Talk Irvine

General => Water Cooler => Topic started by: eyephone on July 23, 2015, 06:58:05 PM

Title: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 23, 2015, 06:58:05 PM
This is early. Who do you think will win?

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on July 23, 2015, 07:04:00 PM
Large foreign donors.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 23, 2015, 07:33:59 PM
Qwerty & stock traders - I hope your aware that recently Hillary proposes to increase the capital gains tax rate.

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/07/20/clinton-to-propose-increasing-capital-gains-taxes


As a senator, Hillary voted against capital gains and dividend cuts, which was a tax relief package.

https://www.atr.org/hillary-voted-against-cap-gains-and-dividend-tax-cuts-senator
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on July 23, 2015, 07:35:28 PM
Qwerty & stock traders - I hope your aware that recently Hillary proposes to increase the capital gains tax rate.

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/07/20/clinton-to-propose-increasing-capital-gains-taxes


As a senator, Hillary voted against capital gains and dividend cuts a tax relief package.

https://www.atr.org/hillary-voted-against-cap-gains-and-dividend-tax-cuts-senator
We need to get a republican back in office.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoCal on July 23, 2015, 07:48:15 PM
This is early. Who do you think will win?



I admire your guts starting this thread. With every previous election year, I've tried to steer clear of discussing politics in order to keep T.I. my one little "Happy Place" on the web. But since that strategy is turning out OH SO WELL (http://www.knittinghelp.com/forum/images/smilies/aug08_033.gif) there's nothing to lose.

With that said, I've been following Allen West for a little while and so far, I like what I see. Especially his speech in Times Square yesterday. He has not announced he's running. But he made a blog post yesterday which sounded like a big ol' "maybe". I'd like to see him give it a go. 



Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SubSolar on July 23, 2015, 07:48:55 PM
I've got a bet with friend, have $100 on Hillary, he has the rest of the field. Just took him for $100 on Warriors vs. Cavs.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on July 23, 2015, 08:36:40 PM
If it goes like it's going, will probably be another Dem... and although I would like to see a woman president, I'm not too fond of that particular woman.

I don't even know who the front runner is for the Reps.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Coleman on July 23, 2015, 09:16:57 PM
Anyone ever wonder just how much power the president truly has and how many decisions he has to make that goes against his personal beliefs to uphold X,Y, and Z?

I think I need to start watching House of Cards  :-*

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 23, 2015, 09:22:08 PM
Anyone ever wonder just how much power the president truly has and how many decisions he has to make that goes against his personal beliefs to uphold X,Y, and Z?

I think I need to start watching House of Cards  :-*

What is your opinion on the direction of the country?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Coleman on July 23, 2015, 09:45:43 PM
Anyone ever wonder just how much power the president truly has and how many decisions he has to make that goes against his personal beliefs to uphold X,Y, and Z?

I think I need to start watching House of Cards  :-*

What is your opinion on the direction of the country?

Oops I meant to say, I need to STOP watching House of Cards.

Can't wrap my head around a question that complex.


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on July 23, 2015, 09:52:34 PM
Hope Trump gets the nod, SNL/late night talk shows will have plenty of good material if he gets elected, that's if he doesn't start World War 3 by mouthing off to other countries. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: qwerty on July 23, 2015, 10:00:29 PM
I'm not even registered to vote, but if I was I would vote for trump.  That guy is hilarious.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 23, 2015, 10:01:02 PM
Hope Trump gets the nod, SNL/late night talk shows will have plenty of good material if he gets elected, that's if he doesn't start World War 3 by mouthing off to other countries.

4 reasons Trump is leading in the polls

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/video-four-reasons-donald-trump-is-leading-in-polls-2015-07-23

I think his message can be toned down and said in a different way. But it seems the people like it, for now....
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on July 23, 2015, 10:03:17 PM
Ill vote for anyone not named hillary. Wants to raise cap gains tax.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on July 23, 2015, 10:04:53 PM
I'm not even registered to vote, but if I was I would vote for trump.  That guy is hilarious.

How do you get jury summons?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 23, 2015, 10:21:41 PM
I'm not even registered to vote, but if I was I would vote for trump.  That guy is hilarious.

How do you get jury summons?

He is off the grid/below the radar
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: qwerty on July 24, 2015, 04:42:37 AM
I'm not even registered to vote, but if I was I would vote for trump.  That guy is hilarious.

How do you get jury summons?

DMV?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on July 24, 2015, 06:43:02 AM
I would never vote for Trump.

He's full of it... you can add 'sh' to that too.

Same thing for Hillary... two sides of the same coin.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on July 24, 2015, 06:48:54 AM
Just thought of it:  trump vs Biden debate!  Cmon Joe declare!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on July 24, 2015, 07:14:12 AM
Just thought of it:  trump vs Biden debate!  Cmon Joe declare!

Trump versus Bernie is the more interesting scenario. H and virtually all the rep declared are to sides of same coin.  Trump might be but doesn't have the filter and hasn't figured out the presidency isn't ordering at Burger King
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 24, 2015, 07:19:49 AM

Trump gives out Lindsey Grahm's cell number. Then Lindsey smashes his own cell phone in response. (the flip phones were props)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/23/loud-and-clear-graham-got-message-for-trump/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoCal on July 24, 2015, 10:35:38 AM
I'm not even registered to vote, but if I was I would vote for trump.  That guy is hilarious.

How do you get jury summons?

What's weird is I've noticed people who aren't even qualified to serve on a jury will be summoned. For example, one of the people I was tutoring in English Literacy, brought me a summons she received and asked me for help because she was scared and had no clue what it meant. Two of the requirements for serving on a jury are being a United States citizen and being proficient in English. Those were both a No Go.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoCal on July 24, 2015, 10:39:45 AM
I'm not even registered to vote, but if I was I would vote for trump.  That guy is hilarious.

Interesting. The day the story broke about George Lopez leading a crowd in an anti-Trump chant, shouting, "F**k that puto!", you're actually the first person that came to my mind. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on August 04, 2015, 08:38:23 PM
First republican primary debate Thursday on Fox News 6pm. 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/fox-debate-cleveland-announcement/

Perry and Fiorina got downgraded to the 2nd tier debate. 

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 06, 2015, 05:39:27 PM
Are you going to watch the debate tonight?

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on August 06, 2015, 07:57:54 PM
DVR'd it, watching now, awkward exchanges so far
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Paris on August 06, 2015, 08:12:54 PM
If Trump wins I'm moving to Canada! That guy has no filter and if he becomes president he will piss off many of our Allies and we might find ourselves in WWIII
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on August 06, 2015, 08:20:54 PM
Build that wall!  Build that wall!  Build that wall!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on August 06, 2015, 09:07:57 PM
I'm ok with Kasich, made some liberal points which I agree with.  But I still can't vote for anyone pro-life.  At least he's choice when rape/incest/mother life in danger.  As for Jeb..... the country will not elect another Bush, no matter how different he is from his brother.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: WillJoy on August 06, 2015, 11:08:32 PM
Every presidents in the past has been an disappointment. I'D bet against my gut feelings this time - Mister Trump.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on August 07, 2015, 07:39:35 AM
My favorite point of the night was when Trump said single payer health care could have worked. Rand Paul leap on it saying Republicans have fought against it for more than a decade.

And I'm laughing thinking how's that been working out for you.

Apparently the republican mainstream is still thinking not Obama.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: aquabliss on August 07, 2015, 08:16:45 AM
If Trump wins I'm moving to Canada! That guy has no filter and if he becomes president he will piss off many of our Allies and we might find ourselves in WWIII

I'm with you on this... That guy is a loose canon and I don't think he'll hesitate to turn his key and press the red button if you know what I mean.

It may take a few months but it's gonna be armageddon with him in office.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Kangen.Irvine on August 07, 2015, 08:31:04 AM
Which is why we need to be educated on candidates from all sides. Overall, we must pay down our debt and protect our nation or else our next leader will just be a pawn of another country.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 07, 2015, 01:59:49 PM
If Trump wins I'm moving to Canada! That guy has no filter and if he becomes president he will piss off many of our Allies and we might find ourselves in WWIII

What is your opinion regarding US national security, right now under Obama?

I'm sorry the deal that Obama made with Iran is ridiculous. Iran turn out big time winners in that deal. What about the US hostages in Iran? (Kerry didn't want to complicate the deal, so we didn't get our US citizens back) Part of the deal we can inspect anywhere in Iran, but have to give a 24 day notice. Another thing to point out, Iran sponsors terrorist.

Two more democrats don't support the deal, article.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/07/dem-defections-show-deep-divisions-in-party-over-iran-nuclear-deal/

I predict this deal will get vetoed by congress.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 07, 2015, 02:03:22 PM
Potential Game Changer

Icahn tweeted that he decided to accept Trump's offer for Secretary of Treasury.


http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/07/icahn-sure-trump-lets-do-this.html


 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on August 07, 2015, 02:40:55 PM
I think Trump has zero chance.

America is smarter than that... or I hope we are.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on August 07, 2015, 08:52:00 PM
For 80% of the population! they don't really have much to lose and much like Hillary, the other 15 candidates on the republican side offer the S.O.S. With sides of distractions on wedge issues (abortion, gay marriage, Immigration etc).  They may talk, but really the basics of government will be the same.  Their approach to international relations will differ in approach, but they won't directly be doing them. 

That's why a Sanders Trump competition would be more interesting.

Trump lacks a filter but is more pragmatic than idealistic or party oligarch.  The rest, including Hillary are either religious zealots or party oligarchs.

So vote for either party, whatever candidate they prop up, it'll be bread and circuses for four years.



Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: bones on August 07, 2015, 08:53:18 PM
Wake me up next year when it matters.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on August 07, 2015, 09:08:44 PM
It won't matter next year. This is California, any democratic candidate running against any non-Californian republican will win Cali by 5%+.

This next election is about Ohio and Florida.

Sans some black swan event like Long Term Capital Management cratering the markets and tanking the economy spiking unemployment again or ISiS hitting a couple USA based schools, or maybe Iran popping a nuke test between now and October 2016.

Then again none of those are black swans, which really puts a BSE into the realm of potentially scary sh;t.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 12, 2015, 06:58:01 AM
Clinton turns email server to FBI. According to the Fox News article, "A source familiar with the investigation told Fox News late Tuesday that the two emails in question contained operational and geospatial intelligence from the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which produces satellite images."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/12/fbi-has-hillary-clinton-emails-from-home-server-official-says/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on September 16, 2015, 06:10:54 PM
Tune in now.... Loved fiorinas face when trump said she is an attractive person :)

Build that wall!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on September 16, 2015, 06:31:52 PM
Amend the 14th amendment, ouch. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on September 16, 2015, 07:42:43 PM
What happen if Trump wins......

Quote
President Trump today announced that the first season of "The Apprentice: White House Edition" will air on CBS this fall. Contestants, including Gary Busey, Ted Cruz and Kanye West, will vie for Cabinet positions. The announcement came as the newly renamed "Hair Force One" touched down in South Dakota for the unveiling of President Trump's face on Mount Rushmore. Meanwhile, first lady Melania had reason to celebrate as her White House-branded perfume, Trump, by Trump, hit Macy's shelves ...

Jindal: Trump is a madman who must be stopped (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/opinions/jindal-debate-donald-trump/index.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 16, 2015, 09:03:11 PM
Lol. Jindal managed to somehow wreck Louisiana even more than Fiorina mauled HP.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 17, 2015, 03:55:11 PM
Tune in now.... Loved fiorinas face when trump said she is an attractive person :)

Build that wall!

Looks like Carly Fiorina won the debate last night.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on September 17, 2015, 08:22:10 PM
The secrete service code name part during the debate was interesting, here's some of them. :)


Carly Fiorina -- Secretariat
Donald Trump -- Humble
Ted Cruz -- Cohiba
Marco Rubio -- Gator
Mike Huckabee -- Duck Hunter
Jeb Bush -- Eveready
Kanye West -- Jackass
Qwerty -- Batman

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: momopi on September 18, 2015, 01:24:10 PM
This is early. Who do you think will win?

Don't have a crystal ball, but will say that I'm voting for 3rd party candidate.

http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/#!platform/c1ffx
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 29, 2015, 02:15:25 PM
My opinion: I don't know about his tax plan. My take is, if you don't have a good plan don't release a plan.

-----


"Trump's plan eliminates any federal income tax on individuals who earn less than $25,000 a year or on a married couple earning less than $50,000 per year, a potential tax break for 31 million households, according to the plan."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-calls-higher-taxes-wealthiest-americans/story?id=34102663

"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's tax plan would cost an eye-popping $12 trillion over 10 years, according a new estimate that runs directly counter to the billionaire's pledge not to increase the deficit with the proposal."


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/tax-group-trump-tax-plan-would-cost-12-trillion-n435666




Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on September 29, 2015, 02:22:05 PM
This is early. Who do you think will win?

Don't have a crystal ball, but will say that I'm voting for 3rd party candidate.

http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/#!platform/c1ffx

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on October 28, 2015, 06:30:07 PM
Republican debate now on CNBC, kinda weird seeing my morning news people interviewing the candidates.  Santelli is amusing as usual, where's Cramer?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on November 06, 2015, 06:55:36 PM
Carson out, caught lying about West Point...shame shame shame
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on November 07, 2015, 07:23:11 AM
Carson out, caught lying about West Point...shame shame shame

ROFLMAO, if he gets ground out over a tiny bit of fluffy in a biography book about something from 45 years ago while every other politician talking iin doublespeak is bit in parcel.

#whatdifferencedoesitmake
#moveon
#alledwinedwards
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Kangen.Irvine on November 07, 2015, 01:46:55 PM
I'd say Carson is definitely gaining interest all across the US as CNN is truly devoting a lot of their resources to making a big deal out of something insignificant. Who cares if Carson didn't receive the West Point appointment. We all know with his achievements at 17 that it would have happened. Instead he had to settle for Yale.

Can't wait to hear Hillary call him out over this.

The interesting demotion of Huckabee and Christie in next week's debate may look different, but it will give both of them much needed air time. While they won't have much of a live audience they will definitely have their comments recycled by the media. That can only happen when given time to talk. I don't think I'd benefit, but the Fair Tax would simplify so many lives too and Huckabee will definitely talk about it.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 08, 2015, 07:16:49 PM
Here's my understanding... 

He would have been accepted had he applied.  He was probably informally accepted if he met the requirements to get accepted.  I was pre-accepted to 3 colleges I didn't apply to...  Does that count? 

Then again, Carson could be lying.  I think it depends on whether he was being intentionally dishonest or not...

Per the scholarship argument.
West point is Free.  When you group it with other colleges, it's like getting a scholarship.  So any article that says he's dishonest about a scholarship because none exists is semantic trolling.  I would question the credibility and bias of any article that brings this up.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvinecommuter on November 08, 2015, 11:03:31 PM
I'd say Carson is definitely gaining interest all across the US as CNN is truly devoting a lot of their resources to making a big deal out of something insignificant. Who cares if Carson didn't receive the West Point appointment. We all know with his achievements at 17 that it would have happened. Instead he had to settle for Yale.

Can't wait to hear Hillary call him out over this.

The interesting demotion of Huckabee and Christie in next week's debate may look different, but it will give both of them much needed air time. While they won't have much of a live audience they will definitely have their comments recycled by the media. That can only happen when given time to talk. I don't think I'd benefit, but the Fair Tax would simplify so many lives too and Huckabee will definitely talk about it.

Carson's issue is that he has based his campaign entirely upon his bio..he has no political or leadership experience to speak of.  So, he uses his narrative and biography as selling points.  I see him as a total lightweight who has tapped into a minority sentiment.  If he or Trump gets nominated, it will be a cakewalk for HRC in the general election.

"Fair" Tax would simplify a lot of things but it would be an economic disaster...just look at Kansas.  Trickle down economic has never worked IMO but it certainly won't work now in an age of globalization.

http://cjonline.com/news/2015-11-06/kansas-slashes-annual-tax-revenue-estimate-159-million-brownback-orders-cuts
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on December 15, 2015, 10:26:55 PM
Today's debate highlights:
Trump vs. Bush, Rubio vs. Cruz

I think the GOP nominee is going to be either: Trump, Rubio or Cruz
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on January 07, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President? Since he was born in Canada, but his mom was a US citizen.

This is trending over the news.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on January 07, 2016, 12:14:31 PM
Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President? Since he was born in Canada, but his mom was a US citizen.

This is trending over the news.

Probably not an issue in itself but a bit of a liability if the courts needs to rule on it. They may end up affirming his right but it would take time to do so.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on January 07, 2016, 12:19:01 PM
Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President? Since he was born in Canada, but his mom was a US citizen.

This is trending over the news.

Probably not an issue in itself but a bit of a liability if the courts needs to rule on it. They may end up affirming his right but it would take time to do so.
To avoid the complication. I'm thinking just vote Trump.
Make America Great
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvinecommuter on January 09, 2016, 08:38:34 AM
Is Ted Cruz eligible to be President? Since he was born in Canada, but his mom was a US citizen.

This is trending over the news.

Probably not an issue in itself but a bit of a liability if the courts needs to rule on it. They may end up affirming his right but it would take time to do so.
To avoid the complication. I'm thinking just vote Trump.
Make America Great

That's the last thing Trump will make America.  He's going to run it to the ground and become outraged when he can't declare BK.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on January 09, 2016, 09:02:11 AM
It cant possibly get any worse, unless Hillary wins. I'll take Trump or any other Republican for that matter
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: qwerty on January 09, 2016, 10:53:32 AM
I don't vote but at this point a republican president would be nice. Wouldn't mind paying lower taxes.  This country is fucked regardless of who the president is. May as well have some laughs along the way with trump.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on January 09, 2016, 12:08:31 PM
I don't vote
What?

Oh yeah... you don't follow the rules so it doesn't matter. :)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on January 20, 2016, 08:44:13 PM

Always good for a laugh, who knows, maybe she'll be VP candidate again. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on January 23, 2016, 02:22:48 AM
I don't vote
What?

Oh yeah... you don't follow the rules so it doesn't matter. :)
Voting in California

At the federal level
California voters overwhelmingly pick Democrat president.  You might have some ability to knock out a senator, but even with their low approval ratings, our senators stay.  Most people have no idea who their house rep is unless you live in a district with a high profile rep (Pelosi).

At the state level:
We have the ability to change the governor.  This is about the ONLY vote that people cast of a candidate they know, that matters.
State legislators?  I would be willing to bet that if you asked 1000 random people, 0-1 of those people could tell you who they voted for That's less than 0.1%. 

Local level:
This is a combination of the party of the candidate and how many signs they put up.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on January 25, 2016, 11:35:10 PM
"Yes, we will raise — we will raise taxes. Yes we will," Sanders said at the CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.

http://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-raise-taxes-yes-025300486.html

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on January 26, 2016, 06:47:48 AM
"Yes, we will raise — we will raise taxes. Yes we will," Sanders said at the CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.

http://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-raise-taxes-yes-025300486.html


I love his spirit and thinking.. but man.. just cut the spending without increasing taxes.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on January 26, 2016, 11:36:36 AM
I'll bite.  The 2015 budget.  Revenues (aka taxes): $3.249 Trillion actual or 3,249,000,000,000 dollars.  Expenditures: $3.688 Trillion (actual versus $3.9 trillion requested  Shortfall $429 Billion, aka, $429,000,000,000.00

Discretionary spending was $1.11 trillion.  The military was $598.5 billion of that, not including veteran benefits.  Non-discretionary spending was $2.139 Trillion.  Things like Social Security. Medicare and debt interest ($229 billion).

(https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png)

(https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/mandatory_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png)

Have at it.  Any thing in the mandatory camp requires major law changes.


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on January 26, 2016, 09:45:38 PM
"Yes, we will raise — we will raise taxes. Yes we will," Sanders said at the CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.

http://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-raise-taxes-yes-025300486.html


I love his spirit and thinking.. but man.. just cut the spending without increasing taxes.

I heard Uncle Bernie is leading Hilary in Iowa and NH.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on January 29, 2016, 07:25:15 PM
22 emails on Hiliary's private email server wont not be released because they are considered top secret. For those who don't know top secret is the highest level of security.

#UncleBernieUpset@Iowa

lol
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on February 18, 2016, 03:45:46 PM
(http://hoocoodanode.org/uploads/default/optimized/2X/b/b1b33844690ca062259ac1b420a0b1ba55cf9da5_1_500x500.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on February 18, 2016, 03:54:52 PM
(http://hoocoodanode.org/uploads/default/optimized/2X/b/b1b33844690ca062259ac1b420a0b1ba55cf9da5_1_500x500.jpg)

I don't know about Cruz. He was born in Canada. Can he be President?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on February 28, 2016, 03:03:05 PM
Why does Trump wear the red cap when he makes an appearance outside? I'm watching his press conference in Alabama and he's wearing the red make Ametica great cap. Is it because of his hair?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on February 28, 2016, 03:42:37 PM
Trumps plan: companies that leave the US will have to pay a 35% fee if they want to sell their products in the US.
I have to agree the US are big losers in the trade.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvinecommuter on March 02, 2016, 11:22:23 PM
Trumps plan: companies that leave the US will have to pay a 35% fee if they want to sell their products in the US.
I have to agree the US are big losers in the trade.

Trade wars and tariffs are always fun. 

First world countries are almost always at trade deficit than upcoming/developing country because the upcoming country cannot afford as much stuff as the First World country can buy and the US dollar is almost always the strongest currency around.

Nearly half of the trade deficit is with China and that's really a silly number because China make the stuff but the stuff is owned by non-Chinese companies (like Apple).

Remember how freaked some people were about the trade deficit between US and Japan in the 1980s?  Yeah...clearly Japan won that.

Trade deficits and national debt are big scary words that have no real economic value for a country like US.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on March 04, 2016, 08:08:58 PM
Why the GOP must die: ex-Bush official http://www.cnbc.com/id/103443245


Ouch
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on March 05, 2016, 04:41:43 PM
Why the GOP must die: ex-Bush official http://www.cnbc.com/id/103443245
Hard to read articles when they start out with false premises.  Our Democratic party isn't close to centrist.  In the last 8 years, both sides have polarized greatly.  Bernie Sanders, for example, would never have been considered 8 years ago. 

One of the big difficulties with our system is the primaries.  The primaries, by nature, cater to candidates that are more extreme.  A centrist running for a primary would be labeled a democrat if running republican and would be labeled a republican if running democrat.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on March 06, 2016, 08:24:49 PM
Why the GOP must die: ex-Bush official http://www.cnbc.com/id/103443245
Hard to read articles when they start out with false premises.  Our Democratic party isn't close to centrist.  In the last 8 years, both sides have polarized greatly.  Bernie Sanders, for example, would never have been considered 8 years ago. 

One of the big difficulties with our system is the primaries.  The primaries, by nature, cater to candidates that are more extreme.  A centrist running for a primary would be labeled a democrat if running republican and would be labeled a republican if running democrat.

My early presidential predictions. This should be a piece of cake for the GOP to win the elections. In my opinion, GOP can not win the presidential election if they keep on the same path of exclusion.
When George W. Bush won the election, he had 44% percent of Latinos vote for him in 2004.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Hoofhearted on March 08, 2016, 08:15:41 PM
The owners of this country have already selected Hillary as the next POTUS, unfortunately.
The fact that she's not in jail means only one thing, she's destined for 1600 Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 09, 2016, 09:56:46 AM
If a lower level state department employee had done as much as send a single classified email from their non-work email they would already be in jail. It just seems that if you have a last name Clinton you can pretty much getaway with anything.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on March 09, 2016, 11:16:49 AM
If a lower level state department employee had done as much as send a single classified email from their non-work email they would already be in jail. It just seems that if you have a last name Clinton you can pretty much getaway with anything.

How many people have actually gone to jail for that?  What % of people don't get jailed for that?  I'm ignorant and curious.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 10, 2016, 10:26:37 AM
If people have gone to jail, it might not be public knowledge. Some previous state department employees did use personal emails, but for only a few handful of emails. This was done by Colin Powell for one or two emails that were retroactively classified and some staffers of Condoleezza Rice (Rice did not use emails at all).

AFAIK this is the first case where the Secretary of State used a personal email server for most emails sent.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on March 14, 2016, 12:12:29 PM
If a lower level state department employee had done as much as send a single classified email from their non-work email they would already be in jail. It just seems that if you have a last name Clinton you can pretty much getaway with anything.

From what I can tell, email on her server did not include info that was classified at the time. Some has been marked as classified since the whole thing became known.

And people don't go to jail over sending 1 single classified email. Hyperbole much?

What she did violates department policies, but doesn't appear to reach the level of breaking a law.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on March 14, 2016, 01:24:54 PM
If a lower level state department employee had done as much as send a single classified email from their non-work email they would already be in jail. It just seems that if you have a last name Clinton you can pretty much getaway with anything.

From what I can tell, email on her server did not include info that was classified at the time. Some has been marked as classified since the whole thing became known.

And people don't go to jail over sending 1 single classified email. Hyperbole much?

What she did violates department policies, but doesn't appear to reach the level of breaking a law.

