumpIf you want to know about Hillary Clinton's honesty & judgment, ask the family of Ambassador Stevens.
Thought for the most part she was delivering it well and covering some serious topics.
She didn't seem as shrill as she sometimes does.
Guess she's got some of the best writers in the business working for her.
Quote: ams288
Now Trump is basically having a Twitter meltdown. Tweeting anything and everything that comes to his mind.
Dear lord, his twitter feed is a train wreck... Doesn't he have handlers or something that should be stopping him from social media diarrhea??
Quote: TigerWuDoesn't he have handlers or something
Why start now?
Hillary is lapping him in many of the above categories for now. Her speeches are going better and she is less shrill. I can almost listen to her know--which is good; she has a good chance to be the next President and I usually listen to what the President says...
This is a good time for Hillary; not so good for Donald.
We've seen it before and sometimes it ends up like it seems to be going now and other times it doesn't go quite that way.
The Republicans may even try some shenanigans to guarantee Hillary the win...
Quote: RonCThe Republicans may even try some shenanigans to guarantee Hillary the win...
I bet privately the GOP has already written off the election as a loss. If I were a betting man (which I guess I am since I'm hanging out in a casino forum) I would wager that top Republicans have already had meetings where they're like, "Screw it... let's just focus on 2020 and the next Congressional elections." There is absolutely no way they can feel confident about their chances in November, but they have to keep up appearances for the constituency and make it look like they're trying to fight.
Quote: TigerWuI bet privately the GOP has already written off the election as a loss. If I were a betting man (which I guess I am since I'm hanging out in a casino forum) I would wager that top Republicans have already had meetings where they're like, "Screw it... let's just focus on 2020 and the next Congressional elections." There is absolutely no way they can feel confident about their chances in November, but they have to keep up appearances for the constituency and make it look like they're trying to fight.
Could be. The establishment already lost; they may well count it as gone. It may even be a good strategy...after 10 years of Obama and Clinton, they could enlarge their lead in the House (if they keep it; win it back if they don't) and get control of the Senate (again, if they lose it this year; larger lead if they don't) because I expect the country to be even more tired of the malaise that has overtaken the economy and want change. The Obama recovery has been a joke...the jokes on all of us. Hillary may bare the brunt of it in the end.
Quote:Michele Bachmann is joining Donald Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board, his campaign announced Tuesday.
Great choice.
Whereas Hillary uses Trumps own crazy words against him, I expect Trump will be peddling lots of conspiracy theories and will regurgitate a bunch of 90s scandals. We shall see.
Quote: ams288Trump will be giving his "rebuttal" attack speech against the Clintons today.
Whereas Hillary uses Trumps own crazy words against him, I expect Trump will be peddling lots of conspiracy theories and will regurgitate a bunch of 90s scandals. We shall see.
So Hillary can use Trump against Trump but Trump can't use Clinton against Clinton?
No double standard there.
Quote: ams288conspiracy theories and will regurgitate a bunch of 90s scandals. We shall see.
Oh, god, we're gonna be seeing that "Clinton death list" conspiracy theory again for the next four years.... X(
His attacks on her aren't as good because he just peddles the same nonsense we've heard forever. ("She was asleep when the 3am phone call from Benghazi came!" False.) At some points he was literally just reading passages from anti-Clinton books. Yawn.
Whereas Hillary has the advantage of simply being able to use Trump's own words against him and playing them for laughs.
Quote: RonCSo Hillary can use Trump against Trump but Trump can't use Clinton against Clinton?
No double standard there.
The problem is the Clintons have been attacked for the last 20 years
its all old hat
Trump on the other hand. New material with every tweet and spoken insult
New material is so much more entertaining.
The odds are getting longer for Trump
Several sites had his chances as good as 2 to 1
Nobody has him at 2 to 1 anymore
Most have him closer to 3 to 1
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Quote: terapinedThe odds are getting longer for Trump
Several sites had his chances as good as 2 to 1
Nobody has him at 2 to 1 anymore
Most have him closer to 3 to 1
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Remember in May when Hillary was behind in a couple polls and EvenBob said the bookies would soon be favoring Trump?
Classic EB.
Quote: terapinedThe problem is the Clintons have been attacked for the last 20 years its all old hat
I get that, of course. They have done some new things since they left the White House a couple of broke middle-aged folks.
I know. All that doesn't matter.
Quote: RonCI get that, of course. They have done some new things since they left the White House a couple of broke middle-aged folks.
I know. All that doesn't matter.
I think there are two main reasons nobody cares as much about what Clinton does/has done:
1) It's already been run into the ground over the last 30 years and nobody really cares any more.
and/or
2) It's standard political "scandal" material; "She lied about this, she tried to cover up that, yada yada yada," and nobody cares because it's boring.