Before you make your own conclusion. It's more than just an email. Read this article.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/22-hillary-clinton-emails-declared-top-secret-218420





Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Hoofhearted on March 14, 2016, 07:03:53 PM
"Clowns to the left of my, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you"
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on March 15, 2016, 01:01:52 AM
My early presidential predictions. This should be a piece of cake for the GOP to win the elections. In my opinion, GOP can not win the presidential election if they keep on the same path of exclusion.
When George W. Bush won the election, he had 44% percent of Latinos vote for him in 2004.
When recently has the GOP gone on a path of exclusion?  The media certainly has dishonestly painted a picture of exclusion, but is there really one?  I'd think that the GOP treats races much more equally today than the democrats do.  When the media starts telling us that the GOP is anti-mexican because it is anti-illegal immigrant, well that implies that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.  Simple minded people easily buy into that.  If I was Mexican, I'd be pissed that I was grouped with the illegals.  Then we are told that if you are born with darker skin that we will need help to get ahead in society.  Wow.   

What about the politicians that think legal immigrants are bad, and illegal immigrants are good?

Anyways, I get your point, though.  The GOP needs to effectively battle the media on that.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on March 15, 2016, 09:31:50 AM
I don't know man...

Donald had me at ending common core. :)

(http://hoocoodanode.org/uploads/default/optimized/2X/2/200f90eb46a50cbe835b7a165b6f0f77b61ed527_1_460x500.png)

 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 15, 2016, 10:21:15 AM
We live in Cali so if you are Republican your vote in a national election is pointless.  I could vote for Jesus Christ himself and my candidate would lose in this state.   Now locally my vote matters but on the national level this is all theater to me.  I vote on the national level because it gives me the right to bitch.  Other than that I love the show, I watch from the audience.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 15, 2016, 10:22:44 AM
If a lower level state department employee had done as much as send a single classified email from their non-work email they would already be in jail. It just seems that if you have a last name Clinton you can pretty much getaway with anything.

From what I can tell, email on her server did not include info that was classified at the time. Some has been marked as classified since the whole thing became known.

And people don't go to jail over sending 1 single classified email. Hyperbole much?

What she did violates department policies, but doesn't appear to reach the level of breaking a law.

It seems you haven't followed the story or don't deem it important enough. She sent not one but over a hundred classified emails. A secretary of state should know better, especially someone that has been a public figure her entire adult life. Her actions are just arrogance and banking on people who just don't care enough.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 15, 2016, 10:32:28 AM
Agreed, not only should she have known they were "classified" whether they were marked as such or not, much of the top secret information had to physically be moved from a classified server over to her by "someone"

Clinton and her top aides had access to a Pentagon-run classified network that goes up to the Secret level, as well as a separate system used for Top Secret communications.

The two systems — the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) — are not connected to the unclassified system, known as the Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet). You cannot e-mail from one system to the other, though you can use NIPRNet to send ­e-mails outside the government.

Somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 of Clinton’s home e-mails — including several the CIA earlier this month flagged as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs, a subset of SCI.

FBI agents are zeroing in on three of Clinton’s top department aides. Most of the Clinton e-mails deemed classified by intelligence agency reviewers were sent to her by her chief of staff Cheryl Mills or deputy chiefs Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on March 15, 2016, 10:49:59 AM
Right...  She should have known better.  If she's going to break those rules, what other rules will she break? 

Jail time?  I don't think so.  Public shaming?  Why not?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 15, 2016, 11:20:02 AM
This is not a slap on the wrist offense.  The Secretary of State has a legal obligation to recognize and handle top secret material whether marked or not without negligence.  Signing the non-disclosure document when she took office obligates her with prosecutable consequences.

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton signed a nondisclosure agreement in which she acknowledged that classified information is classified regardless of whether it is “marked or unmarked” — a distinction which undermines one of the Democratic presidential candidate’s main defenses of her use of a home-brew email system.

The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State is significant because the State Department has never publicly acknowledged that she signed documents, confirming she was "advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling" of top secret material was a punishable offense.   

The use of a private server for government business, on its face, is a clear violation of the NDA agreement.

The NDA goes on to say -- "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by foreign nationals."

This summer the intelligence community's inspector general or ICIG reviewed a random sample from Clinton's server used for government business. The rules are straight forward:  the agencies that obtain the intelligence have final say on classification matters, and the affected agencies confirmed to the ICIG that four emails contained classified information that did not originate with the State Department.  Two of the emails contained Top Secret/SCI material -- the most highly classified. "Sensitive Compartmented" material has limited access, and requires security clearance holders to sign additional paper work, "to be read in, and off" the project. This second NDA is designed to reinforce how important it is to protect the information as well as sources and methods.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 15, 2016, 11:45:16 AM
Politico Reports Office Of Director Of National Intelligence Found The Emails Were Not Top Secret, Overruling IG IC. Politico reported later on November 6 that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has now overruled the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's prior conclusion that two emails received by Clinton contained highly classified information. As Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists explained to Politico, this "mistake" is nothing short than "astonishing" because "t was a transformative event in the presidential campaign to this point. It had a potential to derail Clinton's presidential candidacy." From the article:

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton's private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

    The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

    Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top secret information, the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Clapper's office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State's favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton's account was classified because it contained information from a top secret intelligence community "product" or report, but a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.

    "The initial determination was based on a flawed process," the source said. "There was an intelligence product people thought [one of the emails] was based on, but that actually postdated the email in question." [Politico, 11/6/15]
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 15, 2016, 12:05:25 PM
That was in November of last year.  Since then there have been week after week of top secret revelations.  Not just from the FBI or Justice but from the White House itself just a couple of weeks ago..

Obama Administration Confirms Hillary Clinton’s Home Server Contained ‘Top Secret’ Emails
January 29, 2016 11:04 PM

WASHINGTON (CBSNewYork/AP) — The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained closely guarded government secrets, censoring 22 emails with material requiring one of the highest levels of classification.

As CBS2’s Dick Brennan reported, the bombshell revelation came just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.

Department officials also said the agency’s Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus will investigate whether any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of one of Clinton’s primary defenses of her email practices.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/01/29/hillary-clinton-top-secret-emails/ (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/01/29/hillary-clinton-top-secret-emails/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 15, 2016, 12:18:25 PM
Just like it has been revealed that this practice did not start with Clinton. Especially enlightening is former secretary Colin Powell's take on this.

The State Department's internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.

The same claims were made in an early February memo when the State Department's inspector general first announced it was conducting a records review related to the email accounts of five secretaries of state -- Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry -- and their immediate staff.

After closely examining a number of potentially sensitive emails with help from State Department and Intelligence Community officials, the State Department's inspector general concluded that 12 emails contain "national security information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels." Additionally, it was determined none of the emails contained intelligence information, meaning it was classified for other reasons.

The emails in question, as the inspector general has previously stated, came from Secretary Powell's personal email account and personal email accounts of Secretary Rice's immediate staff.

In a recent statements to ABC News, Powell disputed the claims.

"I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified." Powell said. "The emails were from my Executive Assistant and forwarded messages sent by two of our Ambassadors to State Department staff members. My Executive Assistant thought I should see them in a timely manner so sent them to my personal account. Both messages were unclassified. There was no reason not to forward them in this manner. ... The Ambassadors did not believe the contents were Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified. That is a fact. While they have not yet clarified this point, the State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't. If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 15, 2016, 01:09:29 PM
NONE of those previous Secretary's set up their own private server, and any emails sent were few and not exclusively on their private server....it's not nearly the same to compare

Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a non-government email account to send messages to her staff during her time as Secretary of State is a break from what other top officials have done, raising concerns from both Democrats and Republicans about the propriety of the practice.

Aides to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former President George W. Bush said neither official routinely sent e-mails to staffers while they held those posts. Rice "did not use her personal e-mail for official communication as Secretary" and instead exclusively used her State Department account, according to a top aide who did not want to be quoted publicly.

Attorney General Eric Holder regularly uses his government account, according to spokesman Brian Fallon, as does Valerie Jarrett, one of President Barack Obama's top advisers.

As Clinton aides have noted, Colin Powell did regularly use a personal e-mail account while Secretary of State.

A Powell aide confirmed that information, saying, "General Powell used a personal email account during his tenure as Secretary of State. He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State."

"There is shock at what Secretary Clinton did because the most likely explanation of her intent seems clear — she created a system designed to avoid accountability, potentially in violation of the law," said John Wonderlich, policy director of the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/hillary-clintons-personal-email-use-differed-other-top-officials-n316611 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/hillary-clintons-personal-email-use-differed-other-top-officials-n316611)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on March 15, 2016, 01:46:57 PM
I agree that she should not have set up the server. But, again, it does not yet appear to rise to the level of criminality. In that Politico article from January it said, “These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent,” Kirby said in a statement.

BBC has a pretty good article on it today:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35722882

Did she make a bad decision? Yes. Everyone has made lots of those. Whomever you are voting for has made some bad decisions. We have to elect SOMEONE for President. The elected person will be flawed. So we all decide how to view the candidates' flaws and bad decisions.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 15, 2016, 01:49:14 PM
True. He used his AOL account.

NONE of those previous Secretary's set up their own private server, and any emails sent were few and not exclusively on their private server....it's not nearly the same to compare

Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a non-government email account to send messages to her staff during her time as Secretary of State is a break from what other top officials have done, raising concerns from both Democrats and Republicans about the propriety of the practice.

Aides to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former President George W. Bush said neither official routinely sent e-mails to staffers while they held those posts. Rice "did not use her personal e-mail for official communication as Secretary" and instead exclusively used her State Department account, according to a top aide who did not want to be quoted publicly.

Attorney General Eric Holder regularly uses his government account, according to spokesman Brian Fallon, as does Valerie Jarrett, one of President Barack Obama's top advisers.

As Clinton aides have noted, Colin Powell did regularly use a personal e-mail account while Secretary of State.

A Powell aide confirmed that information, saying, "General Powell used a personal email account during his tenure as Secretary of State. He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State."

"There is shock at what Secretary Clinton did because the most likely explanation of her intent seems clear — she created a system designed to avoid accountability, potentially in violation of the law," said John Wonderlich, policy director of the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/hillary-clintons-personal-email-use-differed-other-top-officials-n316611 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/hillary-clintons-personal-email-use-differed-other-top-officials-n316611)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 15, 2016, 01:50:43 PM
You don't understand ... as a Clinton she should have been clairvoyant.

I agree that she should not have set up the server. But, again, it does not yet appear to rise to the level of criminality. In that Politico article from January it said, “These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent,” Kirby said in a statement.

BBC has a pretty good article on it today:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35722882

Did she make a bad decision? Yes. Everyone has made lots of those. Whomever you are voting for has made some bad decisions. We have to elect SOMEONE for President. The elected person will be flawed. So we all decide how to view the candidates' flaws and bad decisions.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 15, 2016, 03:18:25 PM
This exact discussion shows how polarized our country has become. We start ignoring facts to support "our" candidate rather than accept when something is just plain wrong. What Hillary Clinton did is just plain wrong. Period. When a person has to evoke that someone else did it so her breaking of the law is not a big deal, we know something is wrong. Also, her aides cite Powell and Rice, who BTW sent a handful of emails, one personally sent by Powell and a few by Rice's aides, note Rice did not use email at all.

In this case, Clinton sent emails through a private server, not one, not a handful but hundreds. Over a hundred of those emails were deemed classified and many were deemed top secret (highest level of classification). I would hate to have a president that ignores common sense and does what s/he thinks best because it suits them. Let's remember that Obama was a big fan of his iPhone when he came into office, but he swapped it out for a Blackberry because it was required by the Secret Service.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 15, 2016, 04:04:42 PM
What law did she break?

This exact discussion shows how polarized our country has become. We start ignoring facts to support "our" candidate rather than accept when something is just plain wrong. What Hillary Clinton did is just plain wrong. Period. When a person has to evoke that someone else did it so her breaking of the law is not a big deal, we know something is wrong. Also, her aides cite Powell and Rice, who BTW sent a handful of emails, one personally sent by Powell and a few by Rice's aides, note Rice did not use email at all.

In this case, Clinton sent emails through a private server, not one, not a handful but hundreds. Over a hundred of those emails were deemed classified and many were deemed top secret (highest level of classification). I would hate to have a president that ignores common sense and does what s/he thinks best because it suits them. Let's remember that Obama was a big fan of his iPhone when he came into office, but he swapped it out for a Blackberry because it was required by the Secret Service.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 15, 2016, 04:16:24 PM
Did you not read the NDA that morekaos posted? Please go through the previous replies.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 15, 2016, 04:48:52 PM
Did you not read the NDA that morekaos posted? Please go through the previous replies.

Did you not read my rebuttal to the NDA claim? Please go through the previous replies.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 15, 2016, 05:25:37 PM
As I said earlier, your rebuttal is based on a claim such as if X breaks the law, Y breaking the law is fine. When 2 cars are speeding on a freeway, one is going 2 above the speed limit and the other one is going 30 above the limit, the one going 30 above the limit will most likely be stopped because that is the one most likely to cause a lot of damage. I hope you get the analogy.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 15, 2016, 06:11:39 PM
As I said earlier, your rebuttal is based on a claim such as if X breaks the law, Y breaking the law is fine. When 2 cars are speeding on a freeway, one is going 2 above the speed limit and the other one is going 30 above the limit, the one going 30 above the limit will most likely be stopped because that is the one most likely to cause a lot of damage. I hope you get the analogy.

Nope. The rebuttal is that there was no issue with the NDA as the information was not marked classified at the time. Deeming the use of an external server as disclosure itself (which that NDA opinion piece suggests) is quite a stretch at best. We'll just see this thing get dragged out until Nov and then fizzle away.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 15, 2016, 06:37:29 PM
If the material was not marked classified it was because the marking were removed when the information was transferred from the classified server.  Clinton was caught in one email directing a subordinate to remove the classifications and send the email in the clear. The "they did it too" defense just doesn't hold water.  I'll have to use that one next time I have to kill someone...OJ did it, so I thought it was OK.  This one stinks to high heaven, it will be quite a pickle if Comey recommends an indictment and throws the whole mess into the AGs lap.

In Email, Hillary Ordered Aide to Strip Classified Marking and Send Sensitive Material

 The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent. However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/08/boom-in-newlyreleased-email-hillary-orders-aide-to-strip-classified-marking-n2101680 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/08/boom-in-newlyreleased-email-hillary-orders-aide-to-strip-classified-marking-n2101680)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 15, 2016, 08:25:04 PM
I doubt the AG would indict even if Comey recommends it.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 16, 2016, 07:35:43 AM
I doubt the AG would indict even if Comey recommends it.

That's a lose-lose for Hillary.  If she gets indicted she has to drop out...if Comey recommends an indictment and Loreta Lynch refuses to proceed it will (rightfully) be interpreted as political and she will be castigated as guilty by the voters anyway.  Either way she loses big
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 16, 2016, 10:06:31 AM
I doubt the AG would indict even if Comey recommends it.

That's a lose-lose for Hillary.  If she gets indicted she has to drop out...if Comey recommends an indictment and Loreta Lynch refuses to proceed it will (rightfully) be interpreted as political and she will be castigated as guilty by the voters anyway.  Either way she loses big

I'm not sure about that. The legitimacy of the indictment recommendation would be questioned as a partisan maneuver to derail the presidential ambitions for the nominee running on the opposing party. It would definitely be a liability but still unsure about the significance of it.  It also feeds into the narrative of the constant smear campaign against her for the last few decades.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 16, 2016, 10:48:45 AM
I disagree, James Comey is practically a democrat hero.  He is widely seen as non-partisan so if he brings a solid case to the AG and she then refuses to indict I think half the staff at the FBI will quit in protest.   Obama loves Comey, he appointed him enthusiastically. The only judgment of partisanship will fall on the shoulders of  Loreta Lynch. It will be a crushing weight.

Obama's GOP FBI Pick a Folk Hero for Democrats

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-love-james-comey-obamas-republican-pick-lead/story?id=19289113 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-love-james-comey-obamas-republican-pick-lead/story?id=19289113)


James Comey, the man President Obama is likely to nominate as the new director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, may be a Republican, but he's near and dear to the hearts of many liberals in Washington.

The former Bush administration official became something of a folk hero for some of the most riveting congressional testimony in history.

"As far as I'm concerned, when the Justice Department lost Jim Comey, it lost a towering figure," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., during that congressional hearing in 2007. And when he said that, Schumer wasn't referring to Comey's 6'8 frame.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 16, 2016, 11:37:28 AM
I disagree, James Comey is practically a democratdemocratic hero.  He is widely seen as non-partisan so if he brings a solid case to the AG and she then refuses to indict I think half the staff at the FBI will quit in protest.   Obama loves Comey, he appointed him enthusiastically. The only judgment of partisanship will fall on the shoulders of  Loreta Lynch. It will be a crushing weight.

Obama's GOP FBI Pick a Folk Hero for Democrats

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-love-james-comey-obamas-republican-pick-lead/story?id=19289113 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-love-james-comey-obamas-republican-pick-lead/story?id=19289113)

Comey has been a lifelong Republican who has donated to both Romney and McCain. He was deputy AG under G. W. Bush (acting when Ashcroft was in the hospital). He is essentially part of the Bush legacy and far from a "folk hero" to democrats. The only thing he was admired for (by democrats) was his opposition to the continuation of the unwarranted surveillance program.


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 16, 2016, 01:28:04 PM
A lot of information is not marked classified immediately, it is classified after reviewing the contents. I'm sure people working in government can clarify. When emails are marked with "top secret" classification afterwards, it means that the information being sent out was sensitive. Anyone could have access to it, including Chinese, Russians, or other non-state hackers. This information can be used against us or maybe is already being used against us. The fact that this is classified, we will never know.

If you have decided to turn a blind eye to it or maybe have interests related to Clinton, no one can convince you. This is the problem with certain voters on both sides of the aisle, they only want to see and hear what they think validates their thinking.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 16, 2016, 02:06:48 PM
This is the problem with certain voters on both sides of the aisle, they only want to see and hear what they think validates their thinking.

I guess that is why you are so resistant to considering that no laws were broken.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 16, 2016, 02:25:07 PM
She most definitely broke the The Federal Records Act. It requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails. Government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records. Breaking this law might not get her a jail term, but this is one example of a law she broke. Read the article below on other possible laws being broken. Also, if she nor her staff broke any laws why did her staffer need immunity?

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law)

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because no matter what it doesn't make a difference.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 16, 2016, 02:44:19 PM
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because no matter what it doesn't make a difference.

Isn't that always the case with politics, religion and sports?  ;)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on March 16, 2016, 02:46:32 PM
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because no matter what it doesn't make a difference.

Isn't that always the case with politics, religion and sports?  ;)

There's are no good candidates to vote for?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 16, 2016, 06:09:18 PM
There's are no good candidates to vote for?

Are there?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on March 18, 2016, 11:23:18 AM
She most definitely broke the The Federal Records Act. It requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails. Government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records. Breaking this law might not get her a jail term, but this is one example of a law she broke. Read the article below on other possible laws being broken. Also, if she nor her staff broke any laws why did her staffer need immunity?

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law)

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because no matter what it doesn't make a difference.


So who can I vote for that has never broken a law?

We all have to choose from among the candidates that we have. Each person, including me and including you, makes value judgments that affect which imperfections we are willing to live with. It looks to me that we will get to pick between Clinton and Trump. For all of Clinton's faults, they don't come anywhere close to Trumps faults. Note that that is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion, based on how I value imperfections.

I see Clinton's use of this email server not as some nefarious thing. I think she was trying to do her job, but this was bad judgement. I can't find a candidate that hasn't made worse decisions, including her. This one just doesn't seem that bad.

Invading Iraq for no good reason and destroying the amazing goodwill that the USA had after 9/11? Really bad decision. Having sexual relations with an intern in the White House? Really bad decision. Iran-Contra? Really bad decision. Using your own email server? Not that bad. YMMV.

[I think her staffer wanted immunity because even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't find something. And he is probably smart enough to know that oftentimes the people a bit lower on the totem pole are the ones that get scapegoated. By having immunity, maybe he won't even get dragged around publicly. Sometimes that happens - no charges get filed, but a person's reputation is still destroyed due to publicity.]
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 18, 2016, 12:27:20 PM
Ya Well they got Al Capone behind bars on tax evasion (bad judgment).
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 18, 2016, 12:39:44 PM
[I think her staffer wanted immunity because even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't find something. And he is probably smart enough to know that oftentimes the people a bit lower on the totem pole are the ones that get scapegoated. By having immunity, maybe he won't even get dragged around publicly. Sometimes that happens - no charges get filed, but a person's reputation is still destroyed due to publicity.]


Actually the FBI doesn't hand out immunity like candy...They extend it not because they want to hear what a witness has to say they offer it because they KNOW what he is going to say and it bolsters whatever case they are working. It's not given lightly to protect someones rep.  This has serious implications for Hillary and she knows it
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 18, 2016, 12:50:57 PM
So who can I vote for that has never broken a law?

We all have to choose from among the candidates that we have. Each person, including me and including you, makes value judgments that affect which imperfections we are willing to live with. It looks to me that we will get to pick between Clinton and Trump. For all of Clinton's faults, they don't come anywhere close to Trumps faults. Note that that is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion, based on how I value imperfections.

I see Clinton's use of this email server not as some nefarious thing. I think she was trying to do her job, but this was bad judgement. I can't find a candidate that hasn't made worse decisions, including her. This one just doesn't seem that bad.

Invading Iraq for no good reason and destroying the amazing goodwill that the USA had after 9/11? Really bad decision. Having sexual relations with an intern in the White House? Really bad decision. Iran-Contra? Really bad decision. Using your own email server? Not that bad. YMMV.

Her decision to host her own email server might not be nefarious, but it was naive. I want a commander-in-chief that can understand implications of cyber security and not make a naive mistake such as this. I hope this not too much to ask, given that we live in the information age.

Btw, both potential candidates scare the s*%t out of me.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on March 18, 2016, 01:05:57 PM
So who can I vote for that has never broken a law?

We all have to choose from among the candidates that we have. Each person, including me and including you, makes value judgments that affect which imperfections we are willing to live with. It looks to me that we will get to pick between Clinton and Trump. For all of Clinton's faults, they don't come anywhere close to Trumps faults. Note that that is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion, based on how I value imperfections.

I see Clinton's use of this email server not as some nefarious thing. I think she was trying to do her job, but this was bad judgement. I can't find a candidate that hasn't made worse decisions, including her. This one just doesn't seem that bad.

Invading Iraq for no good reason and destroying the amazing goodwill that the USA had after 9/11? Really bad decision. Having sexual relations with an intern in the White House? Really bad decision. Iran-Contra? Really bad decision. Using your own email server? Not that bad. YMMV.

Her decision to host her own email server might not be nefarious, but it was naive. I want a commander-in-chief that can understand implications of cyber security and not make a naive mistake such as this. I hope this not too much to ask, given that we live in the information age.

Btw, both potential candidates scare the s*%t out of me.

That's what I'm saying.


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on March 18, 2016, 01:15:18 PM

Bring jobs back to America, but make your products in other countries?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 18, 2016, 01:27:23 PM
Btw, both potential candidates scare the s*%t out of me.

Enter a third party "moderate". Nobody gets a majority vote and Congress gets to decide. There's until 5/17/2016 for a write-in candidate to join the ballot. He would just have to win enough states so neither D or R get at least 270 electoral votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on March 19, 2016, 03:18:11 AM
Bring jobs back to America, but make your products in other countries?

Sure...  It would be unwise of him not to outsource.  As a businessperson he knows why companies outsource and probably has an idea of actual measures that would make outsourcing less desirable to business owners.

Remember the Carly Fiorina vs Barbara Boxer campaign

A simple minded approach would be that Carly wouldn't be able to stop the outsourcing.  The logical approach would be that all this outsourcing actually happened on Barbara Boxer's watch while she held this position.  Boxer's commercial should have hurt Boxer, however, they did work and hurt Carly.  But what can you expect from our typical voters?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on March 19, 2016, 03:29:19 AM
Enter a third party "moderate". Nobody gets a majority vote and Congress gets to decide. There's until 5/17/2016 for a write-in candidate to join the ballot. He would just have to win enough states so neither D or R get at least 270 electoral votes.

https://garyjohnson2016.com/

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on March 22, 2016, 10:28:17 AM

Her decision to host her own email server might not be nefarious, but it was naive. I want a commander-in-chief that can understand implications of cyber security and not make a naive mistake such as this. I hope this not too much to ask, given that we live in the information age.


I hear you. As a programmer, I want this too. But it isn't going to happen. I haven't seen anyone in politics that understands cyber security. Some of them think they understand it, which is worse. :)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 22, 2016, 10:32:41 AM
The screams grow louder

Clinton Email Scandal: It’s Time Hillary Suspended Her Campaign

If the Clinton camp thinks her email scandal will die down, it’s mistaken. The news will keep coming and none of it will be good for Clinton. Even if the Justice Department declines to charge her, the backlash would be harsh. If that happens, expect two things: Watchdog groups will sue for investigative documents to be made public while the most damning of those documents will be leaked to media outlets that will actually publish them.

The total number of Clinton emails that hold classified material exceeds 2,000, and we know at least 22 had top-secret information. Voters are aware that the National Security Agency, not just the FBI,  has a “beef” with Clinton’s behavior and that one of those watchdog groups, Judicial Watch, says it might depose Clinton. It already has plans to question Bryan Pagliano, the director of information technology for Clinton’s 2008 campaign who installed her email system, after federal investigators have finished with him.