Trump is "new" and "exciting" material for everyone. He's a novelty. He's doing things and saying things that presidential nominees just don't do or say. The media isn't going after Hillary because "they're in her back pocket," they're going after Trump because relatively speaking he's the main attraction at the circus, and Hillary is the parking attendant telling everyone to put their $5 in the box.
Quote:The Clinton Foundation helps poor people around the world get access to life-saving AIDS medicine. Donald Trump uses poor people around the world to produce his line of suits and ties.
Quote: ams288I loved this line in Hillary's speech today:
...and some other stuff....
"In 2008, the Foundation signed an ethics agreement with the Obama administration before Hillary became Secretary of State. The document outlined how the Clinton Foundation would address potential conflicts of interest.
Under that agreement, the Foundation needed to disclose its funding sources to the State Department. On at least one occasion, however, it failed to do so, omitting a report on a $500,000 donation from Algeria in 2010 for Haitian earthquake relief.
In addition, in response to a media inquiry, the Foundation refiled tax forms for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 to break out government grants from other donations.
Last year, the Foundation confirmed that it failed to report as much as $26.4 million in speaking fees the Clintons received from foreign governments and corporations. "
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/news/clinton-foundation/index.html
...damn...we need to change our tax returns to fix some of our lies...
The Clintons and Trump are much the same...gifts that keep giving their opponents ammunition!!
I understand people may think they have "heard it all" about Clinton, but the truth is there is still a lot of layers left on both "onions" in the race...
;)
Trump's speech should have been the #1 story of the day. But it wasn't.
Quote: ams288Too long, didn't read.
;)
Who cares?
:)
Had she said that the Foundation devotes 1%, or 5%, or even 10%, would you still be impressed? If it was 50%, would that make you sleep better at night?
Crooked Hillary, crooked past, crooked present, crooked future. IMO, of course. THAT, just from 2F.......
Quote: TwoFeathersATLNice.
Had she said that the Foundation devotes 1%, or 5%, or even 10%, would you still be impressed? If it was 50%, would that make you sleep better at night?
Crooked Hillary, crooked past, crooked present, crooked future. IMO, of course. THAT, just from 2F.......
Well the story someone linked says, "It also has a top rating from two charity watchdog groups." which should be a big deal in Clinton's favor.
Quote: rxwineWell the story someone linked says, "It also has a top rating from two charity watchdog groups." which should be a big deal in Clinton's favor.
That's great!! That should wash away the fact that they can't bother to report what they agreed to report. You must be jumping for joy--they are not completely dirty!! Hallafreakinglujah!!
Realistically, I have no hope of any scandal sticking to the Crooked Clintons. They've gotten away with way too much to think it is going to change.
Will Hillary be impeached like her hubby?
Quote: RonCWill Hillary be impeached like her hubby?
At least this question implies you're admitting she will be the next President.
If that comes to pass, and it looks very possible, will you change your Avatar? Please.Quote: ams288At least this question implies you're admitting she will be the next President.
Quote: ams288At least this question implies you're admitting she will be the next President.
I don't think I've ever counted her out.
That does not mean that I want her to be President or that I think that she will be a good President. I've got more than a few issues with Trump, too. I've been pretty consistent about all of that. I'm not some unabashed cheerleader extolling the virtues of an inferior candidate...
Bill, the gift that keeps giving...
“You have to wait. He’s with his other piece of a–. Wait till he’s finished,” the officer told her."
http://nypost.com/2016/06/18/monica-lewinsky-ironically-freaked-out-that-bill-cheated-on-her/
I can't wait to see how long it takes the First Man to become the first to have an affair (or several affairs, should I say) as both President and First Lady/Man...so much to look forward to!!!
I know, I know...one of the witnesses is dead (that happens sometimes...) and the source may be unreliable...but there is enough smoke and enough fire already to believe that a lot more has been going on.
Oh, who cares what he and his wife do sexually with one another or someone else. Wait. I have heard Trump's background questioned in that regard...
Quote: TwoFeathersATLIf that comes to pass, and it looks very possible, will you change your Avatar? Please.
Why?
It's a tub of butter that looks exactly like Trump's face. It's funny (to me, at least).
I noticed it bothered the manbabies at GF.... that made me like it more.
ams, why you hating on Trump?
A tub of Butter? Really.Quote: ams288Why?
It's a tub of butter that looks exactly like Trump's face. It's funny (to me, at least).
I noticed it bothered the manbabies at GF.... that made me like it more.
That's worth a funny point.
Bothers Larry, Curly, and Moe?