Clinton should do what’s right and suspend her campaign until this issue is resolved. It’s unseemly for one of the party’s top candidates to be under such a growing cloud of suspicion.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-its-time-hillary-suspended-her-campaign/ (http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-its-time-hillary-suspended-her-campaign/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvinecommuter on March 22, 2016, 10:11:01 PM
The screams grow louder

Clinton Email Scandal: It’s Time Hillary Suspended Her Campaign

If the Clinton camp thinks her email scandal will die down, it’s mistaken. The news will keep coming and none of it will be good for Clinton. Even if the Justice Department declines to charge her, the backlash would be harsh. If that happens, expect two things: Watchdog groups will sue for investigative documents to be made public while the most damning of those documents will be leaked to media outlets that will actually publish them.

The total number of Clinton emails that hold classified material exceeds 2,000, and we know at least 22 had top-secret information. Voters are aware that the National Security Agency, not just the FBI,  has a “beef” with Clinton’s behavior and that one of those watchdog groups, Judicial Watch, says it might depose Clinton. It already has plans to question Bryan Pagliano, the director of information technology for Clinton’s 2008 campaign who installed her email system, after federal investigators have finished with him.

Clinton should do what’s right and suspend her campaign until this issue is resolved. It’s unseemly for one of the party’s top candidates to be under such a growing cloud of suspicion.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-its-time-hillary-suspended-her-campaign/ (http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-its-time-hillary-suspended-her-campaign/)

Yeah...same crazy people screaming.  Meanwhile, HRC is well on her way to the presidency.   Thanks for trying.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on March 22, 2016, 10:35:53 PM
Meanwhile, HRC is well on her way to the presidency.
Dang.

Does Redfin cover Canada too?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: aquabliss on March 23, 2016, 12:17:09 AM
You guys do know once Hillary implements her tax plan most of us will net between $2k - $10k less per year.  Can't remember the exact number and too lazy to look right now but it's not good news for high income earners.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on March 23, 2016, 03:21:31 AM
You guys do know once Hillary implements her tax plan most of us will net between $2k - $10k less per year.  Can't remember the exact number and too lazy to look right now but it's not good news for high income earners.

What's the cut off?  Between $2k and $10k per year more in taxes doesn't seem that substantial for people making $300k+ percentage wise.  By that, I mean, you probably are getting off easy if it's under $10k. 

The equal pay laws that she mentions scare me.  While they wont affect me, they lead us down a slippery slope where the government might start defining how much people should be paid based on their job duties. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 23, 2016, 10:41:41 AM
You guys do know once Hillary implements her tax plan most of us will net between $2k - $10k less per year.  Can't remember the exact number and too lazy to look right now but it's not good news for high income earners.

Sounds like you are quoting Bernie numbers or you are comparing against the R plans. I believe for incomes up to $250K it would be essentially be status quo (delta of < $1K against current policies). Trump would net you $5K more and Cruz a bit higher than that. But that comes at the cost of a loss of tax revenue close to $10tr over 10 years. That may have flown in the "deficits do not matter" years. Not sure how the current Congress would react to that.

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trumps-tax-plan-vs-hillary-clintons-policy-how-would-your-paycheck-be-affected-2329159 (http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trumps-tax-plan-vs-hillary-clintons-policy-how-would-your-paycheck-be-affected-2329159)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on March 24, 2016, 09:47:50 AM
I've never been too concerned with how much my personal tax bill will change. I am more concerned about whether I think a tax plan is good for the country. I think a progressive income tax structure is important to have. Without that and inheritance tax, we end up with too much of an oligarchy. And multiple generations of rich people who don't have to contribute much to society and still stay rich.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 24, 2016, 10:26:47 AM
...and there in lies the differences we have.  Collectivism vs individualism.  Personally, I don't buy into the whole kumbaiya, we are all in this together klan.  I believe in the power, motivation and basic greed that drives individuals to innovate, work hard and succeed.  I know that is not politically correct but I still see people as imperfect and essentially selfish.  The needs of the one far outweigh the needs of the many, but individual success will inadvertently pull forward the rest.  It is the way of capitalism.  It is exactly the battle we see in Trump vs Bernie. Republican vs Democrat.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on March 24, 2016, 11:15:05 AM
...and there in lies the differences we have.  Collectivism vs individualism.  Personally, I don't buy into the whole kumbaiya, we are all in this together klan.  I believe in the power, motivation and basic greed that drives individuals to innovate, work hard and succeed.  I know that is not politically correct but I still see people as imperfect and essentially selfish.  The needs of the one far outweigh the needs of the many, but individual success will inadvertently pull forward the rest.  It is the way of capitalism.  It is exactly the battle we see in Trump vs Bernie. Republican vs Democrat.

We may be different, but I think the taxes I mention encourage people to work hard and innovate. If you can just get millions of dollars from your parents and live off that, what motivates you? It is harder to make the first $10 million than the next $10 million. How has Paris Hilton innovated? People do have essentially selfish motivations. If one can get rich and then do nothing and keep getting richer due to investments and interest, then why would these selfish people ever do anything productive? Even with our current tax structure, the lists of the richest people in the country are cluttered with those who inherited their money and don't have to do a thing but will still leave a fortune to their children. And those rich grandchildren will have all the money they need to buy politicians to get what they want. And since they are selfish, what they want will probably not be what is needed to encourage hard work and innovation.

Of course, I also think that no man is an island. No successful person got there alone. Not a single one. If you think you did, you are delusional. Taxes helped get you where you are. You have to pay back into our country to keep and improve it. You have to pay to have security; to live without starving, riotous people on the streets; to have a stock exchange; to have the world's dominant currency; to have enough fans to support the NFL where you have your private suite; to have roads and bridges; to have structured bands in the electromagnetic spectrum; to have public education so there are people to work at companies and to be consumers; etc.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 24, 2016, 11:21:32 AM
It is exactly the battle we see in Trump vs Bernie.

LOL. You may want to look up Trump's positions and statements. Universal "Donaldcare" funded by an increase in corporate taxes. A proposal to tax total wealth @ 14.25% (not even Bernie is that extreme). Interfere with free markets by imposing tariffs on imported goods.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 24, 2016, 12:20:50 PM
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paperboyNC on March 24, 2016, 09:09:02 PM
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

What's ironic is that the biggest squandering of taxes is military spending yet that's what the Pubs wants more of.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on March 25, 2016, 09:49:29 AM
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

I have heard many others who claim they are a self-made man and don't want the govt to take any of it. I lumped you in with them. I read your post talking about Collectivism vs Individualism and people being selfish and such as leading that way. We can agree that we should never stop asking our government to be more efficient and to waste less.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on March 25, 2016, 10:00:30 AM
[I think her staffer wanted immunity because even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't find something. And he is probably smart enough to know that oftentimes the people a bit lower on the totem pole are the ones that get scapegoated. By having immunity, maybe he won't even get dragged around publicly. Sometimes that happens - no charges get filed, but a person's reputation is still destroyed due to publicity.]


Actually the FBI doesn't hand out immunity like candy...They extend it not because they want to hear what a witness has to say they offer it because they KNOW what he is going to say and it bolsters whatever case they are working. It's not given lightly to protect someones rep.  This has serious implications for Hillary and she knows it

Note that I didn't say the FBI didn't think he did anything wrong. I said that the guy himself *might* think he did nothing wrong and still accept immunity. Why wouldn't he? We have so many laws that if someone wants to get you for something, they probably can.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Contrarian Commuter on March 25, 2016, 12:48:16 PM

HRC is well on her way to the presidency.   Thanks for trying.

Hillary is an extremely flawed candidate.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f1/18/21/f118215751b0befa935de6907a75532e.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvinecommuter on March 25, 2016, 01:11:10 PM

HRC is well on her way to the presidency.   Thanks for trying.

Hillary is an extremely flawed candidate.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f1/18/21/f118215751b0befa935de6907a75532e.jpg)

Why do you need to "trust" her...which politician do you trust?  Trump?  Cruz? 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on March 25, 2016, 01:31:00 PM
I'm not a fan of Hilary, but don't make me start on Trump.


HRC is well on her way to the presidency.   Thanks for trying.

Hillary is an extremely flawed candidate.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f1/18/21/f118215751b0befa935de6907a75532e.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 29, 2016, 08:12:56 PM
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

I have heard many others who claim they are a self-made man and don't want the govt to take any of it. I lumped you in with them. I read your post talking about Collectivism vs Individualism and people being selfish and such as leading that way. We can agree that we should never stop asking our government to be more efficient and to waste less.

Its wasteful crap like this that drives me crazy. It is true that the road to ruin is paved with good intentions...or a bunch of pompous self-righteous do-gooders who funnel our hard earned (in this case another $1.6 BILLION) tax dollars down the rat hole.  Thanks you very much!!!

Taxpayers Are Footing Bill for Solar Project That Doesn’t Work

Here’s the story so far, Ivanpah:
•Is owned by Google, NRG Energy, and Brightsource, who have a market cap in excess of $500 billion
•Received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy
•Is paid four to five times as much per megawatt-hour as natural-gas powered plants
•Is paid two to three times as much per megawatt-hour as other solar power producers
•Has burned thousands of birds to death
•Has delayed loan repayments
•Is seeking over $500 million in grants to help pay off the guaranteed loans
•Burns natural gas for 4.5 hours each morning to get its mojo going

Brightsource, which is privately held, is owned by a virtual who’s who of those that don’t need subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers.

In spite of all this, Ivanpah has fallen woefully short of its production targets. The managers’ explanation for why production came up 32 percent below expected output was the weather. In addition to raising questions about planning for uncertainty, it is not all that clear how a nine percent drop in sunshine causes a 32 percent drop in production.

More bizarrely, the natural gas used to get the plant all warmed up and ready each day, would be enough to generate over one quarter of the power actually produced from the solar energy. Sorry, let’s not be haters.

The problem for Ivanpah’s customers (California power utilities) is that they planned on all those solar watt-hours to meet California’s renewable power mandates, which require that renewables produce a large and rising fraction of California’s electricity. That is why they pay so much more for Ivanpah’s output than for conventionally powered electricity.

Breaching their contracts with these California utilities threatened to shut down Ivanpah. More likely than permanently shutting Ivanpah down, would have been a change of ownership at a price that came closer to reflecting reality.

But this would have been bothersome for Ivanpah’s investors and the Department of Energy’s ridiculous Section 1703 Loan Program, so the California Public Utilities Commission saved the day (for the fat-cat owners, of course, not for actual the electricity consumers) by granting the company an extension to meet the production targets.

The best part of the ruling is the section on the cost—it’s pretty succinct.

Here it is in its entirety:

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

But, hey, Ivanpah’s plant is a shiny new technological marvel. That’s what counts, right?

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/ (http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvinecommuter on March 30, 2016, 09:58:21 AM
Not a crime.'

Quote
So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.

Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated “top secret” — but they weren't classified when she sent or received them.

Second, did she “willfully communicate” classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.

Third, did she remove classified information “with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location”?

“If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don't think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything,” a former top government lawyer told me.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 30, 2016, 10:29:28 AM
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

Note this is an opinion piece and it can go both ways, it just depends on who is writing.

Quote from: article
But did she commit a crime?

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

It might not be a crime per se, but do we want a president that makes dangerous and foolish decisions? We have had plenty of these in the past (Afghanistan, Iraq and the list can go on).
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvinecommuter on March 30, 2016, 10:34:05 AM
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

Note this is an opinion piece and it can go both ways, it just depends on who is writing.

Quote from: article
But did she commit a crime?

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

It might not be a crime per se, but do we want a president that makes dangerous and foolish decisions? We have had plenty of these in the past (Afghanistan, Iraq and the list can go on).

It is an opinion piece but it references legal opinions.

It's almost like people are human beings...remember how Obama got attacked for being inexperienced?  I much rather have HRC holding the nuclear football than any of the GOP candidates.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on March 30, 2016, 10:59:56 AM
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

Plus it's never the case to cut spending to pay for something.. it's just adding on more taxes to pay for it.  LOL. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on March 30, 2016, 11:04:02 AM
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

Plus it's never the case to cut spending to pay for something.. it's just adding on more taxes to pay for it.  LOL.

I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 30, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

Note this is an opinion piece and it can go both ways, it just depends on who is writing.

Quote from: article
But did she commit a crime?

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

It might not be a crime per se, but do we want a president that makes dangerous and foolish decisions? We have had plenty of these in the past (Afghanistan, Iraq and the list can go on).

It is an opinion piece but it references legal opinions.

It's almost like people are human beings...remember how Obama got attacked for being inexperienced?  I much rather have HRC holding the nuclear football than any of the GOP candidates.

Well maybe she would keep better track of it than her boneheaded husband...but I somehow doubt it.

My military aide compatriot briefed the president would finally return his old set (of launch codes) to us. Instead president Bill Clinton looked up sheepishly and confessed “I don’t have mine on me. I’ll track it down, guys and get it back to you.” pg56

“We were dumbfounded – the president losing his nuclear launch codes. He is required to have the codes on him at all times. President Bill Clinton normally kept the world’s most sensitive document rubber banded to his credit cards in his pants pocket.” pg 57

“We immediately alerted the Joint Staff in the Pentagon: “What do you mean? How could this happen? You’ve got to find it ASAP!”. They were incredulous. For days, we turned over everything in the White House. We talked to the ushers and valets, and asked them to search the president’s clothes and furniture in the residence. We asked the senior staff, specifically John Podesta and Bruce Lindsey, for help. The president finally threw up his hands and said casually “I just can’t find it…don’t know where it is”. As far as he was concerned that was the end of the story. Podesta and Lindsey over riding concern was that the story might leak to the press. Only the military seemed remotely concerned about the national security implications of the nuclear launch codes being lost. And they were never found”

http://www.groundreport.com/the-day-former-president-clinton-lost-his-nuclear-launch-codes/ (http://www.groundreport.com/the-day-former-president-clinton-lost-his-nuclear-launch-codes/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: aquabliss on March 30, 2016, 11:20:32 AM
Sooooooooooooo did they change the launch codes or does the white house janitor still have the key to a nuclear meltdown?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on March 30, 2016, 01:00:57 PM
I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 30, 2016, 01:06:55 PM
Sooooooooooooo did they change the launch codes or does the white house janitor still have the key to a nuclear meltdown?

Probably changed them back to 00000000
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 30, 2016, 01:21:01 PM
I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

That's just not going happen. He went to the same classes about Smoot/Hawley as the rest of us.  Its a threat, like Reagan was feared by the Iranians as a nutcase so the released the hostages when he was elected...never had to fire a shot.  This is no different.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on March 30, 2016, 01:25:24 PM
I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

That's just not going happen. He went to the same classes about Smoot/Hawley as the rest of us.  Its a threat, like Reagan was feared by the Iranians as a nutcase so the released the hostages when he was elected...never had to fire a shot.  This is no different.

You may need to read up on more reliable accounts of US History.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: The California Court Company on March 30, 2016, 01:30:53 PM
why arguing about Trump here. we are in Cali. only thing we can influence is Dem primary. Bernie or lady Clinton
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvinecommuter on March 30, 2016, 01:38:52 PM
I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

That's just not going happen. He went to the same classes about Smoot/Hawley as the rest of us.  Its a threat, like Reagan was feared by the Iranians as a nutcase so the released the hostages when he was elected...never had to fire a shot.  This is no different.

You may need to read up on more reliable accounts of US History.

No shots were fire...just weapons sold and money exchanged! 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 30, 2016, 01:47:07 PM
I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

That's just not going happen. He went to the same classes about Smoot/Hawley as the rest of us.  Its a threat, like Reagan was feared by the Iranians as a nutcase so the released the hostages when he was elected...never had to fire a shot.  This is no different.

You may need to read up on more reliable accounts of US History.

No shots were fire...just weapons sold and money exchanged! 

I had no problem with that
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on March 31, 2016, 07:45:11 AM
[I think her staffer wanted immunity because even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't find something. And he is probably smart enough to know that oftentimes the people a bit lower on the totem pole are the ones that get scapegoated. By having immunity, maybe he won't even get dragged around publicly. Sometimes that happens - no charges get filed, but a person's reputation is still destroyed due to publicity.]


Actually the FBI doesn't hand out immunity like candy...They extend it not because they want to hear what a witness has to say they offer it because they KNOW what he is going to say and it bolsters whatever case they are working. It's not given lightly to protect someones rep.  This has serious implications for Hillary and she knows it

Note that I didn't say the FBI didn't think he did anything wrong. I said that the guy himself *might* think he did nothing wrong and still accept immunity. Why wouldn't he? We have so many laws that if someone wants to get you for something, they probably can.

The plot thickens...

Former Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the investigation into her use of a private server, struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department and apparently has been singing. An intelligence source told Fox News that he has told the FBI a range of details about how her personal email system was set up and maintained. The source described him as a “devastating witness.”

Mr. Pagliano is a pivotal — perhaps the pivotal — key to Mrs. Clinton’s server and what was being done on and through it — and by whom.

Mr. Pagliano was in charge of server(s) since the 2008 campaign. He was paid $5,000 for “computer services” by the Clintons before he joined the State Department staff. After he started working there in May 2009, Mr. Pagliano continued to receive payments from the Clintons to maintain the server.

Mr. Pagliano can name all those who had access to the Clinton server and devices and when, and reportedly is doing so, allowing investigators to piece together an evidentiary timeline. It was emphasized to Fox News that Mrs. Clinton’s deliberate “creation” and “control” of the private server used for her official government business is the subject of “intense scrutiny.”

Mr. Pagliano can also testify to the security of the server and what was told to whom about it. Again, the server has the documents, including the at least 22 top secret and above top secret ones deemed too damaging to national security to publicly release under any circumstances. That is a matter of some risk for Mrs. Clinton.

In another deeply problematic development, the FBI is focused on documents she and her aides sent rather than received, because sending them demonstrates deliberate intent much more than receiving them would. It’s been reported that over 100 highly sensitive documents originated with her.

If there are major classified emails that were sent by Mrs. Clinton, then one of my sources said “there won’t be escape from prosecution”.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/monica-crowley-the-clintons-sense-a-breakdown/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/monica-crowley-the-clintons-sense-a-breakdown/)
Title: How to Talk like Trump
Post by: WTTCHMN on March 31, 2016, 11:14:55 PM
How to Talk like Trump

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-strange-power-of-donald-1397103083307062.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on April 04, 2016, 09:36:53 PM
why arguing about Trump here. we are in Cali. only thing we can influence is Dem primary. Bernie or lady Clinton

California GOP primary finally matters

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-03162016-htmlstory.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on April 05, 2016, 06:45:31 PM
Cruz and Bernie win the state of Wisconsin.

#interesting
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on April 08, 2016, 10:02:02 AM
Bernie accepts invitation from Pope Francis to travel to the Vatican.


http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-accepts-pope-franciss-invitation-to-travel-to-the-vatican/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on April 18, 2016, 01:17:50 PM
Mexico has agreed to build Trump's wall but under one condition.... :)

(http://hoocoodanode.org/uploads/default/original/2X/2/2473cc8f11adde65ddc4972556c76b8f4230f384.png)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on April 18, 2016, 01:41:59 PM
Mexico has agreed to build Trump's wall but under one condition.... :)

(http://hoocoodanode.org/uploads/default/original/2X/2/2473cc8f11adde65ddc4972556c76b8f4230f384.png)

That's funny. Actually more jobs might go to Mexico, due to California minimum wage increase.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on April 18, 2016, 01:54:14 PM
Isn't it already like that?

#unitedstatesofqwerxica
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on April 19, 2016, 12:04:35 PM
I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

I have heard many others who claim they are a self-made man and don't want the govt to take any of it. I lumped you in with them. I read your post talking about Collectivism vs Individualism and people being selfish and such as leading that way. We can agree that we should never stop asking our government to be more efficient and to waste less.

Its wasteful crap like this that drives me crazy. It is true that the road to ruin is paved with good intentions...or a bunch of pompous self-righteous do-gooders who funnel our hard earned (in this case another $1.6 BILLION) tax dollars down the rat hole.  Thanks you very much!!!

Taxpayers Are Footing Bill for Solar Project That Doesn’t Work

Here’s the story so far, Ivanpah:
•Is owned by Google, NRG Energy, and Brightsource, who have a market cap in excess of $500 billion
•Received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy
•Is paid four to five times as much per megawatt-hour as natural-gas powered plants
•Is paid two to three times as much per megawatt-hour as other solar power producers
•Has burned thousands of birds to death
•Has delayed loan repayments
•Is seeking over $500 million in grants to help pay off the guaranteed loans
•Burns natural gas for 4.5 hours each morning to get its mojo going

Brightsource, which is privately held, is owned by a virtual who’s who of those that don’t need subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers.

In spite of all this, Ivanpah has fallen woefully short of its production targets. The managers’ explanation for why production came up 32 percent below expected output was the weather. In addition to raising questions about planning for uncertainty, it is not all that clear how a nine percent drop in sunshine causes a 32 percent drop in production.

More bizarrely, the natural gas used to get the plant all warmed up and ready each day, would be enough to generate over one quarter of the power actually produced from the solar energy. Sorry, let’s not be haters.

The problem for Ivanpah’s customers (California power utilities) is that they planned on all those solar watt-hours to meet California’s renewable power mandates, which require that renewables produce a large and rising fraction of California’s electricity. That is why they pay so much more for Ivanpah’s output than for conventionally powered electricity.

Breaching their contracts with these California utilities threatened to shut down Ivanpah. More likely than permanently shutting Ivanpah down, would have been a change of ownership at a price that came closer to reflecting reality.

But this would have been bothersome for Ivanpah’s investors and the Department of Energy’s ridiculous Section 1703 Loan Program, so the California Public Utilities Commission saved the day (for the fat-cat owners, of course, not for actual the electricity consumers) by granting the company an extension to meet the production targets.

The best part of the ruling is the section on the cost—it’s pretty succinct.

Here it is in its entirety:

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

But, hey, Ivanpah’s plant is a shiny new technological marvel. That’s what counts, right?

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/ (http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/)


More short sighted, wasteful government spending. The only irony is that corrupt politicians may lose some loose change. Not only did this company employ the best of the best lobiest in DC, when they declare BK we will find that government funding and loan guarantees littered their balance sheet.  More BS chasing an illusion that markets have shown to be imprudent investments.  Thanks.


Pelosi’s Husband Invested in Solar Firm Weeks Before Lucrative Expansion
 


SunEdison is now eyeing bankruptcy, but Paul Pelosi invested right before a 2014 stock rally

SunEdison has maintained strong a strong presence in Washington throughout its financial woes. The company has spent more than $1 million on its lobbying operation since 2011.

It has employed lobbyists with the powerhouse Podesta Group since 2012, disclosure forms show. In 2015, it brought on 38 North Solutions, a green energy focused lobbying firm. Both firms lobbied to preserve federal tax credits for renewable energy generation.

Pelosi fought for the extension of those tax subsidies in a major congressional deal late last year.

The Podesta Group is run by a top Hillary Clinton fundraiser. Its cofounder chairs her presidential campaign, to which SunEdison donated last year. The company has also donated to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

The son of Ira Magaziner, the chief executive of the foundation’s health policy arm, served as a “clean energy associate” at the foundation before taking a project finance position at SunEdison last year.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/pelosis-husband-invested-solar-firm-weeks-lucrative-expansion/ (http://freebeacon.com/issues/pelosis-husband-invested-solar-firm-weeks-lucrative-expansion/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on April 19, 2016, 12:29:43 PM
Sanders supports showerClinton motorcade with 1 dollar bills at Clooney event

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/276586-sanders-supporters-shower-clinton-motorcade-with-1-bills
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on April 26, 2016, 07:56:26 PM
This is the funniest thing he said all week....

Vote for me – get rid of them! Trump pledges to do 'a great service to our country' after Lena Dunham, Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg promise to flee the U.S. for Canada if he's elected



'We'll get rid of Rosie? Oh, I love it. Now I have to get elected!' he said during an early morning phone-in interview.

'Now I have to get elected because I'll be doing a great service to our country. I have to. Now it's much more important. In fact I'll immediately get off this call and start campaigning right now.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3559534/Trump-says-ll-doing-great-service-country-victory-makes-Rosie-O-Donnell-Whoopie-Goldberg-Lena-Dunham-flee-America.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3559534/Trump-says-ll-doing-great-service-country-victory-makes-Rosie-O-Donnell-Whoopie-Goldberg-Lena-Dunham-flee-America.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on May 05, 2016, 12:35:30 PM
(http://hoocoodanode.org/uploads/default/original/2X/2/2e41c339a0ab6bf4caaaae18230d1662c9f0af06.png)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on May 05, 2016, 03:05:56 PM
(http://hoocoodanode.org/uploads/default/original/2X/2/2e41c339a0ab6bf4caaaae18230d1662c9f0af06.png)

FBI interviewed Clinton Aides.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fbi-has-interviewed-hillary-clinton-aides-over-email-investigation-sources-n568916
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on May 20, 2016, 10:19:31 PM
Potential Game Changer

"Mark Cuban is ‘absolutely’ open to being Hillary Clinton’s Vice President."