That's worth another funny point ;-)
There may be hope for you yet! (Pls, just joke)
Quote: RSTrump is obviously going to win.
ams, why you hating on Trump?
A Trump supporter that says its an obvious win
I'm looking for these types of supporters
This is gold baby.
How about a bet, even odds
Money talks and BS walks
Trump may win but as the Wiz says, its not whether you win or lose, its whether you made a good bet
Just looking to make a real good bet
How about it RS, bet?
even odds since your position is an Obvious Trump win
I may get suspended for being politically incorrect here,
I haven't heard this discussed much yet,
Is this country REALLY prepared to elect a female as POTUS?
Not me, just the country as a whole.
From Maine to CA, from Washington State to Florida.
Texas and the flyover states.
Hillary is at least half female.
Kinda like our first black president ;-)
Quote: TwoFeathersATLA tub of Butter? Really.
That's worth a funny point.
Bothers Larry, Curly, and Moe?
That's worth another funny point ;-)
There may be hope for you yet! (Pls, just joke)
Apparently it was a tub of Vegan butter, if we want to get technical.
ahhhh!
When we were young. (Sigh)
Can you tell Bill is playing with her butt when this picture was taken?
That's a fair representation of RonC's posts here. Just because you're critical of a candidate doesn't mean you think they can't win.Quote: RonCI don't think I've ever counted her out. That does not mean that I want her to be President or that I think that she will be a good President. I've got more than a few issues with Trump, too. I've been pretty consistent about all of that. I'm not some unabashed cheerleader extolling the virtues of an inferior candidate...
"Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano invoked the Fifth more than 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition Wednesday with the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, a source with the group told Fox News."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/clinton-it-specialist-invokes-5th-more-than-125-times-in-deposition.html
"We've got nothing to hide"....
Quote: RonCIt won't matter, but (if this is true, of course) someone is hiding something:
"Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano invoked the Fifth more than 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition Wednesday with the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, a source with the group told Fox News."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/clinton-it-specialist-invokes-5th-more-than-125-times-in-deposition.html
"We've got nothing to hide"....
I'm not sure A, therefore B is necessarily true when an adversarial relationship exists between questioner and testifier. They/he could have nothing to hide and still not answer gotcha questions, hidden agenda questions, or questions where to answer is to accept the premise or stipulate inferences as facts.
I had to testify in federal court twice. There are all KINDS.of traps set in a situation like that, and attorneys who are experts of phrasing, insinuation, and other tactics. And the bar would be so much higher for the scrutiny his answers will receive, compared to how mine were parsed, I can't even imagine.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm not sure A, therefore B is necessarily true when an adversarial relationship exists between questioner and testifier. They/he could have nothing to hide and still not answer gotcha questions, hidden agenda questions, or questions where to answer is to accept the premise or stipulate inferences as facts.
I had to testify in federal court twice. There are all KINDS.of traps set in a situation like that, and attorneys who are experts of phrasing, insinuation, and other tactics. And the bar would be so much higher for the scrutiny his answers will receive, compared to how mine were parsed, I can't even imagine.
Holy crap...let's think about this...I do not KNOW if this goes to Hillary or not. I do know that the government does not generally grant immunity when there is nothing criminal at least strongly indicated. They also don't normally grant immunity to one of the fish unless there is a bigger fish or a school of fish to fry...and they think that they can get one of those bigger fish...
"A federal court agreed to keep sealed Pagliano’s immunity deal struck with the Justice Department in December, citing the sensitivity of the FBI probe and calling it a “criminal” matter."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/clinton-it-specialist-invokes-5th-more-than-125-times-in-deposition.html
Maybe Bryan is the only one who may have committed a crime. Maybe they will find nothing criminal. Perhaps his using the fifth was a proper strategy.
Most reasonable people would wonder how something went from "unclassified" when passing through her server to "Top Secret" now...it can happen, but it is not the norm...
"The State Department has said that, at the request of intelligence agencies, it has classified 22 Clinton emails as “top secret” and will not release those emails, even in redacted form. “Top secret” is the highest level of classification, reserved for material whose release could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
No, folks, there is nothing there. Keep moving along...
Trump's judgement is strongly, and rightfully, questioned. Hillary's? Not so much.
I think it's a matter of degree. In a vacuum, and in previous years, the email scandal would certainly have made Hillary appear untrustworthy. But when comparing both candidates on trust issues, Donald Trump makes Hillary look like Casper the Friendly Ghost.Quote: RonCTrump's judgement is strongly, and rightfully, questioned. Hillary's? Not so much.
Quote: RonCMost reasonable people would wonder how something went from "unclassified" when passing through her server to "Top Secret" now...it can happen, but it is not the norm...
Probably because a Secretary of State receives breaking information as it happens whether it's been put in a classification or not.