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/05/20/mark-cuban-is-absolutely-open-to-being-hillary-clintons-vice-president/

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on May 21, 2016, 12:44:18 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on May 21, 2016, 05:45:34 PM
Jimmy Kimmel hits it on the head

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/media/embed/84870597
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on May 21, 2016, 10:18:06 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on June 08, 2016, 07:06:47 AM
Bernie will meet with Obima this Thursday. I predict Obama will tell Bernie to stop his campaign.

Trump can't shake controversy away. His comments about the judge have been condoned by both sides.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on June 08, 2016, 07:08:51 AM
Bernie will meet with Obima this Thursday. I predict Obama will tell Bernie to stop his campaign.

Trump can't shake controversy away. His comments about the judge have been condoned by both sides.

What a funny guy
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on June 08, 2016, 07:17:27 AM
Bernie will meet with Obima this Thursday. I predict Obama will tell Bernie to stop his campaign.

Trump can't shake controversy away. His comments about the judge have been condoned by both sides.

What a funny guy

Which one Uncle Bernie or Dump Trump
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on June 08, 2016, 07:18:06 AM
Bernie will meet with Obima this Thursday. I predict Obama will tell Bernie to stop his campaign.

Trump can't shake controversy away. His comments about the judge have been condoned by both sides.

What a funny guy

Which one Uncle Bernie or Dump Trump

Trump. Never ceases to amaze me.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on June 08, 2016, 07:42:59 AM
This is going to be soooo much fun!

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: momopi on June 08, 2016, 09:47:22 AM

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: momopi on June 15, 2016, 02:50:54 PM
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on June 15, 2016, 02:52:00 PM
Panda - did you go to the Trump rally @Atlanta?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: momopi on June 15, 2016, 02:54:30 PM
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 05, 2016, 08:38:00 AM
FBI recommends no criminal charges against Hillary


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/fbi-recommends-no-criminal-charges-against-hillary-clinton-n603926
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 05, 2016, 03:48:59 PM
FBI recommends no criminal charges against Hillary


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/fbi-recommends-no-criminal-charges-against-hillary-clinton-n603926
Not sure what charges exactly would be filed.  If she was in the military, I'm pretty sure there would be charges.  It's the sort of thing that should lose you your security clearances, though. 

Also, it's a sign of poor decision making.  She was clearly knowingly not following the rules.  It cost the taxpayers a lot of money to investigate. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on July 05, 2016, 03:51:40 PM
Her answers were just like slick Willy.  Learned it from the best.  I didn't lie... errrr lie like that!  Change of wording in her answers. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoCal on July 05, 2016, 07:31:47 PM
Not sure what charges exactly would be filed.

Espionage.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 05, 2016, 07:32:58 PM
Her opposition found a case that's quite similar...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2015-doj-prosecutes-a-naval-reservist-for-mishandling-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/

Basically, someone else got 2 years probation + $7500 fine + loss of security clearances and job.

So for Clinton, her punishment should probably be something like 2 years probation + a huge fine.  A violation of probation would probably equal jail time, I assume. 

The huge fine would help cover some of the costs of the investigation.  Since she has either been an elected official or an appointed official taking away the security clearances probably wont happen.  Also, she will continue to get elected positions or appointments so a loss of a job probably wont happen.  Of course, nobody should be appointing her or electing her to those positions if she breaks rules, violates protocol, and can't be trusted.

Here's what will happen, though.  It will all be played off as if she did nothing wrong and she has been proven innocent.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 13, 2016, 11:45:20 AM

Potential problem? If, there is a case brought to the US Supreme Court?


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/inside-stunning-face-off-donald-trump-supreme-court/story?id=40544342
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 14, 2016, 09:07:24 AM

Potential problem? If, there is a case brought to the US Supreme Court?


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/inside-stunning-face-off-donald-trump-supreme-court/story?id=40544342

That was quick. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg apologies to Trump.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html

My thoughts: judges should not make comments which shows bias.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 14, 2016, 09:19:41 AM
Her opposition found a case that's quite similar...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2015-doj-prosecutes-a-naval-reservist-for-mishandling-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/

Basically, someone else got 2 years probation + $7500 fine + loss of security clearances and job.

So for Clinton, her punishment should probably be something like 2 years probation + a huge fine.  A violation of probation would probably equal jail time, I assume. 

The huge fine would help cover some of the costs of the investigation.  Since she has either been an elected official or an appointed official taking away the security clearances probably wont happen.  Also, she will continue to get elected positions or appointments so a loss of a job probably wont happen.  Of course, nobody should be appointing her or electing her to those positions if she breaks rules, violates protocol, and can't be trusted.

Here's what will happen, though.  It will all be played off as if she did nothing wrong and she has been proven innocent.

Comey distinguished this case in his testimony, if you're interested in facts/truth.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 14, 2016, 10:35:23 AM
Comey distinguished this case in his testimony, if you're interested in facts/truth.
Sure, can you explain the facts and the truth?   I'd like to know.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 14, 2016, 10:39:14 AM
My thoughts: judges should not make comments which shows bias.
My problem with her is that she takes that bias to the bench.  At times, she has acted like an activist that thinks she can legislate from the bench.  It's been much more apparent lately since Sotomayor arrived.  Take the Puerto Rico case, which was a 5-2 decision.  Both Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted against existing law because of their personal feelings.  As kind hearted and empathetic as they were, they are not supposed to behave that way.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 14, 2016, 01:07:36 PM
My thoughts: judges should not make comments which shows bias.
My problem with her is that she takes that bias to the bench.  At times, she has acted like an activist that thinks she can legislate from the bench.  It's been much more apparent lately since Sotomayor arrived.  Take the Puerto Rico case, which was a 5-2 decision.  Both Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted against existing law because of their personal feelings.  As kind hearted and empathetic as they were, they are not supposed to behave that way.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say you don't have a poli sci undergrad degree, much less a juris doctor.

I only say that, because these comments sound like the typical drivel we hear pouring from the mouths of talking heads on TV/radio. Nearly every judicial decision made results in "legislation from the bench." Precedents are set when decisions are made applying law to complicated facts.

So saying you don't like "legislation from the bench" is the equivalent of saying, "I don't support any judicial determinations when folks can't agree to settle disputes." What is the alternative?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 14, 2016, 02:05:05 PM
Why don't you try to honestly critically think about it.  Try not using logical fallacies.  You used a few logical fallacies in your response.

But your response is somewhat expected as people get hyper defensive whenever someone brings up "legislating from the bench".

How am I to have a conversation with you when you have no intent to give honest consideration to the conversation?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 14, 2016, 02:10:47 PM
So, it's a "logical fallacy" that judicial decisions result in legal precedent that is in fact "law"?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 14, 2016, 02:11:38 PM
So, it's a "logical fallacy" that judicial decisions result in legal precedent that is in fact "law"?
Now this is getting ironic.  And now you just committed another logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 14, 2016, 02:31:53 PM
Perhaps you'd like to explain your idea of what a logical fallacy is as applied to that last comment?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 14, 2016, 02:32:41 PM
"Legislating from the bench" is a phrase with little meaning other than disapproval of a judges decision. It has been used on both side when the parties were dissatisfied with the outcome of a particular ruling.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 14, 2016, 08:08:01 PM
"Legislating from the bench" is a phrase with little meaning other than disapproval of a judges decision. It has been used on both side when the parties were dissatisfied with the outcome of a particular ruling.
Sometimes it is, other times it isn't.  Are you passively stating that is what I did?  If so, then you are wrong. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 14, 2016, 09:42:28 PM
Perhaps you'd like to explain your idea of what a logical fallacy is as applied to that last comment?
Sure, I mention that your multiple paragraph response has logical fallacies in it, and you single out one sentence and imply that I was talking about that one particular sentence.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 15, 2016, 05:56:06 AM
Perhaps you'd like to explain your idea of what a logical fallacy is as applied to that last comment?
Sure, I mention that your multiple paragraph response has logical fallacies in it, and you single out one sentence and imply that I was talking about that one particular sentence.

Goodness gracious...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on July 15, 2016, 09:36:03 AM
Judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. Liberals said SCOTUS was legislating from the bench when they said the 2nd amendment is a personal right.  Conservatives said SCOTUS was legislating from the bench when they said privacy rights includes abortions.  Like it or not, courts do make laws.  Almost all of the laws protecting minorities from abuse by the majority originated from the courts because it is nearly impossible to get such laws passed in a legislative body or popular referendum. The Civil Rights Act probably would not have been enacted had the courts not previously changed peoples attitudes in such decisions as Brown vs. Board of Education.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 15, 2016, 10:08:34 AM
Judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. Liberals said SCOTUS was legislating from the bench when they said the 2nd amendment is a personal right.  Conservatives said SCOTUS was legislating from the bench when they said privacy rights includes abortions.  Like it or not, courts do make laws.  Almost all of the laws protecting minorities from abuse by the majority originated from the courts because it is nearly impossible to get such laws passed in a legislative body or popular referendum. The Civil Rights Act probably would not have been enacted had the courts not previously changed peoples attitudes in such decisions as Brown vs. Board of Education.

This is why I roll my eyes when I hear blather like "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 16, 2016, 02:01:13 AM
Goodness gracious...
Hey, you asked.  Your response here shows you don't actually care.  Why did you ask?  You aren't making an honest attempt in conversation here.  What you are doing, is dishonest. 

Here are logical fallacies that you've made:

Ad Hominem: You tried to discredit everything I said by making assumptions that you know nothing about.
Genetic: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from or from whom it comes from.
Ad Hominem: You followed up with more ad hominem.
Strawman: You misrepresented the argument to make it easier to attack.
Composition/Division: You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all or other parts of it. 
Tu Quoque: You avoided the point I was making and instead turned the argument to me, answering criticism with criticism.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 16, 2016, 06:27:35 AM
Goodness gracious...
Hey, you asked.  Your response here shows you don't actually care.  Why did you ask?  You aren't making an honest attempt in conversation here.  What you are doing, is dishonest. 

Here are logical fallacies that you've made:

Ad Hominem: You tried to discredit everything I said by making assumptions that you know nothing about.
Genetic: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from or from whom it comes from.
Ad Hominem: You followed up with more ad hominem.
Strawman: You misrepresented the argument to make it easier to attack.
Composition/Division: You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all or other parts of it. 
Tu Quoque: You avoided the point I was making and instead turned the argument to me, answering criticism with criticism.

This happens in blog comments. Everything is so brief, that assumptions are made. I was solely making a point about your use of "legislating from the bench." That's all. It's pretty simple stuff. If that's not what you meant, you could simply have expounded on your intent.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on July 20, 2016, 08:58:19 PM
After Junior's speech yesterday, I might see Trump differently.  At least he's above Lebron in my short famous people I don't like list :)

I still can't get over the fact on why a billionaire wants the most stressful job in the world. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on July 21, 2016, 01:55:10 AM
I still can't get over the fact on why a billionaire wants the most stressful job in the world.
Fame, Power, Respect, Winning, Being mentioned in History books...  Hopefully he wants history books to talk about him nicely. 

IMO, Hillary isn't much different, but she does care about some things.  The health care issue is one of her passions.

I'd like someone who would pick a good nonpartisan unbiased Supreme Court judge.  Good luck with that from either of these candidates.  Gary Johnson would probably be the best candidate for picking a supreme court judge, but he has almost no chance of winning.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on July 21, 2016, 07:29:46 AM
Preferences and party lines aside, who do you think will win?

While it doesn't sit well with me (because I'm mainly conservative), I do think Hillary has the edge. Trump is a little too cray-cray for many.

I didn't think Obama would win over McCain 8 years ago because I thought the good ole boy mentality was still strong, and since Trump is a Rep, that doesn't bode well for him.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on July 21, 2016, 07:39:15 AM
Hilary will win, neither candidate is great, but a part of me wants to elect Trump just to see what will happen.  But too bad I don't fit in well with Trump supporters nor want to be associated as such.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on July 21, 2016, 08:33:36 AM
I've stopped making predictions.  The electorate is way to cray-cray to know what's going on. 

Then more importantly, the electorate is largely immaterial, whether Hillary carries California by one vote or 10 million doesn't change the 55 electoral votes.  And the electoral college projections, while strongly favoring Hillary, have way too many States in the battle ground stage.

In the mean time, we have August, September and October to get through where every cop killing, every shooting by the cops and incident of global extremism riles the masses.


Sadly, too bad we can't get Gary Johnson on the debate stage with the other two.  It would probably be the single biggest boon to third parties to see a viable, rational alternative to choosing the person I dislike less.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 21, 2016, 08:58:59 AM
After Junior's speech yesterday, I might see Trump differently.  At least he's above Lebron in my short famous people I don't like list :)

I still can't get over the fact on why a billionaire wants the most stressful job in the world.

"As the GOP convention gets under way in Cleveland, a top adviser to presumptive nominee Donald Trump said the party wants to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, Depression-era legislation that helped prevent big bank "supermarkets" but which was repealed in 1999."

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/gop-platform-pushes-for-big-bank-breakup-return-of-glass-steagall.html

If this passed, I predict there will be big layoffs in the financial/banking sector.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 21, 2016, 09:28:52 AM
After Junior's speech yesterday, I might see Trump differently.  At least he's above Lebron in my short famous people I don't like list :)

I still can't get over the fact on why a billionaire wants the most stressful job in the world.

"As the GOP convention gets under way in Cleveland, a top adviser to presumptive nominee Donald Trump said the party wants to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, Depression-era legislation that helped prevent big bank "supermarkets" but which was repealed in 1999."

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/gop-platform-pushes-for-big-bank-breakup-return-of-glass-steagall.html

If this passed, I predict there will be big layoffs in the financial/banking sector.

I thought the Volcker Rule proposes to do much of what Glass-Steagall achieved anyway.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volcker-rule/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 21, 2016, 11:32:09 AM
After Junior's speech yesterday, I might see Trump differently.  At least he's above Lebron in my short famous people I don't like list :)

I still can't get over the fact on why a billionaire wants the most stressful job in the world.

"As the GOP convention gets under way in Cleveland, a top adviser to presumptive nominee Donald Trump said the party wants to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, Depression-era legislation that helped prevent big bank "supermarkets" but which was repealed in 1999."

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/gop-platform-pushes-for-big-bank-breakup-return-of-glass-steagall.html

If this passed, I predict there will be big layoffs in the financial/banking sector.

I thought the Volcker Rule proposes to do much of what Glass-Steagall achieved anyway.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volcker-rule/

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-difference-between-volcker-rule-and-glasssteagall-act.asp

So regulate the financial sector, and his other policy limit trade. Where will the growth come from?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 21, 2016, 11:40:32 AM
After Junior's speech yesterday, I might see Trump differently.  At least he's above Lebron in my short famous people I don't like list :)

I still can't get over the fact on why a billionaire wants the most stressful job in the world.

"As the GOP convention gets under way in Cleveland, a top adviser to presumptive nominee Donald Trump said the party wants to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, Depression-era legislation that helped prevent big bank "supermarkets" but which was repealed in 1999."

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/18/gop-platform-pushes-for-big-bank-breakup-return-of-glass-steagall.html

If this passed, I predict there will be big layoffs in the financial/banking sector.

I thought the Volcker Rule proposes to do much of what Glass-Steagall achieved anyway.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/volcker-rule/

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-difference-between-volcker-rule-and-glasssteagall-act.asp

So regulate the financial sector, and his other policy limit trade. Where will the growth come from?

Well, you see, you just cut taxes dramatically and the growth magically appears. Ask Larry Kudlow.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 21, 2016, 12:32:24 PM
After Junior's speech yesterday, I might see Trump differently.  At least he's above Lebron in my short famous people I don't like list :)

I still can't get over the fact on why a billionaire wants the most stressful job in the world.

So what are your thoughts regarding the GOP convention? Do you think it is going well?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on July 21, 2016, 01:40:28 PM
After Junior's speech yesterday, I might see Trump differently.  At least he's above Lebron in my short famous people I don't like list :)

I still can't get over the fact on why a billionaire wants the most stressful job in the world.

So what are your thoughts regarding the GOP convention? Do you think it is going well?

Trump says it's going well.....so it must be going well, right? 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 21, 2016, 02:06:10 PM
"Let me tell you, alright, this convention has been HUGE, so big, the biggest, the best. I mean, Cleveland, wow, what a great host city. So great. The best, alright. Did you see my beautiful wife's speech. Wasn't that great? Isn't she beautiful? Alright, and Pence, HUGE, so huge. Great running mate, just great, the best."

(entire run-on sentence hyperbole spoken with pursed lips and squinted eyes)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on July 21, 2016, 03:16:05 PM
"Let me tell you, alright, this convention has been HUGE, so big, the biggest, the best. I mean, Cleveland, wow, what a great host city. So great. The best, alright. Did you see my beautiful wife's speech. Wasn't that great? Isn't she beautiful? Alright, and Pence, HUGE, so huge. Great running mate, just great, the best."

(entire run-on sentence hyperbole spoken with pursed lips and squinted eyes)

YUGE

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on July 22, 2016, 09:07:07 AM
Bring on the debates!!!!  I am stockpiling pop corn and beer!!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 22, 2016, 09:30:09 AM
Mark Cuban tweets campaign advice to Hilary Clinton.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/22/hillary-clintons-marketing-is-straight-out-of-1995-mark-cuban-says.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on July 22, 2016, 09:47:36 AM
Mark Cuban tweets campaign advice to Hilary Clinton.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/22/hillary-clintons-marketing-is-straight-out-of-1995-mark-cuban-says.html


Hillary Clinton’s marketing is 'straight out of 1995,' Mark Cuban says

More like 1984

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 22, 2016, 10:04:22 AM
Mark Cuban tweets campaign advice to Hilary Clinton.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/22/hillary-clintons-marketing-is-straight-out-of-1995-mark-cuban-says.html


Hillary Clinton’s marketing is 'straight out of 1995,' Mark Cuban says

More like 1984
According to the CNBC article below:
"Cuban previously supported Donald Trump's run for president, but has since changed his mind.

He announced Tuesday on his Twitter account that he is against the Republican candidate, saying, "I have to admit I've become a #nevertrump."


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on July 22, 2016, 10:19:43 AM
This is fairly old news...it's just getting more play right now.  Mark Cuban has been anti-Trump for a few months because he thinks it's all a big publicity stunt to grow the Trump brand.  I tend to agree.

Cuban himself is probably going to run for something within the next 8 years...some close to him believe it will be for POTUS.  Not that my opinion matters, but the guy is the perfect person to run this country. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 22, 2016, 10:50:51 AM
More like 1984

LOL. I guess you didn't watch Trump's speech ...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on July 22, 2016, 12:29:07 PM
The same guy who was willing to distribute the 1st cut of the 9/11 hoax documentary "Loose Change" - that Mark Cuban? That would be the credibility buster for me in supporting MC. It's about as enthusiasm building as the Short Fingered Vulgarian's quest to find BHO's real birth certificate a few years ago.

If anyone is curious, my 2016 Presidential candidate got primaried early on - Rand Paul. Still going to hold my nose and vote in November. Ask me in January 2017 if my preferred candidate won.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on July 22, 2016, 12:36:51 PM
More like 1984

LOL. I guess you didn't watch Trump's speech ...

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 22, 2016, 01:37:37 PM
The same guy who was willing to distribute the 1st cut of the 9/11 hoax documentary "Loose Change" - that Mark Cuban? That would be the credibility buster for me in supporting MC. It's about as enthusiasm building as the Short Fingered Vulgarian's quest to find BHO's real birth certificate a few years ago.

If anyone is curious, my 2016 Presidential candidate got primaried early on - Rand Paul. Still going to hold my nose and vote in November. Ask me in January 2017 if my preferred candidate won.

You're a Gold Bug?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 22, 2016, 01:44:03 PM
More like 1984

LOL. I guess you didn't watch Trump's speech ...

A wild audience chanting "Yes you will!" (notice the stark contrast with "Yes we can!") to their nominee as he promises to restore law and order by going after "others" ... and none of this is fictional.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on July 22, 2016, 02:09:53 PM
The same guy who was willing to distribute the 1st cut of the 9/11 hoax documentary "Loose Change" - that Mark Cuban? That would be the credibility buster for me in supporting MC. It's about as enthusiasm building as the Short Fingered Vulgarian's quest to find BHO's real birth certificate a few years ago.

If anyone is curious, my 2016 Presidential candidate got primaried early on - Rand Paul. Still going to hold my nose and vote in November. Ask me in January 2017 if my preferred candidate won.

Wasn't Cuban pretty vocal about not believing any of the theories in "Loose Change"? 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: The California Court Company on July 22, 2016, 02:42:33 PM
do you guys think the current string of terrorist attacks in Europe would help Trump? or not at all?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on July 22, 2016, 02:58:49 PM
do you guys think the current string of terrorist attacks in Europe would help Trump? or not at all?

Logic would suggest that, if anything, it should help Clinton.  However, there are too many illogical voters out there and so it'll probably provide a slight bump for Trump.  But I'm not sure how building a wall between Mexico and the US is going to stop terrorist attacks outside of our borders.  Is there any other foreign policy that Trump has suggested during this campaign?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 22, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
do you guys think the current string of terrorist attacks in Europe would help Trump? or not at all?

Logic would suggest that, if anything, it should help Clinton.  However, there are too many illogical voters out there and so it'll probably provide a slight bump for Trump.  But I'm not sure how building a wall between Mexico and the US is going to stop terrorist attacks outside of our borders.  Is there any other foreign policy that Trump has suggested during this campaign?

He wants to put the VP in charge of foreign (and domestic) policy and make him the "most powerful VP in US history" - at least that's the way Jr. put it.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 22, 2016, 03:10:46 PM
"However, there are too many illogical voters out there..."

That's the important point we need to remember when trying to make any sense of polls and the final vote. I'd guess 80%+ of the folks who'll vote in this Presidential election know very little about the candidates' platforms, much less whether the proposed solutions to identified "problems" are viable and credible.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on July 22, 2016, 03:21:45 PM
Clinton is projected to easily win the Electoral College vote, regardless of how the popular vote turns out.  Unless she loses almost all the key battleground states, the Donald probably won't win....but....


...The Kansas City Royals & Cleveland Cavaliers are current champions for their respective leagues and Brexit was a surprise winner...so anything is possible...even a Trump victory.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 22, 2016, 03:32:00 PM
Clinton is projected to easily win the Electoral College vote, regardless of how the popular vote turns out.  Unless she looses almost all the key battleground states, the Donald probably won't win....but....


...The Kansas City Royals & Cleveland Cavaliers are current champions for their respective leagues and Brexit was a surprise winner...so anything is possible...even a Trump victory.

All Trump needs is for "illegals" to go on more killing sprees similar to the ones he shared last night. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 22, 2016, 04:00:20 PM
Clinton is projected to easily win the Electoral College vote, regardless of how the popular vote turns out.  Unless she looses almost all the key battleground states, the Donald probably won't win....but....


...The Kansas City Royals & Cleveland Cavaliers are current champions for their respective leagues and Brexit was a surprise winner...so anything is possible...even a Trump victory.

Trump's odds are at 40%
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on July 22, 2016, 04:44:10 PM
do you guys think the current string of terrorist attacks in Europe would help Trump? or not at all?

Logic would suggest that, if anything, it should help Clinton.  However, there are too many illogical voters out there and so it'll probably provide a slight bump for Trump.  But I'm not sure how building a wall between Mexico and the US is going to stop terrorist attacks outside of our borders.  Is there any other foreign policy that Trump has suggested during this campaign?

Here's one

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 22, 2016, 05:18:19 PM
Hilary choses Tim Kaine for vp.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on July 23, 2016, 11:10:22 AM
Not a gold bug per se, as that ship has sailed with no turning back since the days of Nixon. 4th Amendment/Privacy supporter.

Cuban was going to distribute "Loose Change" not as a refutation of theory, but support thereof. He backed away once the complaints got loud enough to hear them in the boardroom.

My .02c

SGIP
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 23, 2016, 05:27:54 PM
Not a gold bug per se, as that ship has sailed with no turning back since the days of Nixon. 4th Amendment/Privacy supporter.

Cuban was going to distribute "Loose Change" not as a refutation of theory, but support thereof. He backed away once the complaints got loud enough to hear them in the boardroom.

My .02c

SGIP

Okay, but that seems to be Rand Paul's sole driving mission - to "end the Fed." Other than that, he's typical Bible Belt social conservative stuff, no?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on July 25, 2016, 06:18:07 PM
Clinton is projected to easily win the Electoral College vote, regardless of how the popular vote turns out.  Unless she looses almost all the key battleground states, the Donald probably won't win....but....


...The Kansas City Royals & Cleveland Cavaliers are current champions for their respective leagues and Brexit was a surprise winner...so anything is possible...even a Trump victory.

Trump's odds are at 40%

More like 57.5% according to Nate Silver...NATE

SILVER: Donald Trump would most likely win the election if it were held today

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-polls-2016-7 (http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-polls-2016-7)

If the election were held Monday, Donald Trump would likely win.

That's what renowned statistician Nate Silver  projected on Monday for his data journalism outlet FiveThirtyEight.

In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 26, 2016, 09:57:22 AM
If the election were held Monday, Donald Trump would likely win.

That's what renowned statistician Nate Silver  projected on Monday for his data journalism outlet FiveThirtyEight.

In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency

46.8% after convention bump. Why not link 538 directly? http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on July 26, 2016, 10:29:29 AM
Now-Cast has Trump ahead 54.2%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 26, 2016, 11:28:10 AM
Now-Cast has Trump ahead 54.2%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now)

I think that is mostly due to the widening lead he is getting in FL.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on July 26, 2016, 11:57:17 AM
I agree but he continues to gain in many battleground states (PN OH and VN).   Terror attacks elsewhere are helping him too.  If this convention implodes he is on a steep roll that will be hard to stop.  Bernie's people are looking like they may defect to a third party guy if they don't go to Trump.  Any way you cut it the table is clearing.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 26, 2016, 12:25:11 PM
I agree but he continues to gain in many battleground states (PN OH and VN).   Terror attacks elsewhere are helping him too.  If this convention implodes he is on a steep roll that will be hard to stop.  Bernie's people are looking like they may defect to a third party guy if they don't go to Trump.  Any way you cut it the table is clearing.

Let's put it this way. If Trump does NOT win FL, there are not many paths to victory.

There's another interesting infographic here http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html). Different probabilities so take those with a grain of salt. It is interesting to play with the tree chart a bit down the page and click on different scenarios at the state level.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on July 26, 2016, 02:06:57 PM
Gary Johnson!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on July 27, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
Trumpgate?
Trump calls on Russia to find Hillary emails.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on July 27, 2016, 04:36:39 PM
Gary Johnson!

Before you throw your support behind Gary Johnson, make sure you learn his positions:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on July 27, 2016, 05:55:36 PM
Wouldn't a vote for Gary Johnson essentially mean a vote for Trump?  If you are anti-Clinton but even more anti-trump, you shouldn't vote for GJ, bc he has no chance of winning.  Of course that thinking primarily applies to voters in battleground states.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on July 27, 2016, 09:56:15 PM
While it may not affect Trump/Hillary, votes for an independent helps in future elections.

I'm tired of a 2-party system.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on July 27, 2016, 10:37:46 PM
Thought we could get a third party when Perot got 19% of the popular vote but still just have two parties.

Imo...... getting 19% of the popular vote and not one electoral vote means the masses aren't properly being represented in elections.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on July 28, 2016, 01:54:16 PM
Thought we could get a third party when Perot got 19% of the popular vote but still just have two parties.

Imo...... getting 19% of the popular vote and not one electoral vote means the masses aren't properly being represented in elections.

It gets even worse than that. Say, several candidates are running and none gets at least 270 electoral votes. In that case the house of representatives gets to decide who to pick among the top 3 contenders (each state gets 1 vote).
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on July 28, 2016, 06:30:16 PM
Thought we could get a third party when Perot got 19% of the popular vote but still just have two parties.

Imo...... getting 19% of the popular vote and not one electoral vote means the masses aren't properly being represented in elections.

It gets even worse than that. Say, several candidates are running and none gets at least 270 electoral votes. In that case the house of representatives gets to decide who to pick among the top 3 contenders (each state gets 1 vote).

Yes, BUT the way the system is now, it's difficult for a third candidate to carry a state and even get any electoral votes.

Perot got NONE despite garnering nearly 19% of the national popular vote.

California gets the short stick in elections. The GOP doesn't think they can win the state and the Dems know they'll win so both parties basically ignore the state despite the big 55 electoral vote prize. The state provides lots of tax revenue for the feds and imo we should matter.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on August 01, 2016, 03:54:11 PM
Now-cast has Trump at 17.7%
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 02, 2016, 12:06:42 PM
Trump promises to crack down on porn if elected.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/640282/donald-trump-promises-crack-down-pornography-elected-president

Are you kidding me? This is that least thing he should be concerned about.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 02, 2016, 12:08:10 PM
The dude is insane. He's not playing to a crazy base to garner votes. He is crazy.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-sanity-mental-health-000000384.html

http://www.atlredline.com/trump-men-disagree-with-the-concept-of-sexual-harassmen-1784708074
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on August 02, 2016, 12:17:09 PM
Not sure why he even got the nomination, with all of the crazy statements that he saids. On top of that he is just a plain bully. Can't imagine he will be the next president. We would have a full blown WWIII.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on August 02, 2016, 12:27:05 PM
Actually, Clinton is more likely to get us into WWIII than Trump. Trump asks questions like why are we threatening war against Russia over Crimea when 80% of the people in Crimea are happier with Russia than they were with Kiev? Hillary never met a war she did not wholeheartedly support. At least Trump asks questions first.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: GH on August 02, 2016, 12:52:02 PM
This is what scare me more ..  We will hopefully suffer only at most of 4 years under a bad president, but undesirable new supreme court justices can affect or reshape American values and way of life for a very long time ...  something to think about ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-next-president-could-reshape-the-supreme-court/

In the next few years, the Supreme Court may face as many as four vacancies as some of the justices age or enter retirement ....
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 02, 2016, 01:06:33 PM
This is what scare me more ..  We will hopefully suffer only at most of 4 years under a bad president, but undesirable new supreme court justices can affect or reshape American values and way of life for a very long time ...  something to think about ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-next-president-could-reshape-the-supreme-court/

In the next few years, the Supreme Court may face as many as four vacancies as some of the justices age or enter retirement ....

Pray tell, what is an "undesirable Supreme Court Justice" in your opinion?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: GH on August 02, 2016, 01:24:06 PM
This is what scare me more ..  We will hopefully suffer only at most of 4 years under a bad president, but undesirable new supreme court justices can affect or reshape American values and way of life for a very long time ...  something to think about ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-next-president-could-reshape-the-supreme-court/

In the next few years, the Supreme Court may face as many as four vacancies as some of the justices age or enter retirement ....

Pray tell, what is an "undesirable Supreme Court Justice" in your opinion?

I'll keep my opinion to myself, bu my point is your electing of Trump or Clinton is only for 4 years, but the indirect result of their potential supreme court justice appointment can affect your way of life for a way much longer time. 

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on August 02, 2016, 03:04:36 PM
This is what scare me more ..  We will hopefully suffer only at most of 4 years under a bad president, but undesirable new supreme court justices can affect or reshape American values and way of life for a very long time ...  something to think about ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-next-president-could-reshape-the-supreme-court/

In the next few years, the Supreme Court may face as many as four vacancies as some of the justices age or enter retirement ....

Pray tell, what is an "undesirable Supreme Court Justice" in your opinion?

I'll keep my opinion to myself, bu my point is your electing of Trump or Clinton is only for 4 years, but the indirect result of their potential supreme court justice appointment can affect your way of life for a way much longer time.

"We’ll see Roe vs. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.” [Mike Pence]
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on August 02, 2016, 03:25:42 PM
The interesting thing is that many conservatives who were nominated to the supreme court turned into super-liberals once on the supreme court (Warren, Brennan, etc.).  It's never happened the other way though, no liberal candidate has ever turned into a conservative justice. This leads me to believe the supreme court has a liberalifying effect on its justices.  So if a conservative president gets a conservative justice confirmed, that does not mean a lifetime of conservative decisions from that justice.  Eisenhower said in 1969 that he was totally gobsmacked that Bill Brennan (who Ike nominated in 1956) turned into a flaming liberal on the court. Ike called it the worst mistake of his presidency.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 02, 2016, 03:30:50 PM
This is what scare me more ..  We will hopefully suffer only at most of 4 years under a bad president, but undesirable new supreme court justices can affect or reshape American values and way of life for a very long time ...  something to think about ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-next-president-could-reshape-the-supreme-court/

In the next few years, the Supreme Court may face as many as four vacancies as some of the justices age or enter retirement ....

Pray tell, what is an "undesirable Supreme Court Justice" in your opinion?

I'll keep my opinion to myself, bu my point is your electing of Trump or Clinton is only for 4 years, but the indirect result of their potential supreme court justice appointment can affect your way of life for a way much longer time.

"We’ll see Roe vs. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.” [Mike Pence]

But the Right constantly complains about "activist" judges! Surely, no Republican would want a SCOTUS Justice to come in and actively reverse 40+ years of precedent in women's privacy rights.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 03, 2016, 09:10:51 AM
Scalia Died So Your Right To Vote Can Live
http://www.atlredline.com/scalia-died-so-your-right-to-vote-can-live-1784720059
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 03, 2016, 09:28:07 AM
Scalia Died So Your Right To Vote Can Live
http://www.atlredline.com/scalia-died-so-your-right-to-vote-can-live-1784720059

Since you brought up Scalia. How come an autopsy wasn't performed?


http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on August 03, 2016, 09:57:37 AM
Scalia Died So Your Right To Vote Can Live
http://www.atlredline.com/scalia-died-so-your-right-to-vote-can-live-1784720059

Since you brought up Scalia. How come an autopsy wasn't performed?


http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head/

That was the wish of his family and there was nothing suspicious about an old man with chronic cardiovascular disease passing away in his sleep. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvine Dream on August 03, 2016, 10:02:17 AM
Scalia Died So Your Right To Vote Can Live
http://www.atlredline.com/scalia-died-so-your-right-to-vote-can-live-1784720059

Since you brought up Scalia. How come an autopsy wasn't performed?


http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head/

That was the wish of his family and there was nothing suspicious about an old man with chronic cardiovascular disease passing away in his sleep.
That was the wish of his family since the old man with chronic cardiovascular disease planned his death to pass away without pain.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 03, 2016, 10:05:14 AM
Scalia Died So Your Right To Vote Can Live
http://www.atlredline.com/scalia-died-so-your-right-to-vote-can-live-1784720059

Since you brought up Scalia. How come an autopsy wasn't performed?


http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head/

Conspiracy theories run rampant in Right circles, don't they?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 03, 2016, 10:25:16 AM
Scalia Died So Your Right To Vote Can Live
http://www.atlredline.com/scalia-died-so-your-right-to-vote-can-live-1784720059

Since you brought up Scalia. How come an autopsy wasn't performed?


http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head/

Conspiracy theories run rampant in Right circles, don't they?

I think it is reasonable assumption to ask was there foul play? Since a pillow was found over Scalia's head according to the owner of the hotel in the article previously mentioned.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 04, 2016, 09:22:02 AM
Scalia Died So Your Right To Vote Can Live
http://www.atlredline.com/scalia-died-so-your-right-to-vote-can-live-1784720059

Since you brought up Scalia. How come an autopsy wasn't performed?


http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/scalia-found-dead-with-pillow-over-his-head/

Conspiracy theories run rampant in Right circles, don't they?

I think it is reasonable assumption to ask was there foul play? Since a pillow was found over Scalia's head according to the owner of the hotel in the article previously mentioned.

Here's why this isn't reasonable, and is in fact completely unreasonable. I'm hyper-sensitive to specious arguments right now due to Trump's vomiting daily of uncivilized insinuations and innuendo.

Assuming he died with a "pillow on his face" (which appears to have already been debunked http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/owner-ranch-scalia-died-clarifies-pillow-location-article-1.2535124), here's some of the extremely poor logic you'd have to follow to even entertain the prospect of murder, much less create public speculation:

1) Why would the murderer leave the pillow on Scalia's face? Does he not want investigators to start with the assumption natural causes resulted in the death?

2) Did the initial police, crime scene investigators and their supervisors ignore the "pillow on his face" and not investigate this? Why would they do this? This is a deeply red state, no? They're all conspiring to cover-up Scalia's murder? Why?

3) Did the coroner join the conspiracy too? Why would he ignore evidence of suffocation and conclude a natural cause death?

So, if we ignore all of these extremely implausible, if not impossible, stars to align in the conspiracy theory, then we can ask inflammatory specious questions and try to fool some people. This is what Trump does daily.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 04, 2016, 10:22:38 AM
You can support Trump for many reasons, but you cannot argue he's a serious candidate for President. That, he is not.

se·ri·ous
adjective
1. (of a person) solemn or thoughtful in character or manner.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on August 04, 2016, 10:40:22 AM
I know of many Republicans that will be voting for HRC this November, but I don't know of any Democrats that will be voting for DJT.  Do you?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: zubs on August 04, 2016, 10:41:05 AM
people like trump because he doesn't say things to get elected.  Unlike other politicians who would have 20 focus groups on what to say during a speach to garner the most votes.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on August 04, 2016, 10:42:43 AM
people like trump because he doesn't say things to get elected.

That's because he doesn't really want the job.  In his ideal scenario, he wants to lose the election but win the popular vote.  He can then go back to his day job with TONS of free advertising. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: zubs on August 04, 2016, 11:20:58 AM
Trump sure talks a lot of shit.  I am waiting with bated breath for the first debates.  That TV show is going to be a prime time killer.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on August 04, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
Trump sure talks a lot of shit.  I am waiting with bated breath for the first debates.  That TV show is going to be a prime time killer.

Problem is that 2 of the 3 debates are going head-to-head against NFL Sunday/Monday night games.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on August 04, 2016, 12:00:35 PM
Trump sure talks a lot of shit.  I am waiting with bated breath for the first debates.  That TV show is going to be a prime time killer.

Problem is that 2 of the 3 debates are going head-to-head against NFL Sunday/Monday night games.

This has not been a problem in the past. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/do-nfl-games-really-take-eyeballs-off-presidential-debates/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/do-nfl-games-really-take-eyeballs-off-presidential-debates/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 04, 2016, 12:09:29 PM
Trump sure talks a lot of shit.  I am waiting with bated breath for the first debates.  That TV show is going to be a prime time killer.

Problem is that 2 of the 3 debates are going head-to-head against NFL Sunday/Monday night games.

We can speculate that this would pull more Trump supporters from the debates. If there were a concurrent NASCAR event for each, Trump would lose many supporters' eyeballs.  :-X
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on August 04, 2016, 12:12:44 PM
Trump sure talks a lot of shit.  I am waiting with bated breath for the first debates.  That TV show is going to be a prime time killer.

Problem is that 2 of the 3 debates are going head-to-head against NFL Sunday/Monday night games.



This has not been a problem in the past. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/do-nfl-games-really-take-eyeballs-off-presidential-debates/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/do-nfl-games-really-take-eyeballs-off-presidential-debates/)

Good find.  I hope the debate ratings crush it...and looking at the NFL games....that 1st debate (against a crappy Falcons/Saints game) should do just that. 

I want to see Trump under fire with the whole country watching him and see how he blows his lid.  Stephanopoulos went easy on him....HRC and those debate moderators won't be.

The VP debates, on the other hand, will be snoozers.  I hope a Cops marathon is on SpikeTV those nights.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 04, 2016, 12:20:11 PM
Trump sure talks a lot of shit.  I am waiting with bated breath for the first debates.  That TV show is going to be a prime time killer.

Problem is that 2 of the 3 debates are going head-to-head against NFL Sunday/Monday night games.



This has not been a problem in the past. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/do-nfl-games-really-take-eyeballs-off-presidential-debates/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/do-nfl-games-really-take-eyeballs-off-presidential-debates/)

Good find.  I hope the debate ratings crush it...and looking at the NFL games....that 1st debate (against a crappy Falcons/Saints game) should do just that. 

I want to see Trump under fire with the whole country watching him and see how he blows his lid.  Stephanopoulos went easy on him....HRC and those debate moderators won't be.

The VP debates, on the other hand, will be snoozers.  I hope a Cops marathon is on SpikeTV those nights.

Maybe Trump will have his "Nixon Moment" sweating profusely causing spray-tan run-off to change his shirt collar from white to burnt orange, all while appearing completely uncomfortable?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on August 05, 2016, 10:31:43 AM
Trump sure talks a lot of shit.  I am waiting with bated breath for the first debates.  That TV show is going to be a prime time killer.

Problem is that 2 of the 3 debates are going head-to-head against NFL Sunday/Monday night games.



This has not been a problem in the past. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/do-nfl-games-really-take-eyeballs-off-presidential-debates/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/do-nfl-games-really-take-eyeballs-off-presidential-debates/)

Good find.  I hope the debate ratings crush it...and looking at the NFL games....that 1st debate (against a crappy Falcons/Saints game) should do just that. 

I want to see Trump under fire with the whole country watching him and see how he blows his lid.  Stephanopoulos went easy on him....HRC and those debate moderators won't be.

The VP debates, on the other hand, will be snoozers.  I hope a Cops marathon is on SpikeTV those nights.

Maybe Trump will have his "Nixon Moment" sweating profusely causing spray-tan run-off to change his shirt collar from white to burnt orange, all while appearing completely uncomfortable?

With his level of Botox, there is no active sweat gland left on his head.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 05, 2016, 07:19:01 PM
NBC/WSJ Poll: Hillary Clinton Jumps to Nine Point Lead Over Donald Trump

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/nbc-wsj-poll-clinton-jumps-nine-point-lead-over-trump-n623131

"In this latest poll, Clinton enjoys a significant advantage among women (51 percent to Trump's 35 percent), African Americans (91 percent to 1 percent), all non-white voters (69 percent to 17 percent), young voters (46 percent to 34 percent), and white voters with a college degree (47 percent to 40 percent)."

There's no sugarcoating these trends. You can't tailor-focus your message to working-class Rustbelt White men and expect much of anyone else to listen.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 08, 2016, 11:18:15 AM
The Electoral College map today, is not pretty if you're a Republican:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

What's worse, is if these spreads hold, or even worsen, Republicans will lose seats in the Senate, House, and in state races, not just the Presidency.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 09, 2016, 05:40:09 AM
Trump is being justifiably mocked for yet another specious argument:

Twitter Users Hilariously Troll Trump With #ManyPeopleAreSaying Meme
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-many-people-are-saying_us_57a95219e4b06adc11f14357?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 09, 2016, 01:07:29 PM
Nate Silver has Clinton at an 87.5% probability today:

Who will win the presidency?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on August 09, 2016, 01:12:13 PM
Nate Silver has Clinton at an 87.5% probability today:

Who will win the presidency?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

That's why Trump is already saying it is all rigged. He is setting the stage for a loss that he will blame on a fraudulent election system rather than on himself.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Paris on August 10, 2016, 12:22:53 AM
Nate Silver has Clinton at an 87.5% probability today:

Who will win the presidency?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

That's why Trump is already saying it is all rigged. He is setting the stage for a loss that he will blame on a fraudulent election system rather than on himself.

of course because he is the poster child for narcissism. He could never be at fault for his loss!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paperboyNC on August 10, 2016, 07:40:39 AM
The Electoral College map today, is not pretty if you're a Republican:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

What's worse, is if these spreads hold, or even worsen, Republicans will lose seats in the Senate, House, and in state races, not just the Presidency.

What's interesting is that with all the talk of the Dems being favored by the electoral map, the only recent president to win with the electoral map but not the general election is a Republican (George W Bush 2000).
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on August 10, 2016, 11:52:51 AM
Keep in mind  Clinton won in 1992 with something in the 43% of votes range.  Both elections were sub-50%.

Either way, Trump losing, IMO, is a good thing. Losing horribly is better.

Frankly, I hope Gary Johnson makes the hurdle to show up for the debates.  Trump coming in third would do the country good, IMHO.

All that said, the polls scare me.  While Clinton is looking strong on the electoral map, it's based off of individual State races.   

While all sides have their rabid supporters, how many of the 15-20% barely made up their minds are telling the truth and won't flipflop?

A good example is the forecast showing Clinton chance of winning Florida, and the two most recent polls show Jul 31-Aug 7  43%/43%/7%  which means 7% undecided others, 43% Clinton, 43% Trump, 7% Johnson.  And 2nd most recent Aug1-3, 43/39/4 which leaves 16% unaccounted for on a small poll.

Then there is the question of, will people that vote for Trump actually say so on the survey?

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 10, 2016, 03:53:44 PM
Keep in mind  Clinton won in 1992 with something in the 43% of votes range.  Both elections were sub-50%.

Either way, Trump losing, IMO, is a good thing. Losing horribly is better.

Frankly, I hope Gary Johnson makes the hurdle to show up for the debates.  Trump coming in third would do the country good, IMHO.

All that said, the polls scare me.  While Clinton is looking strong on the electoral map, it's based off of individual State races.   

While all sides have their rabid supporters, how many of the 15-20% barely made up their minds are telling the truth and won't flipflop?

A good example is the forecast showing Clinton chance of winning Florida, and the two most recent polls show Jul 31-Aug 7  43%/43%/7%  which means 7% undecided others, 43% Clinton, 43% Trump, 7% Johnson.  And 2nd most recent Aug1-3, 43/39/4 which leaves 16% unaccounted for on a small poll.

Then there is the question of, will people that vote for Trump actually say so on the survey?

Losing horribly TO A WOMAN WITH SIMILARLY SIZED HANDS is the best.  ;)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 11, 2016, 09:14:04 AM
Nate Silver has Clinton at an 87.5% probability today:

Who will win the presidency?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

That's why Trump is already saying it is all rigged. He is setting the stage for a loss that he will blame on a fraudulent election system rather than on himself.

It's a circus. It's up in the air regarding the debates. He wants to change the moderator.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 11, 2016, 09:23:12 AM
Will he debate? He hasn't shown much interest in preparing for domestic nor foreign policy details to date. Is he going to cram study this stuff so as to not appear as completely uniformed? His poll numbers in swing states continue to worsen, so he has little to lose debating at this point, except for maybe a deteriorating integrity level.

His energy level this morning at the NAHB speech, his return to rambling speech (as opposed to sticking to prepared remarks from a teleprompter), his return to inflammatory speech, and his repeated comments suggesting he might lose the election, all suggest to me he'll find a reason to avoid the debates.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Bullsback on August 11, 2016, 09:50:53 AM
Will he debate? He hasn't shown much interest in preparing for domestic nor foreign policy details to date. Is he going to cram study this stuff so as to not appear as completely uniformed? His poll numbers in swing states continue to worsen, so he has little to lose debating at this point, except for maybe a deteriorating integrity level.

His energy level this morning at the NAHB speech, his return to rambling speech (as opposed to sticking to prepared remarks from a teleprompter), his return to inflammatory speech, and his repeated comments suggesting he might lose the election, all suggest to me he'll find a reason to avoid the debates.
It all suggests to me that he was never really interested in being president and was more interested in building his brand and ego but not ready to truly run the country.  I'm still convinced him and his billionaire chronies (plus ole Bill Clinton) decided this would be a fun stunt to hand Hillary the election. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 11, 2016, 10:00:04 AM
Who in the right mind says this?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/trump-if-i-lose-ill-have-a-nice-long-vacation.html


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on August 11, 2016, 10:39:55 AM
With the Olympics and Back To School, no one really is paying any attention to the details. There's no sense investing in ads during August. Expect things to warp into overdrive after 9/15/16 (post "I'm the bigger 9/11 patriot" hoo-ha) with the inevitable "October Surprise" coming. People have very, very short memories and minds get made up late in the game. All the stuff going on now is keeping the base from falling asleep.

I enjoy hearing from the Right that Trump was put in the election cycle to aid the Clinton's to win in November, then after the DNC E-mail dump, the Left was all "Trump and Putin are forming the VOLTRON of DOOM, trying to defeat Hillary". That's quite the long game strategy Trump's playing if both sides of the aisle say he's out to get each of them.

My .02c
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on August 11, 2016, 10:42:59 AM
With the Olympics and Back To School, no one really is paying any attention to the details. There's no sense investing in ads during August. Expect things to warp into overdrive after 9/15/16 (post "I'm the bigger 9/11 patriot" hoo-ha) with the inevitable "October Surprise" coming. People have very, very short memories and minds get made up late in the game. All the stuff going on now is keeping the base from falling asleep.

I enjoy hearing from the Right that Trump was put in the election cycle to aid the Clinton's to win in November, then after the DNC E-mail dump, the Left was all "Trump and Putin are forming the VOLTRON of DOOM, trying to defeat Hillary". Which is it? He's a plant or he's really in it?

My .02c

Trump is neither a plant or 'really in it`.  I think he's willingly in this election for publicity purposes.  I don't think he really wants the job.  If he can make the election close (from a popular vote standpoint) but lose the electoral college, he'll be very happy with that.  He can go back to his day job with much more visibility and he can claim that he won the popular vote. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 11, 2016, 11:33:30 AM
With the Olympics and Back To School, no one really is paying any attention to the details. There's no sense investing in ads during August. Expect things to warp into overdrive after 9/15/16 (post "I'm the bigger 9/11 patriot" hoo-ha) with the inevitable "October Surprise" coming. People have very, very short memories and minds get made up late in the game. All the stuff going on now is keeping the base from falling asleep.

I enjoy hearing from the Right that Trump was put in the election cycle to aid the Clinton's to win in November, then after the DNC E-mail dump, the Left was all "Trump and Putin are forming the VOLTRON of DOOM, trying to defeat Hillary". Which is it? He's a plant or he's really in it?

My .02c

Trump is neither a plant or 'really in it`.  I think he's willingly in this election for publicity purposes.  I don't think he really wants the job.  If he can make the election close (from a popular vote standpoint) but lose the electoral college, he'll be very happy with that.  He can go back to his day job with much more visibility and he can claim that he won the popular vote.

He's already planning his vacation. Idk
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on August 11, 2016, 11:38:31 AM
...and we are still a looong way out.  Careful in putting too much faith in the bouncing poll numbers.  As much as I hate the sayin...This time is a bit different.

Is Hillary's bounce deflating? Now she is only three points ahead of Trump in latest national poll

The latest national poll has Hillary Clinton only three points up against Donald Trump after several post-Democratic National Convention surveys had her beating her Republican rival by double-digits.