An official gets a generic report one of our planes went down, then gets a follow-up it was secret project X1FRZ which nobody is suppose to hear about. So the whole report gets reclassified.
Quote: rxwineProbably because a Secretary of State receives breaking information as it happens whether it's been put in a classification or not.
An official gets a generic report one of our planes went down, then gets a follow-up it was secret project X1FRZ which nobody is suppose to hear about. So the whole report gets reclassified.
Could be, but it is a stretch based on my experiences with material of a sensitive nature.
If that is the case, the best that can be said for Mrs. Clinton is that she had a total lack of respect for the position of Secretary of State and the nature of the material that would come across her server. Perhaps previous SoS did, too, but she is the one asking to be elected President. EVERYONE in the world of IT Security of all types is becoming more protective of information every minute; she actually ignored advice and became less protective. For what purpose? Convenience.
The guys I knew that had access to that kind of information spent their days at work locked inside a vault or secured compound. Their medal citations, when honored, said very little about what they did. She wanted to use the simplest device possible as perhaps the top foreign diplomat in the world.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI think it's a matter of degree. In a vacuum, and in previous years, the email scandal would certainly have made Hillary appear untrustworthy. But when comparing both candidates on trust issues, Donald Trump makes Hillary look like Casper the Friendly Ghost.
I get that, to some point. Hillary is the only one of the two who has allowed the mishandling of information that at best was sensitive and at worst was Top Secret when it passed through a private server she had no business having in the first place. In my book, that is a pretty serious trust issue in light of the fact she was advised of better ways to handle things and ignored it.
The problem is that neither one of them is worth two cents. We just have to decide which one is worth one cent.
System broken. Hundreds of millions of dollars, uncounted words/debate, a couple years, spent trying to find the next leader of the free world. Boils down to a couple pennies, neither of which is very shiny.Quote: RonC
The problem is that neither one of them is worth two cents. We just have to decide which one is worth one cent.
The donor in question, Rajiv Fernando, didn't really have extensive experience in either national security or nuclear weapons, which would seem like important qualifications for the position."
"he whole episode is not a good look for Clinton or her team. Internal emails obtained by ABC News show that aides wanted to "protect" Clinton from press questions about Fernando’s selection (they actually used that word). And members of the board — the actual experts with actual qualifications — have said they were perplexed by the choice."
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/11910312/hillary-clinton-donors-isab
So...as Secretary of State, she chose an inexperienced donor with an interest in foreign affairs over other qualified people for this board. There are, and likely will always be, political patronage jobs...Ambassador to Bermuda, Chief White House Dog Handler, etc.--but I hope this at least becomes enough an issue to smarten her up about who to appoint to what position should she be elected. This is nothing illegal from what I can see, but it goes to the question of whether she recognizes the time and place for doing certain things.
Quote: RonC"Earlier this month, a new one emerged: ABC News reported that Hillary Clinton's staff tapped a top Clintonworld donor in 2011 for the International Security Advisory Board, which is tasked with giving the State Department advice about nuclear weapons and national security issues.
The donor in question, Rajiv Fernando, didn't really have extensive experience in either national security or nuclear weapons, which would seem like important qualifications for the position."
"he whole episode is not a good look for Clinton or her team. Internal emails obtained by ABC News show that aides wanted to "protect" Clinton from press questions about Fernando’s selection (they actually used that word). And members of the board — the actual experts with actual qualifications — have said they were perplexed by the choice."
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/11910312/hillary-clinton-donors-isab
So...as Secretary of State, she chose an inexperienced donor with an interest in foreign affairs over other qualified people for this board. There are, and likely will always be, political patronage jobs...Ambassador to Bermuda, Chief White House Dog Handler, etc.--but I hope this at least becomes enough an issue to smarten her up about who to appoint to what position should she be elected. This is nothing illegal from what I can see, but it goes to the question of whether she recognizes the time and place for doing certain things.
This is a HUGE systemic problem in our democratic process and ALL ALL ALL politicians are guilty of legalized bribery under the current lobbying system. Even Trump ADMITTED he was/is a partner in crime in this process as a private citizen. And now as a presumptive GOP nominee, Trump is basically a politician and sooner or later he WILL be freely to commit legalized bribery acts.
SCOTUS stroked down limits on federal campaign donations (I think on the basis of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution???). The democrats are pushing hard on campaign finance reform, but then face stiff resistant by the republicans. The republicans are strongly against campaign finance reforms proposed by the democrats.
LEGALIZED BRIBERY is a huge problem in our democratic process. Does anyone here support Constitution amendment so that limits on federal campaign donations can be allowed? And what is your solution(s) to this huge problem in our democracy?