The new Rasmussen Reports four-way poll has Clinton leading the pack with 43 percent of likely voters supporting her, compared to Trump's 40 percent, which is within the poll's plus-or-minus 3 percent margin of error. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734800/Is-Hillary-s-bounce-deflating-three-points-ahead-Trump-latest-national-poll.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734800/Is-Hillary-s-bounce-deflating-three-points-ahead-Trump-latest-national-poll.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on August 11, 2016, 11:59:26 AM
Almost all polling data is captured via landlines.

Enough said.

My .02c
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 11, 2016, 12:16:48 PM
Almost all polling data is captured via landlines.

Enough said.

My .02c

I remember hearing this was an issue years ago, and that pollsters have resolved it.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 11, 2016, 12:19:18 PM
...and we are still a looong way out.  Careful in putting too much faith in the bouncing poll numbers.  As much as I hate the sayin...This time is a bit different.

Is Hillary's bounce deflating? Now she is only three points ahead of Trump in latest national poll

The latest national poll has Hillary Clinton only three points up against Donald Trump after several post-Democratic National Convention surveys had her beating her Republican rival by double-digits.

The new Rasmussen Reports four-way poll has Clinton leading the pack with 43 percent of likely voters supporting her, compared to Trump's 40 percent, which is within the poll's plus-or-minus 3 percent margin of error. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734800/Is-Hillary-s-bounce-deflating-three-points-ahead-Trump-latest-national-poll.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734800/Is-Hillary-s-bounce-deflating-three-points-ahead-Trump-latest-national-poll.html)

Yes, polls can change dramatically over the next three months, but let's not use one national poll to suggest this race is close today. Nate Silver's system captures all of the current polls and breaks it down:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

TODAY, Clinton's probability of winning is 86.2% to Trump's 13.8%.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on August 11, 2016, 01:42:24 PM
...and we are still a looong way out.  Careful in putting too much faith in the bouncing poll numbers.  As much as I hate the sayin...This time is a bit different.

Is Hillary's bounce deflating? Now she is only three points ahead of Trump in latest national poll

The latest national poll has Hillary Clinton only three points up against Donald Trump after several post-Democratic National Convention surveys had her beating her Republican rival by double-digits.

The new Rasmussen Reports four-way poll has Clinton leading the pack with 43 percent of likely voters supporting her, compared to Trump's 40 percent, which is within the poll's plus-or-minus 3 percent margin of error. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734800/Is-Hillary-s-bounce-deflating-three-points-ahead-Trump-latest-national-poll.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734800/Is-Hillary-s-bounce-deflating-three-points-ahead-Trump-latest-national-poll.html)

I believe Mondale won 40% of the vote in '84 and still only won 1 state.  1.  Landslide victory for Reagan with less than 60% of the popular vote. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 11, 2016, 02:01:44 PM
And we all know this Presidential election is rigged.  ;)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 14, 2016, 03:44:08 PM
Trump is now blaming the media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/14/donald-trump-blames-the-media-for-his-own-failure-to-run-a-general-election-campaign/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 14, 2016, 07:01:03 PM
Trump can't possibly provide this much entertainment nearly every day until the election, can he?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on August 14, 2016, 07:14:44 PM
Trump can't possibly provide this much entertainment nearly every day until the election, can he?

Yes he can....


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Paris on August 14, 2016, 07:27:08 PM
Trump can't possibly provide this much entertainment nearly every day until the election, can he?

Yes he can....


LOL! How many times is this guy going to shoot himself in the foot? The sad thing is he still won't lose any voters  ::)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on August 15, 2016, 01:13:33 AM
Yeah, it's why republicans were calling him a RINO early on.  Prior to running, his views were quite different.  I find that I agreed with him more frequently in the past.  He is a salesperson, though, and says whatever people want to hear.

I think that part of his appeal is uncertainty.  People are certain the other politicians will f things up.  Since trump flip flops and can't keep any story straight, there is a chance that some of the things he says is what his supporters want.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 15, 2016, 10:15:03 AM
I think Trump is now calling for all devoutly religious folks to be banned from entering the US:

"Donald Trump on Monday will call for a new ideological test for admission to the United States, vetting applicants on their stance on issues like religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-call-for-new-ideological-test-for-admission-to-us/ar-BBvD2lE?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on August 16, 2016, 12:36:34 AM
The fear is that some people want to kill gays, and those people shouldn't be allowed in the country.  The fear is that some people don't believe women should be equal and those people shouldn't be allowed in the country.  The fear is that some people want to kill those that don't follow their religion and those people shouldn't be allowed in the country.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 17, 2016, 09:42:45 AM
Time to shake up the campaign. (Again)

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/17/donald-trump-just-set-the-house-on-fire-now-what-commmentary.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 17, 2016, 12:01:09 PM
Trump is walking-back all of his extreme immigration and foreign policy rhetoric. His support from non-white/male/non-college educated Republicans seems to revolve around hope he'll cut taxes dramatically and appoint "conservative" judges to SCOTUS.

Unfortunately for folks who want more "conservative" judges on SCOTUS, Trump is currently killing this prospect in two ways: handing the Presidency to a Democrat and turning the Senate over to the Democrats:

The GOP’s Chances Of Holding The Senate Are Following Trump Downhill
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-chances-of-holding-the-senate-are-following-trump-downhill/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 17, 2016, 12:21:42 PM
Let's be honest both candidates are not people's top choice.

Trump is walking-back all of his extreme immigration and foreign policy rhetoric. His support from non-white/male/non-college educated Republicans seems to revolve around hope he'll cut taxes dramatically and appoint "conservative" judges to SCOTUS.

Unfortunately for folks who want more "conservative" judges on SCOTUS, Trump is currently killing this prospect in two ways: handing the Presidency to a Democrat and turning the Senate over to the Democrats:

The GOP’s Chances Of Holding The Senate Are Following Trump Downhill
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-chances-of-holding-the-senate-are-following-trump-downhill/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 17, 2016, 01:27:05 PM
Let's be honest both candidates are not people's top choice.

Trump is walking-back all of his extreme immigration and foreign policy rhetoric. His support from non-white/male/non-college educated Republicans seems to revolve around hope he'll cut taxes dramatically and appoint "conservative" judges to SCOTUS.

Unfortunately for folks who want more "conservative" judges on SCOTUS, Trump is currently killing this prospect in two ways: handing the Presidency to a Democrat and turning the Senate over to the Democrats:

The GOP’s Chances Of Holding The Senate Are Following Trump Downhill
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-chances-of-holding-the-senate-are-following-trump-downhill/

Agreed. Both candidates have serious deep flaws. I just find Trump an unbelievably despicable human being, regardless of wherever his policies stand (today).
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 18, 2016, 09:07:09 AM
Before yesterday, I just assumed Breitbart was "Fox News online." Wow! It ain't that! Has anyone visited this site and read some of the articles. This Bannon guy now heading Trump's campaign is insanely extreme, but I guess this is what Trump's been reading for years fueling his ideas.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 19, 2016, 08:41:44 AM
Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort Resigns

Following the Trump campaign is like watching a reality tv show.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 19, 2016, 09:02:16 AM
Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort Resigns

Following the Trump campaign is like watching a reality tv show.

Not "like," it is a reality TV show. The Trump team spent the past two days explaining to everyone that this is not a "shake-up," that they were "adding" more "winners" to the team. Why go through all that trouble? It just confirms the perception of the ineptitude endemic to this campaign.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on August 19, 2016, 09:45:41 AM
Every time I want a good laugh I watch his comments on YouTube or debates. He might be fit for a comedian role after all this said and done with the election.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 19, 2016, 09:53:11 AM
Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort Resigns

Following the Trump campaign is like watching a reality tv show.

Not "like," it is a reality TV show. The Trump team spent the past two days explaining to everyone that this is not a "shake-up," that they were "adding" more "winners" to the team. Why go through all that trouble? It just confirms the perception of the ineptitude endemic to this campaign.

All this could have been avoided if Trump's people did some due diligence and/or background check.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 23, 2016, 05:54:03 AM
Stop pandering to old angry poorly educated white men at your rallies, recently desperately attempting to appear less bigoted than years of comments would suggest you truly are, and release your tax returns Donald.

Former IRS chief says Trump has no excuse to not release his tax returns
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/former-irs-chief-says-trump-100000186.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on August 23, 2016, 08:47:43 AM
You don't have to choose between a lying angry narcissistic CEO and a lying corrupt pay for play politician.

https://www.johnsonweld.com/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 23, 2016, 09:14:58 AM
You don't have to choose between a lying angry narcissistic CEO and a lying corrupt pay for play politician.

https://www.johnsonweld.com/

Agreed. My political positions align very closely with Johnson's, but he has some extreme ideas that are dealbreakers - one is ending the Fed.

But let's be fair here. Clinton is your typical lying corrupt pay-for-play politician, while Trump is on a whole 'nother level of despicable behavior.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on August 23, 2016, 01:08:03 PM
Always two sides to every coin

Stumped by Trump’s success? Take a drive outside US cities

If you drive anywhere in Pennsylvania, from the turnpike to the old US routes to the dirt roads connecting small towns like Hooversville with “bigger” small towns like Somerset, you might conclude that Donald Trump is ahead in this state by double digits.

Large signs, small signs, homemade signs, signs that wrap around barns, signs that go from one end of a fence to another dot the landscape with such frequency that, if you were playing the old-fashioned road-trip game of counting cows, you would hit 100 in just one small town like this one.

n Ruffsdale, I am pretty sure I saw more than 100 Trump signs.

It’s as if people here have not turned on the television to hear pundits drone on and on about how badly Trump is losing in Pennsylvania.

It’s not just visual: In interview after interview in all corners of the state, I’ve found that Trump’s support across the ideological spectrum remains strong. Democrats, Republicans, independents, people who have not voted in presidential elections for years — they have not wavered in their support.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/22/stumped-by-trumps-success-take-a-drive-outside-us-cities/ (http://nypost.com/2016/08/22/stumped-by-trumps-success-take-a-drive-outside-us-cities/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 23, 2016, 01:25:42 PM
I'm just a highfalutin city-fied over-educated pansy from LA. What do I know about Sarah Palin's "Real America"? I don't hunt, fish, nor own a gun, and I'm not a member of an organized religion. I live in a different world.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on August 23, 2016, 02:45:23 PM
Your statement reminds me of Pauline Kael's famous quote when Nixon won in '72

“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on August 24, 2016, 03:34:04 PM
US Army training program uses Hillary Clinton as an example of an insider threat to the country (careless or disgruntled government employee).

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/confirmed-army-training-slide-calling-hillary-an-insider-threat-is-real/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 25, 2016, 06:19:23 AM
Trump's campaign is now a complete Orwellian exercise. Check out the supporter's expression behind Trump when he calls Clinton a bigot:

Donald Trump shouts: ‘Hillary Clinton is a bigot!’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/24/donald-trump-shouts-hillary-clinton-is-a-bigot/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 26, 2016, 03:24:28 PM
Trump's campaign ceo faced domestic violence charges, but the charges were dropped, according to the article below.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/25/reports-trump-campaign-ceo-once-faced-domestic-violence-charges/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on August 26, 2016, 03:42:14 PM
Trump's campaign ceo faced domestic violence charges, but the charges were dropped, according to the article below.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/25/reports-trump-campaign-ceo-once-faced-domestic-violence-charges/

He's not gonna like the spotlight on him. He's also registered to vote in FL, despite not residing there - not the kinda "voter fraud" his site would decry, but voter fraud nonetheless.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 29, 2016, 04:14:29 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russians-hacked-two-u-s-voter-databases-say-officials-n639551

Two US States election databases were hacked!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on August 31, 2016, 12:05:21 AM
Trump to meet with Mexico's President

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-considers-last-minute-meeting-in-mexico-with-the-countrys-president/2016/08/30/5a694790-6f12-11e6-9705-23e51a2f424d_story.html

Let's see how this goes! Ha
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 01, 2016, 09:17:52 AM
...and we are still a looong way out.  Careful in putting too much faith in the bouncing poll numbers.  As much as I hate the sayin...This time is a bit different.

Is Hillary's bounce deflating? Now she is only three points ahead of Trump in latest national poll

The latest national poll has Hillary Clinton only three points up against Donald Trump after several post-Democratic National Convention surveys had her beating her Republican rival by double-digits.

The new Rasmussen Reports four-way poll has Clinton leading the pack with 43 percent of likely voters supporting her, compared to Trump's 40 percent, which is within the poll's plus-or-minus 3 percent margin of error. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734800/Is-Hillary-s-bounce-deflating-three-points-ahead-Trump-latest-national-poll.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734800/Is-Hillary-s-bounce-deflating-three-points-ahead-Trump-latest-national-poll.html)

I believe Mondale won 40% of the vote in '84 and still only won 1 state.  1.  Landslide victory for Reagan with less than 60% of the popular vote. 

See what I mean?

Thursday, September 01, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s post-convention lead has disappeared, putting her behind Donald Trump for the first time nationally since mid-July.

The latest weekly Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 40% support to Clinton’s 39% among Likely U.S. Voters, after Clinton led 42% to 38% a week ago.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 01, 2016, 09:31:40 AM
Let's not confuse national polls with probability of winning the electoral college and therefore becoming President. The latter is still showing a ~74% chance Clinton would be the next President, if the election were held today.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump's probability has doubled from ~13% a couple weeks ago to ~26% today! I'm guessing his low energy odd photo op with the Mexican President yesterday, followed immediately by his HIGH energy bombastic contradictory speech in AZ last night might cause his poll numbers some pain.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 01, 2016, 09:45:45 AM
I disagree, I bet you see a jump in his polls in the coming
week...we shall see who is right
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 01, 2016, 10:13:20 AM
I'm not making a prediction. I know how poorly educated and terribly informed we are in the US, much less how bigoted we are. He could very well become President.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 01, 2016, 10:49:15 AM
I'm not making a prediction. I know how poorly educated and terribly informed we are in the US, much less how bigoted we are. He could very well become President.
Well, if we were really that bigoted, then explain the last 8 years of Obama.

:)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 01, 2016, 10:53:52 AM
Ohio, Penn & Florida.

Pretty much Trump needs all three.  At an absolute minimum, he has to get two and almost all the other battle ground States.

If Clinton takes Georgia, she likely wins.

As State level polls stand today, if Trump loses Ohio (the smallest of the three), he needs to take every other battle ground State except New Hampshire and Iowa (or  take both of those and either Wis or Missouri)

If Clinton takes Penn, Trump needs to take the rest and either NH or IA.

Florida loss, he's Kalua Pork.

So basically, everything boils down to one thing, the 'undecided' show up and vote roughly 70/30 for Trump or the polls need be at the far extent of their margin of error.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 01, 2016, 11:00:52 AM
I'm not making a prediction. I know how poorly educated and terribly informed we are in the US, much less how bigoted we are. He could very well become President.
Well, if we were really that bigoted, then explain the last 8 years of Obama.

:)

Obama was/is so scandal-free, unlike Clinton, that "they" had to manufacture silliness to de-legitimize his Presidency - that Obama wasn't born here and is a Muslim. The King of the ridiculous birther movement is now the Republican nominee for President. Insane stuff...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 02, 2016, 09:14:08 AM
It's 9:15 am PST. Can someone tell me where Trump's immigration plan is at this hour?  :o
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 02, 2016, 10:35:17 AM
It's 9:15 am PST. Can someone tell me where Trump's immigration plan is at this hour?  :o

The Mexican president told Trump Mexico won't pay for the wall, according to the article.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/mexican-president-told-donald-trump-mexico-wont-pay-for-wall
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 02, 2016, 10:51:08 AM
It's 9:15 am PST. Can someone tell me where Trump's immigration plan is at this hour?  :o

He is the classic case of FLIP AND FLOPS. It's true on both counts.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 02, 2016, 10:57:59 AM
I do agree with Trump's response regarding kaepernick.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/30/trump_kaepernick_should_find_a_country_that_works_better_for_him.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 02, 2016, 12:19:46 PM
I do agree with Trump's response regarding kaepernick.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/30/trump_kaepernick_should_find_a_country_that_works_better_for_him.html

Why do you think it bothers you so much?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on September 02, 2016, 01:18:47 PM
It's 9:15 am PST. Can someone tell me where Trump's immigration plan is at this hour?  :o

(https://i.imgflip.com/19wtvs.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 02, 2016, 01:42:02 PM
When I heard that comment, it reminded me of leaving Staples (Laker games) or the Hollywood Bowl, and seeing the folks every 100 feet grilling hot dogs on top of shopping carts.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 02, 2016, 02:11:46 PM
I do agree with Trump's response regarding kaepernick.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/30/trump_kaepernick_should_find_a_country_that_works_better_for_him.html

Why do you think it bothers you so much?

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/09/01/nfl-executives-unload-on-colin-kaepernick-f-that-guy-hes-a-traitor/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 02, 2016, 02:13:36 PM
I do agree with Trump's response regarding kaepernick.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/30/trump_kaepernick_should_find_a_country_that_works_better_for_him.html

Why do you think it bothers you so much?

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/09/01/nfl-executives-unload-on-colin-kaepernick-f-that-guy-hes-a-traitor/

Did you just cite Breitbart.com? Really?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 02, 2016, 02:23:17 PM
I do agree with Trump's response regarding kaepernick.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/30/trump_kaepernick_should_find_a_country_that_works_better_for_him.html

Why do you think it bothers you so much?

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/09/01/nfl-executives-unload-on-colin-kaepernick-f-that-guy-hes-a-traitor/

Did you just cite Breitbart.com? Really?

Here's another site. The quotes from nfl execs are kind of harsh.

http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/09/colin_kaepernick_nfl_executives.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 02, 2016, 02:30:07 PM
Fair enough, but why does it bother you?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 02, 2016, 03:06:07 PM
Fair enough, but why does it bother you?

A person can say, the actions are disrespectful to the country by not standing up during the national anthem.

Then another issue is the socks he previously wore in practice.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/colin-kaepernicks-choice-of-socks-fueling-fire-hurting-his-message-154902318.html

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 06, 2016, 10:21:03 AM
I disagree, I bet you see a jump in his polls in the coming
week...we shall see who is right


Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey,

Clinton's convention propelled her to an 8-point lead among registered voters in an early-August CNN/ORC Poll. Clinton's lead has largely evaporated despite a challenging month for Trump, which saw an overhaul of his campaign staff, announcements of support for Clinton from several high-profile Republicans and criticism of his campaign strategy.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/index.html)

That is an uptick. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 06, 2016, 01:15:52 PM
Let's not confuse national polls with probability of winning the electoral college and therefore becoming President. The latter is still showing a ~74% chance Clinton would be the next President, if the election were held today.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump's probability has doubled from ~13% a couple weeks ago to ~26% today! I'm guessing his low energy odd photo op with the Mexican President yesterday, followed immediately by his HIGH energy bombastic contradictory speech in AZ last night might cause his poll numbers some pain.

Even Nate Silver has to notice...

Election Update: Clinton’s Lead Keeps Shrinking
10 questions as the stretch run begins.

By Nate Silver

Filed under 2016 Election

Published SEP 6, 2016

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-keeps-shrinking/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-keeps-shrinking/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 12, 2016, 11:24:28 AM
Wow!!

Hillary Clinton's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/08/28/watch-hillary-clintons-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week-n2211215 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/08/28/watch-hillary-clintons-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week-n2211215)

Donald Trump’s terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad week


http://rare.us/story/donald-trumps-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week/ (http://rare.us/story/donald-trumps-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 12, 2016, 11:30:23 AM
Wow!!

Hillary Clinton's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/08/28/watch-hillary-clintons-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week-n2211215 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/08/28/watch-hillary-clintons-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week-n2211215)

Donald Trump’s terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad week


http://rare.us/story/donald-trumps-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week/ (http://rare.us/story/donald-trumps-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week/)

If your sick/not feeling well, don't go to an event. (Common knowledge?)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 12, 2016, 01:04:18 PM
The armchair medical doctor in me thinks Trump is suffering from jaundice.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 12, 2016, 09:59:50 PM
Any truth to this "meeting"?

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/09/democrats-meeting-in-secret-to-pick-hillary-replacement/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 13, 2016, 09:08:41 AM

What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 13, 2016, 09:28:50 AM
My thoughts are, both candidates are old and obese (30%+ above their ideal weight), and therefore health is a concern. It makes the VP choice and the type of cabinet members they'd assemble even more crucial.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 13, 2016, 11:21:03 AM
That's not even her ;)

Does Hillary have a BODY DOUBLE? Bizarre conspiracy theory claims the pneumonia-stricken candidate has been replaced by a lookalike

 
Hillary Clinton had a 'medical episode' at 9/11 memorial ceremony
Conspiracy theorists think she was replaced with a body double
They claim photos show physical differences in Clinton after the incident
Clinton apparently emerged from daughter's house 'with bigger earlobes' 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3787428/Does-Hillary-BODY-DOUBLE-Bizarre-conspiracy-theory-claims-pneumonia-stricken-candidate-replaced-lookalike.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3787428/Does-Hillary-BODY-DOUBLE-Bizarre-conspiracy-theory-claims-pneumonia-stricken-candidate-replaced-lookalike.html)

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on September 13, 2016, 12:15:29 PM
I didn't know Hilary had all these medical conditions...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3786187/Three-blood-clots-concussion-deep-vein-thrombosis-Hillary-Clinton-s-shielded-medical-history-isn-t-just-conspiracy-theorists-penchant-privacy-gets-scrutiny.html

Quote
Three blood clots, a concussion, deep vein thrombosis: Hillary's shielded medical history is no longer just for conspiracy theorists as her 'penchant for privacy' gets serious scrutiny

-Clinton suffered her first blood clot in 1998 while she was First Lady and experienced a second incident in 2009

-She suffered a concussion after falling in her home in 2013 near the end of her tenure as secretary of state

-Her doctors say she has deep vein thrombosis, which can lead to clotting in leg veins

-She suffered a blood clot in her brain in December 2011 and takes blood thinners to treat her condition

-She has been diagnosed with hypothyroidism
Broke her elbow, as spokesman warned it would crimp her texting

-Clinton collapsed when she left a 9/11 ceremony early on Sunday. Her office finally revealed she has pneumonia



Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 13, 2016, 01:18:51 PM
in reverse

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 13, 2016, 01:21:57 PM
I didn't know until recently that Trump has early stage Alzheimer's caused by his chronic use of phentermine over the last few decades. This totally explains his erratic behavior, disregard for social norms and impaired vocabulary.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 14, 2016, 06:45:58 PM
At least he doesn't have all of these...

Clinton had secret surgery and brain scan, doctor reveals


 http://dailym.ai/2cnXluZ
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 15, 2016, 10:16:06 AM
hmmmm...go figure...

A visit to Trump's headquarters in Long Beach's Cambodia Town, of all places, produces some surprises

Two men walked in together to offer their help. One was African American, the other Mexican American. Next in the door were a couple of millennials, Filipino brothers in their 20s, and one of them said Trump makes sense but the media twist everything he says. Only after that did two middle-aged white people join the party.

It was as if the whole thing had been staged, in Cambodia Town, no less, to belie the notion that Trump’s appeal is largely limited to older white males.

The volunteers were all well-spoken in their support of Trump on social, domestic and policy issues, or their disdain for and lack of trust in Clinton, though to be honest I disagreed on this and that.

The African American, Austin Jones, said social programs going back to LBJ’s Great Society created communities of dependency.

Well, maybe, but didn’t racism, housing discrimination and job discrimination have something to do with the creation of two Americas?

The Mexican American, who told me not to use his name, said “there are too many illegals here … and they dirty the place up and they take jobs and do things they shouldn’t.”

At one point, he turned to me and said he wasn’t clear on who I was. When I clarified that I was with the L.A. Times, he stood up and left, saying on his way out that “the only thing the Times is any good for is to wrap fish in it.”

Mainstream media can’t be trusted, several others agreed, because of a leftist lean. I asked what constitutes mainstream media. Aren’t AM radio talk shows, Fox News, Wall Street Journal editorials, and countless newspapers that lean to the right in their conservative states all part of mainstream media?

I didn’t get much of a response. But CNN is definitely liberal, everyone agreed.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0914-lopez-trump-longbeach-20160913-snap-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0914-lopez-trump-longbeach-20160913-snap-story.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 15, 2016, 11:33:35 AM
hmmmm...go figure...

A visit to Trump's headquarters in Long Beach's Cambodia Town, of all places, produces some surprises

Two men walked in together to offer their help. One was African American, the other Mexican American. Next in the door were a couple of millennials, Filipino brothers in their 20s, and one of them said Trump makes sense but the media twist everything he says. Only after that did two middle-aged white people join the party.

It was as if the whole thing had been staged, in Cambodia Town, no less, to belie the notion that Trump’s appeal is largely limited to older white males.

The volunteers were all well-spoken in their support of Trump on social, domestic and policy issues, or their disdain for and lack of trust in Clinton, though to be honest I disagreed on this and that.

The African American, Austin Jones, said social programs going back to LBJ’s Great Society created communities of dependency.

Well, maybe, but didn’t racism, housing discrimination and job discrimination have something to do with the creation of two Americas?

The Mexican American, who told me not to use his name, said “there are too many illegals here … and they dirty the place up and they take jobs and do things they shouldn’t.”

At one point, he turned to me and said he wasn’t clear on who I was. When I clarified that I was with the L.A. Times, he stood up and left, saying on his way out that “the only thing the Times is any good for is to wrap fish in it.”

Mainstream media can’t be trusted, several others agreed, because of a leftist lean. I asked what constitutes mainstream media. Aren’t AM radio talk shows, Fox News, Wall Street Journal editorials, and countless newspapers that lean to the right in their conservative states all part of mainstream media?

I didn’t get much of a response. But CNN is definitely liberal, everyone agreed.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0914-lopez-trump-longbeach-20160913-snap-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0914-lopez-trump-longbeach-20160913-snap-story.html)


But wait a minute, I said. Didn’t Trump say he’d raise the roof on tariffs, and doesn’t that mean jobs could be lost, prices could soar, and tariffs might be imposed on American goods shipped overseas?
Fultheim thought briefly and said:
“I don’t know what Trump wants to do, OK?”


 ;D ;D ;D ;D



Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 15, 2016, 11:47:12 AM
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 17, 2016, 09:22:32 AM
Let's not confuse national polls with probability of winning the electoral college and therefore becoming President. The latter is still showing a ~74% chance Clinton would be the next President, if the election were held today.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump's probability has doubled from ~13% a couple weeks ago to ~26% today! I'm guessing his low energy odd photo op with the Mexican President yesterday, followed immediately by his HIGH energy bombastic contradictory speech in AZ last night might cause his poll numbers some pain.

No confusion  at all... clear trend in place. If that was a stock chart, I'd buy it.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 20, 2016, 02:17:03 PM
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 20, 2016, 02:29:06 PM
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Is that good or bad?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 20, 2016, 02:39:11 PM
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Is that good or bad?

If you support Trump, you don't care. Nothing he says nor does, will diminish your support. If you think Trump is despicable, this is just one more feather, of thousands, filling the hat.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 20, 2016, 05:31:43 PM
He is a scum bag. Can't believe he gotten this far. With so much evidence of low blow and rotten deals why would anyone support his platform is what ponder me.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 21, 2016, 09:15:17 AM
Let's not confuse national polls with probability of winning the electoral college and therefore becoming President. The latter is still showing a ~74% chance Clinton would be the next President, if the election were held today.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump's probability has doubled from ~13% a couple weeks ago to ~26% today! I'm guessing his low energy odd photo op with the Mexican President yesterday, followed immediately by his HIGH energy bombastic contradictory speech in AZ last night might cause his poll numbers some pain.

No confusion  at all... clear trend in place. If that was a stock chart, I'd buy it.

Nate Silver: Trump surges from 3% to 48% chance of winning

The latest vote projection from elections guru Nate Silver has Republican Donald Trump just six electoral votes short of winning and one point away from equaling Hillary Clinton's popular vote.

The newest Five Thirty Eight survey Trump at 264 and Clinton at 272, two more than needed. It's the closest in recent weeks.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nate-silver-trump-surges-from-3-to-48-chance-of-winning-in-1-month/article/2602386 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nate-silver-trump-surges-from-3-to-48-chance-of-winning-in-1-month/article/2602386)

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 21, 2016, 09:56:17 AM
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Is that good or bad?

If you support Trump, you don't care. Nothing he says nor does, will diminish your support. If you think Trump is despicable, this is just one more feather, of thousands, filling the hat.

From your article...

"Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans"

"In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation,"

So what? A foundation makes a donation to vet charities...this is not enriching anyone like the Clinton foundation slush fund spending $7 million on travel expenses and private jet rides.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 21, 2016, 10:04:47 AM
Let's not confuse national polls with probability of winning the electoral college and therefore becoming President. The latter is still showing a ~74% chance Clinton would be the next President, if the election were held today.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump's probability has doubled from ~13% a couple weeks ago to ~26% today! I'm guessing his low energy odd photo op with the Mexican President yesterday, followed immediately by his HIGH energy bombastic contradictory speech in AZ last night might cause his poll numbers some pain.

No confusion  at all... clear trend in place. If that was a stock chart, I'd buy it.

Nate Silver: Trump surges from 3% to 48% chance of winning

The latest vote projection from elections guru Nate Silver has Republican Donald Trump just six electoral votes short of winning and one point away from equaling Hillary Clinton's popular vote.

The newest Five Thirty Eight survey Trump at 264 and Clinton at 272, two more than needed. It's the closest in recent weeks.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nate-silver-trump-surges-from-3-to-48-chance-of-winning-in-1-month/article/2602386 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nate-silver-trump-surges-from-3-to-48-chance-of-winning-in-1-month/article/2602386)

Why not link 538 directly?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast)


8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 21, 2016, 10:08:09 AM
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Is that good or bad?

If you support Trump, you don't care. Nothing he says nor does, will diminish your support. If you think Trump is despicable, this is just one more feather, of thousands, filling the hat.

From your article...

"Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans"

"In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation,"

So what? A foundation makes a donation to vet charities...this is not enriching anyone like the Clinton foundation slush fund spending $7 million on travel expenses and private jet rides.

I "think" the issue is the for profit entity and non for profit entity. The trump foundation is a 501c3. A non for profit entity should not pay for legal expenses for a for profit entity.

Bloomberg BNA
http://www.bna.com/trump-foundation-skirting-n57982077343/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 21, 2016, 10:38:54 AM
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Is that good or bad?

If you support Trump, you don't care. Nothing he says nor does, will diminish your support. If you think Trump is despicable, this is just one more feather, of thousands, filling the hat.

From your article...

"Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans"

"In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation,"

So what? A foundation makes a donation to vet charities...this is not enriching anyone like the Clinton foundation slush fund spending $7 million on travel expenses and private jet rides.

Is this a serious question, or are you trolling? Read the article.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 21, 2016, 11:47:15 AM
The Media Did Its Job Exposing Trump’s Alleged Tax Fraud: But It Can’t Make You Care
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/09/the-media-did-its-job-exposing-trumps-alleged-tax-fraud-but-it-cant-make-you-care/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 21, 2016, 12:28:25 PM
Probably true. As i said prevoiosly....

"We live in Cali so if you are Republican your vote in a national election is pointless.  I could vote for Jesus Christ himself and my candidate would lose in this state.   Now locally my vote matters but on the national level this is all theater to me.  I vote on the national level because it gives me the right to bitch.  Other than that I love the show, I watch from the audience."

I actually am more uptight about voting down the 5 new taxes on our ballot. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 21, 2016, 12:36:37 PM
Probably true. As i said prevoiosly....

"We live in Cali so if you are Republican your vote in a national election is pointless.  I could vote for Jesus Christ himself and my candidate would lose in this state.   Now locally my vote matters but on the national level this is all theater to me.  I vote on the national level because it gives me the right to bitch.  Other than that I love the show, I watch from the audience."

I actually am more uptight about voting down the 5 new taxes on our ballot. 


Right. It's not hyperbole to say we live in a high tax state (CA), and I vote against most local/state tax increases too.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 21, 2016, 12:51:37 PM
But its fun to talk about!  This is the most engaged election period... Trump or Hillary...that cant be a bad thing.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 22, 2016, 07:24:10 AM
Strong emotions, particularly anger, have been show to a negatively impact decision making and increase the likelihood the person doubles down on a failing option.

I was looking at 270towin.com this morning.  Seems like the map is going backwards with more States turning grey toss up than clearing up.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 22, 2016, 08:21:12 AM
Does it matter what the polls say? How are those polls taken? Phone calls? Who answers those calls? Older people who still have landlines?

As long as a candidate leads in electoral votes, these polls have no bearing (unless it's poling electoral votes).

Most of the sites have HRC leading by a good margin in electoral "polls", and the Dems killed the GOP in the last 2 elections, so it doesn't bode well for Trump.

While I don't like either candidate (and am a conservative independent), HRC is better optically than Trump... who wants a clown in the White House? :)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 22, 2016, 08:53:57 AM
Probably true. As i said prevoiosly....

"We live in Cali so if you are Republican your vote in a national election is pointless.  I could vote for Jesus Christ himself and my candidate would lose in this state.   Now locally my vote matters but on the national level this is all theater to me.  I vote on the national level because it gives me the right to bitch.  Other than that I love the show, I watch from the audience."

I actually am more uptight about voting down the 5 new taxes on our ballot. 


Right. It's not hyperbole to say we live in a high tax state (CA), and I vote against most local/state tax increases too.

What are your thoughts on free cell phones and service?

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 22, 2016, 09:14:09 AM
Does it matter what the polls say? How are those polls taken? Phone calls? Who answers those calls? Older people who still have landlines?

As long as a candidate leads in electoral votes, these polls have no bearing (unless it's poling electoral votes).

Most of the sites have HRC leading by a good margin in electoral "polls", and the Dems killed the GOP in the last 2 elections, so it doesn't bode well for Trump.

While I don't like either candidate (and am a conservative independent), HRC is better optically than Trump... who wants a clown in the White House? :)

Agreed, but not just optically. Trump is an extreme wild card. He behaves like a pre-teen, following and responding to every perceived slight thrown his way.

Unless Clinton wins in a landslide, turning multiple Senate and Congressional seats blue, she won't be able to do the things she's proposing. In other words, if you lean right, it's hard to envision a scenario where Clinton lurches the US leftward.

Clinton's biggest effect would likely be SCOTUS appointments. I lean heavily left on social issues (right on fiscal issues), so I'd welcome this.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 22, 2016, 09:23:06 AM
Does it matter what the polls say? How are those polls taken? Phone calls? Who answers those calls? Older people who still have landlines?

As long as a candidate leads in electoral votes, these polls have no bearing (unless it's poling electoral votes).

Most of the sites have HRC leading by a good margin in electoral "polls", and the Dems killed the GOP in the last 2 elections, so it doesn't bode well for Trump.

While I don't like either candidate (and am a conservative independent), HRC is better optically than Trump... who wants a clown in the White House? :)

Agreed, but not just optically. Trump is an extreme wild card. He behaves like a pre-teen, following and responding to every perceived slight thrown his way.

Unless Clinton wins in a landslide, turning multiple Senate and Congressional seats blue, she won't be able to do the things she's proposing. In other words, if you lean right, it's hard to envision a scenario where Clinton lurches the US leftward.

Clinton's biggest effect would likely be SCOTUS appointments. I lean heavily left on social issues (right on fiscal issues), so I'd welcome this.
What are your thoughts regarding Carlos?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 22, 2016, 09:51:49 AM
Even if Trump is president, there are still 2 other branches of government to keep him in check.

It will just make the US look silly having him say "You're Fired" at UN conferences.

Bush was kind of embarrassing at times, and Bill's scandalous lifestyle was pretty bad (although his was more publicized than other presidents)... so I guess I'm not totally opposed to Trump as prez just because of the comedy it will generate for the next 4 years... late night shows and comedians will have infinite material.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 22, 2016, 10:20:13 AM
Even if Trump is president, there are still 2 other branches of government to keep him in check.

Senate is at 50/50 odds for which party will be in control. Congress stays red. Chris Christy will be Trump's SCOTUS nominee and probably get rubberstamped.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 22, 2016, 10:35:57 AM
Perspective - what are your thoughts regarding Carlos Danger?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 22, 2016, 11:09:39 AM
Does it matter what the polls say? How are those polls taken? Phone calls? Who answers those calls? Older people who still have landlines?

As long as a candidate leads in electoral votes, these polls have no bearing (unless it's poling electoral votes).

Most of the sites have HRC leading by a good margin in electoral "polls", and the Dems killed the GOP in the last 2 elections, so it doesn't bode well for Trump.

While I don't like either candidate (and am a conservative independent), HRC is better optically than Trump... who wants a clown in the White House? :)

Being ahead doesn't matter, being over 269 matters.

Hillary Clinton isn't.  More importantly, the number of electoral votes she has solidly wrapped up is DECREASING.  I'm not a Hillary fan and I don't want Trump to be President. I do think Hillary would be a better President than Trump, in a four more years of status quo way.

 Hillary supporters, IMHO, are increasingly acting like the Rightwing babbleheads when Romney ran and not seeing the problems and challenges their candidate is having, IMHO.

They've locked on to Trump supporters are bigots, racists, "deplorables", uneducated 'hick' whites, etc.

Maybe Monday the whole thing changes.  Trump may shoot his mouth off and make everybody gasp.  Hillary could make Trump look like an idiot.  Trump could turn experience matters on Hillary, one or the other could sweat like Nixon.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 22, 2016, 11:13:45 AM
Perspective - what are your thoughts regarding Carlos Danger?

 ??? Never heard the name.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 22, 2016, 11:29:27 AM
Perspective - what are your thoughts regarding Carlos Danger?

 ??? Never heard the name.

This is alleged story by the news outlet.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/21/cuomo-weiner-could-face-jail-time-for-sexting-with-teen/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2016, 10:05:03 AM
Well the foots on the other shoe now...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now)

Who would win the presidency today?
Chance of winning


Hillary Clinton
45.7%
Donald Trump
54.3%
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 26, 2016, 10:10:35 AM
Well the foots on the other shoe now...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now)

Who would win the presidency today?
Chance of winning


Hillary Clinton
45.7%
Donald Trump
54.3%

I'm more interested in what this will look like tomorrow (although poll-plus is the better indicator). The claim is that this will be the most watched presidential debate.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 26, 2016, 10:11:01 AM
Well the foots on the other shoe now...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now)

Who would win the presidency today?
Chance of winning


Hillary Clinton
45.7%
Donald Trump
54.3%

Let's see after the debate tonight.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2016, 10:14:31 AM
If he does well or just pulls off a draw...the trend is your friend...go long.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 26, 2016, 02:04:19 PM
Curious how people perceive the Clinton campaign calling for real time fact checking during the debate?

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 26, 2016, 02:08:47 PM
Curious how people perceive the Clinton campaign calling for real time fact checking during the debate?

Is she going to cough?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 26, 2016, 07:48:47 PM
So who won the debate?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 26, 2016, 08:01:00 PM
,
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2016, 08:19:49 PM
Like I said before.... he didn't lose so that's a win
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 26, 2016, 08:42:33 PM
,
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 26, 2016, 09:31:53 PM
I don't give a shit about Trump's tax return.  Any business man/corporation evades taxes like a wildfire.  They keep their money in offshore accounts and only bring enough of it here to pay the their employees a decent wage.  That's how all the companies I've worked for done it.

So I don't really care if Trump paid a billion or $0 in taxes because the white folks (board of directors/CEOs) who I've worked for are equally guilty of the same shit.

Now what I REALLY want to know is the content of those 30,000+ emails that were deleted.  If those emails are released, and they're clean, then I'm all Hillary 100%.  But if those emails are never recovered, I have to wonder what the hell were in them.

The message that he carried is "Make America Great Again" do you think if all business leaders and. corporate titans follow his foot steps and hurried their money over sea and pay ZERO tax that would make America great again? Clintons have flaws and mistakes with emails she admitted it. Trumps on the other hands denied all the facts that she brought up against him. I am just a an average joe and I did not file for bankruptcy once and he a SUCCESSFUL man with 6 bankruptcies under his fat belly. America great when we are done with this election without trump.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 26, 2016, 09:42:08 PM
,
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 26, 2016, 09:44:22 PM
Almost every poll has trump winning

https://theconservativetreehouse.com (https://theconservativetreehouse.com)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 26, 2016, 10:36:16 PM
The message that he carried is "Make America Great Again" do you think if all business leaders and. corporate titans follow his foot steps and hurried their money over sea and pay ZERO tax that would make America great again?

Uhh... news flash.. they're ALREADY doing it! 

"Nearly 20% of large U.S. corporations that reported a profit on their financial statements in 2012 ended up paying exactly nothing in U.S. corporate income taxes."
"General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012."
source: http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/pf/taxes/gao-corporate-taxes/

Every "business", "corporation", "small business" cheats the tax man in one way shape or form.  The Chinese restaurant on Jeffrey that says "cash only" is cheating the system.  The big dawg corporations are doing it.  Everyone who files a shitload of meaningless deductions are doing it.  It's just the degree of it, but everyone are all equally guilty of "making america great". 

So to me Trump is no different than Verizon, GE, GM, and the rest of the 20% of corporations.

I don't care about cheating taxes.  Because it's so prevalent in the business world.  I'm not saying it's the right thing, but if you going to hold that against him, then you should be sue-ing your own employer who is probably one of the top 20% in the US paying 0 income taxes overall.

Now, let's get to the REAL PRESSING issue. What was in THOSE emails!!??!?  Did they directly/indirectly cause the deaths in Benghazi?  What top secret information was emailed to her unsecured email server in her basements that apparently Wikileaks and the FBI got involved?  Lastly, why did her IT team all plead the 5th with the email scandal?

it doesn't look too good when you argue that poor people paying no taxes = moochers and deadbeats and rich folks paying zero taxes = smart.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 26, 2016, 11:10:13 PM
,
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 27, 2016, 06:42:31 AM
it doesn't look too good when you argue that poor people paying no taxes = moochers and deadbeats and rich folks paying zero taxes = smart.
I don't make shit up.  I back them up with facts and source

I wasn't directly referring to you as a person. That has been the attitude coming from the Republican candidates. It's hard to change that narrative and hiding tax returns doesn't help that. That's all. Then there's the whole thing about debt and conflicts of interests. If EVERY candidate has released their tax returns in the last 40 years it just makes it seem like he is trying to hide something. And Trump can try to make it equivalent to releasing Emails, but the matter of fact is that not all candidates have customarily released their PST files. He can insist on it but that now looks like a double standard which also doesn't help his cause.



.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 27, 2016, 06:44:06 AM
Wait, so if the "smart" companies aren't paying taxes, why would cutting taxes keep them from moving jobs out of the country?

I'm all for cutting taxes, but Trump's argument on how that would keep jobs doesn't jibe if the companies aren't paying those taxes. The deregulation part makes some sense but at the same time, regulation is there for many other reasons (public safety, unfair competition, etc).

I totally dislike Hillary's rhetoric as it's the same political double-speak we hear all the time but she did win the composure battle. I only saw the first half hour or so, but you can tell that it was Trump who kept getting riled up as he continued to interrupt her "2 minutes" while she stayed silent most of the time during his turns. However, she really didn't answer the questions Holt asked her and spent a lot of her time criticizing Trump which I guess was her game plan to expose how irritable he gets.

Trump stance on foreign trade did stump Hillary and I wish he could have got more into the detail on why NAFTA was bad instead of just saying it was, that would have helped his case.

It seemed like Holt was leaning more favorable towards Hillary because he seemed to push harder on the issues with Trump but again, I only watched a portion of it.

My takeaway is the same as before the debate, Trump is a businessman and Hillary is a politician, he wants to get things done and she wants to make it seem like things are getting done. Even if Trump does become prez, I think he doesn't realize how hard it is to get your way when you're not the one who is really in charge.

If I had to bet now, HRC has the edge and will probably be our next prez... and I'm moving to Canada.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 27, 2016, 08:04:20 AM
Wait, so if the "smart" companies aren't paying taxes, why would cutting taxes keep them from moving jobs out of the country?

I'm all for cutting taxes, but Trump's argument on how that would keep jobs doesn't jibe if the companies aren't paying those taxes. The deregulation part makes some sense but at the same time, regulation is there for many other reasons (public safety, unfair competition, etc).

I totally dislike Hillary's rhetoric as it's the same political double-speak we hear all the time but she did win the composure battle. I only saw the first half hour or so, but you can tell that it was Trump who kept getting riled up as he continued to interrupt her "2 minutes" while she stayed silent most of the time during his turns. However, she really didn't answer the questions Holt asked her and spent a lot of her time criticizing Trump which I guess was her game plan to expose how irritable he gets.

Trump stance on foreign trade did stump Hillary and I wish he could have got more into the detail on why NAFTA was bad instead of just saying it was, that would have helped his case.

It seemed like Holt was leaning more favorable towards Hillary because he seemed to push harder on the issues with Trump but again, I only watched a portion of it.

My takeaway is the same as before the debate, Trump is a businessman and Hillary is a politician, he wants to get things done and she wants to make it seem like things are getting done. Even if Trump does become prez, I think he doesn't realize how hard it is to get your way when you're not the one who is really in charge.

If I had to bet now, HRC has the edge and will probably be our next prez... and I'm moving to Canada.

Canada??? The weather is brutal in the winter. Believe me, I was there for an extended stay. Right before Thanksgiving and right after. In November and thereafter, you wish you never move to Canada.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 27, 2016, 08:57:55 AM
What part of Canada? Vancouver doesn't seem to have that harsh a winter and I would like to stay on the wessayeeeed.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2016, 09:32:40 AM
Looks like Hilary won the debate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/09/27/daily-202-why-even-republicans-think-clinton-won-the-first-debate/57e9b033e9b69b3019a1e037/

Article talks about the results of different focus groups from key battle ground states: Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. (The majority would pick Hilary) Also, the article talks about other moments from the debate, and post debate comments. This article is very informative. (If you want a summary of the debate read this article)

I watched the debate and it lived up to expectations.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on September 27, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
I watched maybe 15-20 mins on the debate and I felt Trump just wasn't prepared enough to make a mark. He won some points but Hillary definitely came off as prepared and won the debate.  He needs some good speech and debate classes

In my opinion, Trump should've just stuck to main arguments instead of going around and around in circles and never really forming a point

In the talk about stamina (random as he**) she makes it a point to say she went to 100+ countries to negotiate a peace treaty and 11 hours in front of a committee...that should've been his golden opportunity "Why were you in front of the senate for 11 hours? Could you explain?" and it would lead up to the emails (her weak spot)...he could've easily brought up emails again in the convo about cyber terrorism but he just kept naming off people who supported him or even brought up Benghazi as secretary of state etc

I feel like the general public sees her as a liar.  Your whole debate should've been bringing up those points even in formal trump fashion...even if you never even talked about yourself lol and you probably would've won that debate in people's eyes...but instead you kept going on and on like a kid

Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of either candidate just seeing what I observed
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 27, 2016, 10:16:36 AM
I think everyone knew it was going to turn out this way.

I have to give props to HRC for goading Trump and succeeding, but she didn't really say anything of substance either.

I actually don't think it matters who "won" the debate, the same people who will vote for either candidate will still do so and for the undecided, they will just flip a coin or vote Gary Johnson.

#MaxDiscountsForPrez
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 27, 2016, 10:16:59 AM
,
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 27, 2016, 10:21:36 AM
,
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 27, 2016, 10:57:10 AM
JIMO, Trump is running on it's all f***'d up and Hillary is bad.  Hillary is running on Trump is a all f---'d up and eight more years the the last eight years while still blaming the guy from 8 years ago.  That's an 8-8-8 and I think in some superstitions that's good luck.

Just keep in mind, those two are the best the two parties could get behind.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: zubs on September 27, 2016, 11:01:41 AM
I did pretty well under W and did pretty well under Obama.  So I'd still do pretty will under Hillary...I am the establishment.
Under Trump is possible chaos.

I think I'll vote Hillary so I will do pretty well again for the next 4 years.

If you are doing well in your career and life why would you vote for Trump?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 27, 2016, 11:06:16 AM
Meme count:

#TrumpedUpTrickleDown
#RealTimeFactChecking
#HillaryShimmy

And the one that kept bothering me...

#TrumpSniff

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 27, 2016, 11:14:36 AM
To be honest, HRC is probably not going to be much different from Obama.  So why do we want to subject ourselves to the same thing for the next 4 possibly 8 years?

That's 16 years of the same thing.  I like to change it up a little every 4 or 8 years, and this candidate does bring some new fire to the table that we'd all like to witness, whether good,bad, comical, and perhaps how he pronounces "nukular".

Besides, what did we learn in school?  3 branches of gov't.  Checks and balances.  It's not like Trump can run the entire show like Hitler.

Last 8 years were pretty good for me. I wouldn't mind 8 more of the same.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 27, 2016, 11:52:27 AM
Can any Trump supporters avoid the rhetoric, platitudes, conclusory statements, innuendo, and bad logic, much less the crassness?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 27, 2016, 12:24:54 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2016, 12:36:23 PM
What's your thoughts on Trump's statement during the debate: "We have become a third world country."

Do you think LAX airport is a third world country airport?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 27, 2016, 01:01:51 PM
What's your thoughts on Trump's statement during the debate: "We have become a third world country."

Do you think LAX airport is a third world country airport?

He probably landed at Long Beach and thought it was LAX.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on September 27, 2016, 01:10:27 PM
Trump makes a ton of sense when going after oppressive government over-regulation, over-taxation and noncompetitive labor pushing us into a third world position. Look at major infrastructure projects.
 


New Bay Bridge cost climb: Follow the money


http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/08/09/new-bay-bridge-cost-climb-follow-the-money/ (http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/08/09/new-bay-bridge-cost-climb-follow-the-money/)

Only 10 years late and 400% over projected cost.  probably in line with most California public works projects. Contrast that with "third world" China and....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3785064/Would-dare-drive-China-completes-world-s-highest-bridge-built-1-850-feet-ground.html
 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3785064/Would-dare-drive-China-completes-world-s-highest-bridge-built-1-850-feet-ground.html)
THE WORLD'S TOP 10 HIGHEST BRIDGES (IN FEET)
1.  Beipanjiang Bridge Duge, China 1,854 feet (2016)

2.  Jinshajiang Bridge, China, 1,680 feet (2021)

3.  Sidu River Bridge, China, 1,627 feet (2009)

4.  Puli Bridge, China, 1,591 feet (2015)

5. Yachi Bridge, China, 1,444 feet (2016)

6. Qingshuihe Bridge, China, 1,332 feet (2016)

7. Hegigio Gorge Pipeline Bridge, Papua New Guinea, 1,542 feet (2005)

8. Baluarte Bridge, Mexico, 1,280 feet (2013)

9. Balinghe Bridge, China, 1,214 feet (2009)

10. Beipanjiang Bridge Guanxing, China, 1,200 feet (2003)

Source: Highest bridges

All new, all under budget and all ahead of schedule.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 27, 2016, 01:17:33 PM
So, please share.

In what areas is government over-regulating and how?

Where are we over-taxed, how should it be changed, and where do you cut spending to lower taxes?

How is US labor "noncompetitive"?

How does any of this relate to infrastructure spending? Are the Democrats opposed to increasing infrastructure spending?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 27, 2016, 01:22:04 PM
What part of Canada? Vancouver doesn't seem to have that harsh a winter and I would like to stay on the wessayeeeed.

Stayed at Ottowa, Ontario and also Edmonton Alberta. In Ottawa whole canal turn solid ice and they create Winterlude which is pretty cool and people skates on them. Very picturesque and serene. The cold is fine, its the freakin wind chill factors that did it for me. When they have one which is pretty often in the winter, you can't even see two feet in front of your face and I have to drive to customer's sites with deadline, that add alot of fun.

Back to the debate, my last 8 years was well, I am not the 1% so I never have to cheat on taxes.  :) :) :). Trump tax record has got to be pretty bad because he probably cheats and never pay any. Therefore the secrecy.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Paris on September 27, 2016, 01:24:49 PM
I do have to say that as a small business owner in California with increased regulation, rising taxes, increasing minimum wage this current administration and our state puts a great deal of pressure on the very local businesses that will create jobs and build prosperity in communities. It is very frustrating and I'm not surprised when companies are driven out of the state or even country just to stay afloat.
With Hillary we'll be personally taxed to death on top of it. Guess I should "be smart" and work on getting Trump's tax consultant to evade taxes altogether.
I think many of us are going into this election so disillusioned by both parties...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 27, 2016, 01:27:10 PM
What's your thoughts on Trump's statement during the debate: "We have become a third world country."

Do you think LAX airport is a third world country airport?

He probably landed at Long Beach and thought it was LAX.

Snoop doggy dog greeted him at Long Beach and he thought it was a South African Ambassador Nomasonto Sibanda-Thusi.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: zubs on September 27, 2016, 01:32:20 PM
LAX is a 3rd world country airport.  I despise going there....by the way...I use google maps to plot my way to LAX, and it usually tells me to take 91 - 405 - exit Century BLVD....105 exit Sepulveda under the airport tunnel is a shit show these days.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 27, 2016, 01:36:40 PM
I do have to say that as a small business owner in California with increased regulation, rising taxes, increasing minimum wage this current administration and our state puts a great deal of pressure on the very local businesses that will create jobs and build prosperity in communities. It is very frustrating and I'm not surprised when companies are driven out of the state or even country just to stay afloat.
With Hillary we'll be personally taxed to death on top of it. Guess I should "be smart" and work on getting Trump's tax consultant to evade taxes altogether.
I think many of us are going into this election so disillusioned by both parties...

There is no such thing as free lunch. We all can be "smart". Is it the right thing to do? No. If you own businesses, there are legitimate deduction that you can take, if you do own a business, I hope you smart enough to get an tax adviser at least. That is a smart thing to do. Nothing, will go on forever with evading. Sooner or later you will have to do your part, unless you are TRUMP.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvine Dream on September 27, 2016, 01:42:27 PM
LAX is a 3rd world country airport.  I despise going there....by the way...I use google maps to plot my way to LAX, and it usually tells me to take 91 - 405 - exit Century BLVD....105 exit Sepulveda under the airport tunnel is a shit show these days.

Recently they had renovated the TB International terminal and now it is not a 3rd world airport but not one of the top ones either.  Also traffic to airport, specially to Departure lanes seems to have significantly increased once they started allowing UBER pick ups (they can't go to Arrivals can only pick up from Departures).  So , if you are dropping off passengers, might be better to drop them off at  "Arrivals" and then have them walk up to "Departure" .
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Bullsback on September 27, 2016, 03:03:56 PM
What's your thoughts on Trump's statement during the debate: "We have become a third world country."

Do you think LAX airport is a third world country airport?
Of all the things he said, this statement I probably agreed with the most. LAX is a total dump and I've been to third world country airports which were way nicer.  I've also been to 3rd world airports which were way worse.   
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 27, 2016, 03:37:20 PM
The "third world" comment is patently false, like most everything else spewing from Trump's mouth.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on September 27, 2016, 04:04:50 PM
Sounds like none of you have gone through Tom Bradley yet.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2016, 04:22:13 PM
Sounds like none of you have gone through Tom Bradley yet.

I picked someone up recently. So I went to the international arrival terminal where they came out of the tunnel. The terminal was remodled if I remember correctly. There's like a 711 and a store that sells Apple products.

There's traffic, but doesn't airports have traffic in general.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: zubs on September 27, 2016, 04:34:46 PM
I'm just upset that everyone here voted down LAX 2 at the great park.  Now we gotta suffer through the crane and monkey and water buffalo designs by IHS.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2016, 04:37:48 PM
I'm just upset that everyone here voted down LAX 2 at the great park. 

Non stop flights from Irvine to China?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Bullsback on September 27, 2016, 04:47:38 PM
Sounds like none of you have gone through Tom Bradley yet.
I have not yet gone through the renovated terminal recently, but while that might have got an upgrade, the rest of them still stink (they have made some improvements, but like I said, it rates pretty low). 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
Sounds like none of you have gone through Tom Bradley yet.
I have not yet gone through the renovated terminal recently, but while that might have got an upgrade, the rest of them still stink (they have made some improvements, but like I said, it rates pretty low).

I can tell you this one country with a nice airport women can't vote, can't drive, and so on and so on.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on September 27, 2016, 06:25:58 PM
What do you think when TRUMP claimed that the Fed "Janet Yellen" is more political than HRC?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 27, 2016, 07:41:44 PM
Sounds like none of you have gone through Tom Bradley yet.

You know where the third world starts?  Right after the Artesia Blvd overpass on Interstate 5 heading north out of Orange County.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 27, 2016, 08:24:03 PM
Sounds like none of you have gone through Tom Bradley yet.

You know where the third world starts?  Right after the Artesia Blvd overpass on Interstate 5 heading north out of Orange County.

I guess you forgot about Stanton
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 27, 2016, 10:47:07 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on September 27, 2016, 10:52:24 PM
You rich middle/upper class people on this forum need to think about the rest of the other Black people on the other side of this damn country.  ;D

This movie staring TWO-TIME academy award winner ni66a says it all. 

P.S. I reckon this movie will win him another academy award.


Irvine really is a bubble...there is so much "third world country" outside

As the movie says, I don't think it's so much a racial issue as it is a socioeconomic issue.  Poverty breeds violence.  To break through the "cycle of poverty" certain individuals need to exceed in their skills to break the cycle.  think nba players or musicians. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on September 27, 2016, 11:14:53 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Paris on September 28, 2016, 01:35:22 AM
I do have to say that as a small business owner in California with increased regulation, rising taxes, increasing minimum wage this current administration and our state puts a great deal of pressure on the very local businesses that will create jobs and build prosperity in communities. It is very frustrating and I'm not surprised when companies are driven out of the state or even country just to stay afloat.
With Hillary we'll be personally taxed to death on top of it. Guess I should "be smart" and work on getting Trump's tax consultant to evade taxes altogether.
I think many of us are going into this election so disillusioned by both parties...

There is no such thing as free lunch. We all can be "smart". Is it the right thing to do? No. If you own businesses, there are legitimate deduction that you can take, if you do own a business, I hope you smart enough to get an tax adviser at least. That is a smart thing to do. Nothing, will go on forever with evading. Sooner or later you will have to do your part, unless you are TRUMP.

oh trust me, we pay our fair share of taxes. My husband's in corporate regulatory finance and that's what he does - make sure fortune 50 corporations comply with all the federal corporate regulations and making sure they are certainly paying their fair share. So of course personally we are compliant in every which way. But I speak about these frustrations from the business owner's point of view which is what Trump eluded to in his talks.

BTW All this talk about third world countries. Navigation took us through East LA to avoid some 5 freeway traffic jam this past weekend and I definitely felt like we were in a 3rd world country. It's the perfect little "Irvine Bubble" we live in and are spoilt by
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 28, 2016, 06:14:25 AM
What do you think when TRUMP claimed that the Fed "Janet Yellen" is more political than HRC?

Yes, after he's agreed with FOMC policy, disagreed, agreed again, and now appears to dislike FOMC current policy.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 28, 2016, 06:16:07 AM
Classic - a movie clip offered as evidence the US is a third world country.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 28, 2016, 06:18:58 AM
Sounds like none of you have gone through Tom Bradley yet.

You know where the third world starts?  Right after the Artesia Blvd overpass on Interstate 5 heading north out of Orange County.

I guess you forgot about Stanton

No, I'm not being literal to support Hillary.  While I don't want Trump, the gist of what he meant with that comment is painfully obvious to anyone driving on I5 at the county line and it has little to do with the construction project.

I've been in Staton plenty, and Garden Grove, and Santa Ana, and ...   Those cities like most including Irvine have their own challenges.  Still, rolling up Beach Blvd, or down First Street, the transition at the border isn't nearly so obvious in the neglect of infrastructure.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on September 28, 2016, 09:47:22 AM
I do have to say that as a small business owner in California with increased regulation, rising taxes, increasing minimum wage this current administration and our state puts a great deal of pressure on the very local businesses that will create jobs and build prosperity in communities. It is very frustrating and I'm not surprised when companies are driven out of the state or even country just to stay afloat.
With Hillary we'll be personally taxed to death on top of it. Guess I should "be smart" and work on getting Trump's tax consultant to evade taxes altogether.
I think many of us are going into this election so disillusioned by both parties...

There is no such thing as free lunch. We all can be "smart". Is it the right thing to do? No. If you own businesses, there are legitimate deduction that you can take, if you do own a business, I hope you smart enough to get an tax adviser at least. That is a smart thing to do. Nothing, will go on forever with evading. Sooner or later you will have to do your part, unless you are TRUMP.

oh trust me, we pay our fair share of taxes. My husband's in corporate regulatory finance and that's what he does - make sure fortune 50 corporations comply with all the federal corporate regulations and making sure they are certainly paying their fair share. So of course personally we are compliant in every which way. But I speak about these frustrations from the business owner's point of view which is what Trump eluded to in his talks.

BTW All this talk about third world countries. Navigation took us through East LA to avoid some 5 freeway traffic jam this past weekend and I definitely felt like we were in a 3rd world country. It's the perfect little "Irvine Bubble" we live in and are spoilt by

I'm glad you still have your business here in California.  Small businesses really are the backbone of the economy as cliché as it sounds.  High regulation and the increasing minimum wage have really put pressure on small business owners to keep their ethics high and provide good jobs. 

Large corporations and their private interests are all about maintaining profits for their bottom line to look good for shareholders.  Increase minimum wage to $15?  Cut hours down from full time to part time and no longer offer health care benefits resulting in less pay for individuals.  Create more ipads in machines and fast food to avoid paying salaries.  Cut down the number of tellers at banks and replace them with ATM's...If that doesn't work and they need the work force? Move manufacturing to overseas and basic work like accounting there as well.  Or just move all headquarters to other states like Texas ex Toyota.  When it comes to taxes? Move funds in overseas accounts like facebook.  How about capitalism and free markets? Look at the epiPen. 

We the middle class and you the small business pay much more in taxes than other countries.  Many of those countries have true free healthcare, some offer free education.  We get privatized insurances pocketing major money in healthcare and having major pull with political figures.  We get high "saturation" in dentistry when dentists have to start making up problems to keep their practice alive.  In education, read up on ITT tech

Irvine is great though  8)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on September 28, 2016, 10:42:18 AM
I'm glad you still have your business here in California.  Small businesses really are the backbone of the economy as cliché as it sounds.  High regulation and the increasing minimum wage have really put pressure on small business owners to keep their ethics high and provide good jobs. 

While it might put pressure on them, as far as I can tell by the number of signs up saying "we're hiring" with wages and positions posted on a wide range of food and other service establishments, it doesn't appear the $15/hr wage is really threatening them.  Most are already offering it and having a hard time keeping employees.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on September 28, 2016, 11:54:04 AM
  We get high "saturation" in dentistry when dentists have to start making up problems to keep their practice alive.

Ha ha, is this from a first hand experience, dentist making up problems? 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on September 28, 2016, 01:17:25 PM
  We get high "saturation" in dentistry when dentists have to start making up problems to keep their practice alive.

Ha ha, is this from a first hand experience, dentist making up problems? 

Thankfully not on my own teeth  ;D

I'm friends with a dentist and he's a honest guy and he's been having trouble staying afloat with the shady dentists out there.  With the high saturation, you probably will see 5-10 dentists on a single block.  Not sure if you or any family members have noticed, but having dental insurance doesn't mean much anymore.  You probably pay the same as someone with no insurance or recently noticed that you are now "out of network" with your family dentist you grew up with.  Some of you might even need to pay for a basic teeth cleaning.  Since my friend is well known in the community, insurance companies sometimes go to him to "confirm" if a patient really needs the service another dentist has recommended and most of the time it's a no...it's gotten pretty bad  >:D
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on September 29, 2016, 09:28:29 AM
‘Missing’ White Voters Could Elect Trump. But First They Need To Register.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

"Here’s a scary stat for Democrats: In 2012, President Obama won re-election by almost 5 million votes, but about 47 million eligible white voters without a college degree — including 24 million men — didn’t bother to vote. In 2016, these nonvoters are part of the demographic that is most strongly in favor of Donald Trump.

If Trump rouses even a fraction of these notoriously disaffected Americans — like this grease-smudged, 61-year-old first-time voter in western Pennsylvania — he could surge to victory. There’s just one catch: If we’re on the cusp of a blue-collar Great Awakening, it’s not yet showing up in the registration data.
...
If Trump were able to activate merely one of every eight of these “missing whites” to vote for him, he would wipe out Obama’s 2012 margins in three states — Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania — and win both the Electoral College and the popular vote. If he were able to activate one of every five, he could add Virginia, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire:
...
So what’s going on? It could be that Trump is motivating slightly more new voters against him than for him. Or, perhaps more likely, it could be that white working class voters are out there to be activated, but Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have waited until too late to build the analytics and ground infrastructure necessary to identify and register them. That’s where Clinton and the Democrats have excelled."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 29, 2016, 09:43:18 AM
For the young crowd: if you register to vote at HRC's website you have a chance to meet Pusha T

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 29, 2016, 09:47:35 AM
Another Miss Universe contestant allegedly fat-shamed by Trump according to Huffpost.

Source: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57ec7d5be4b082aad9b93b78
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on September 29, 2016, 09:55:38 AM
This is probably the first election that I thoroughly dislike both candidates.

I think Trump wanting to shake things up is awesome but his character is highly questionable and in the end I don't think he can really affect much change.

It would also be awesome to have a woman president, just not Hillary.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on September 30, 2016, 01:01:29 AM
Another Miss Universe contestant allegedly fat-shamed by Trump according to Huffpost.
When it's your job to look a certain way, then yeah you should be ashamed if you don't meet expectations...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Paris on September 30, 2016, 01:19:31 AM
Another Miss Universe contestant allegedly fat-shamed by Trump according to Huffpost.
When it's your job to look a certain way, then yeah you should be ashamed if you don't meet expectations...

Yeah but fat shaming and publicly humiliating in front of the press is a low blow.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: HomeOwner Irvine on September 30, 2016, 11:31:34 AM
This is probably the first election that I thoroughly dislike both candidates.

I think Trump wanting to shake things up is awesome but his character is highly questionable and in the end I don't think he can really affect much change.

It would also be awesome to have a woman president, just not Hillary.

Agree with IHO completely. Would like some change, but not Trump. Would like a woman president, but not Hillary.

This will probably the worst election to vote in at the Presidential level (I know our vote really doesn't "count").
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 30, 2016, 11:39:33 AM
This is probably the first election that I thoroughly dislike both candidates.

I think Trump wanting to shake things up is awesome but his character is highly questionable and in the end I don't think he can really affect much change.

It would also be awesome to have a woman president, just not Hillary.

Agree with IHO completely. Would like some change, but not Trump. Would like a woman president, but not Hillary.

This will probably the worst election to vote in at the Presidential level (I know our vote really doesn't "count").

Uncle Joe Biden would have been a better. Mark Cuban should have ran!!!!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on September 30, 2016, 11:48:23 AM
So Trump is complaining about the negative ads against him. According to the AP article the ads are mostly his own words.

Source http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c7572d72ae2a401998585c0fa3b4198e/clintons-nasty-trump-ads-are-mostly-his-own-words
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on October 02, 2016, 11:56:44 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeshopper on October 02, 2016, 03:56:37 PM

Are you the infamous BangBros? Caution for other members DO NOT google his name.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nytimes-taxes-18-publish-legal-161316688.html

Trump tax returns reveal $916 million in dollars.  For 20 years, he has probably paid no federal tax returns because he has deducted it all off and written off everything. 

As I kept saying last week, every business has done this and now former Mayor Rudy Giuliani calls him an absolute "genius". 
“Absolute genius,” Giuliani replied. “This is a perfectly legal application of the tax code. And he would’ve been a fool not to take advantage of it.”
Not only that: Trump could’ve been sued if he hadn’t, Giuliani said.
“You have an obligation when you run a business to maximize the profits,” the former mayor argued. “And if there is a tax law that says, ‘I can deduct this,’ you deduct it. If you fail to deduct it, people can sue you. Your investors can sue you.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, chairman of Trump’s transition team, also called Trump a “genius” for avoiding federal taxes.


People really need to wake the fu** up on here and realize that every big fortune 500 business, behind close doors, is doing all of the following:
1) evading and deducting taxes to the fullest extent of the law possible
2) avoiding paying any more taxes than necessary
3) a fiduciary responsibility to reduce tax burden and costs for all shareholders
and for kicks 4) at least one or more executive is probably sleeping with an employee of the company

I had an HR lady come down to our facility.  Real bubbly.  She started sharing all the stories about HR nightmares that in her 20+ career had to deal with.  Sexual encounters, mistresses, fights, intoxications, etc. you name it.  She didn't use names but she gave analogy examples. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nytimes-taxes-18-publish-legal-161316688.html

Ah, lastly, I like this quote Giuliani said in the video:

"Every great man, has failed in their life.  Churchill was thrown out of office twice.  Steve jobs was kicked out of Apple"....

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: qwerty on October 02, 2016, 05:30:20 PM
Carrying over NOLs (taking a loss from one year and applying it to future years with taxable income to reduce that years taxable income) is pretty basic standard practice for corporations. That is not something that warrants being called a genius. I learned that shit my junior year at USC.

Now losing a billion dollars in one year, that is genius.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 02, 2016, 06:52:32 PM
Lebron James endorses Hillary.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/02/politics/lebron-james-endorses-hillary-clinton/

#bigohioendorsement
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 02, 2016, 07:55:24 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/phoenix-sends-donald-trump-cease-desist-letter-ad/story?id=42494089


Another controversy
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on October 02, 2016, 07:59:09 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on October 03, 2016, 10:36:18 AM
Carrying over NOLs (taking a loss from one year and applying it to future years with taxable income to reduce that years taxable income) is pretty basic standard practice for corporations. That is not something that warrants being called a genius. I learned that shit my junior year at USC.

Now losing a billion dollars in one year, that is genius.

Yeah.  Bottom line is, what he did with his taxes... seemed perfectly legal.  What Hillary did with those emails......

Remember, people died in Benghazi.  With tax issues, nobody ever dies.  Even Madoff is still sitting happy and everyone who got conned is still alive after the fact.

Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral/ethical/good or desirable in the leader of the free world. It is legal to wear nothing but shorts and a halter top; I don't want our president to do it. It is legal to frequently tease children; I don't want our president to do it. It is legal to lose a billion dollars; I don't want our president to do it.

Just because most companies value the dollar more than anything else does not make it good. This greed is killing us.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2016, 11:32:26 AM
Hillary-Hatred Derangement Syndrome
She alone stands between America and the reign of the most unstable, unfit president in U.S. history.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121

"The end of the election is now in sight. Some among the anti-Hillary brigades have decided, in deference to their exquisite sensibilities, to stay at home on Election Day, rather than vote for Mrs. Clinton. But most Americans will soon make their choice. It will be either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton—experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane. Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on October 03, 2016, 11:46:46 AM
Hillary-Hatred Derangement Syndrome
She alone stands between America and the reign of the most unstable, unfit president in U.S. history.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121

"The end of the election is now in sight. Some among the anti-Hillary brigades have decided, in deference to their exquisite sensibilities, to stay at home on Election Day, rather than vote for Mrs. Clinton. But most Americans will soon make their choice. It will be either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton—experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane. Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House."
Its like a choice between Bart Simpson or Lisa Simpson for President. Lisa, an insufferable know-it-all like Hillary, would be the sensible choice but what fun would that be? Bart may not be as smart, but he sure as heck would be interesting.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 03, 2016, 12:14:06 PM
You just insulted Lisa Simpson.

:)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on October 03, 2016, 12:28:43 PM
I vote for Homer

(http://blogimg.ngfiles.com/408000/408624/005387624_homer_obama.jpg)
Title: .
Post by: YellowFever on October 03, 2016, 02:38:52 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on October 03, 2016, 02:59:22 PM
Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral/ethical/good or desirable in the leader of the free world. It is legal to wear nothing but shorts and a halter top; I don't want our president to do it. It is legal to frequently tease children; I don't want our president to do it. It is legal to lose a billion dollars; I don't want our president to do it.

Just because most companies value the dollar more than anything else does not make it good. This greed is killing us.

I don't think you're understanding.  Mr. Trump, as much as a a-hole as he is to men, woman, and children was running a multi-billion dollar business.  Some of us will NEVER know what that feels like.

Secondly, when running a multi-billion dollar business, you have a fiduciary responsibility to reduce costs, tax burden, and increase earnings for not just yourself but also your shareholders.  At the end of the day, in the free market, you must answer to your shareholders.  And that is what he did.  If you think for one second, his shareholders in '96 disagreed with what he is doing, then clearly, I think you should stop investing in your 401K, IRA, etc. and just put your cash under the mattress.

Everyone of us who have stocks, 401ks, IRAs, are all shareholders in a sense.  If you found out that your Apple stocks was worth $1 million, but because Apple failed to deduct losses, capital equipment, depreciation, etc.etc. and that costed shareholders $600,000, leaving your stocks worth only $400,000 , I'm sure heads will row and a lawsuit will transpire.

Don't be a hypocrite.

I want every company that my 401k/IRA/Roth IRA funds have an invested interests in, to MAXIMIZE profits for ME when I retire to the FULLEST extent of the law legally possible.

Trump might have a fiduciary responsibility towards his companies' investors (mainly Trump and his family) to maximize profits and limit expenses (including taxes) and he might be doing it legally.  I believe him.  But he also says that he's smart and knows all the Ins and Outs of the tax code and that he can close those loopholes that he's benefited from all these years.  Do you really believe he'll be altruistic and fix all those faults with the tax codes when that will directly result in him having to pay a LOT of taxes? 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on October 03, 2016, 03:04:38 PM
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2016, 03:33:54 PM
Perhaps Trump's taxes are relevant because of his own words?

10 Times Donald Trump Bad-Mouthed People for Not Paying Taxes
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-times-donald-trump-bad-183008906.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on October 03, 2016, 03:54:15 PM
Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral/ethical/good or desirable in the leader of the free world. It is legal to wear nothing but shorts and a halter top; I don't want our president to do it. It is legal to frequently tease children; I don't want our president to do it. It is legal to lose a billion dollars; I don't want our president to do it.

Just because most companies value the dollar more than anything else does not make it good. This greed is killing us.

I don't think you're understanding.  Mr. Trump, as much as a a-hole as he is to men, woman, and children was running a multi-billion dollar business.  Some of us will NEVER know what that feels like.

I understand perfectly. He is a complete narcissist who cares about no one but himself.

Quote
Secondly, when running a multi-billion dollar business, you have a fiduciary responsibility to reduce costs, tax burden, and increase earnings for not just yourself but also your shareholders.  At the end of the day, in the free market, you must answer to your shareholders.  And that is what he did.  If you think for one second, his shareholders in '96 disagreed with what he is doing, then clearly, I think you should stop investing in your 401K, IRA, etc. and just put your cash under the mattress.


It is you that does not understand. He got his $1 billion tax break by passing those losses off to the investors of Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, which was a complete disaster. It lost money every year. During Trump’s 13 years as chairman, the company lost $1.1 billion. Trump stock fell from a high of $35 to just 17 cents, wiping out investors. So, yes, I do think his shareholders disagreed with what he was doing. If you had some of your investments in it, you would, too. He increased earnings for himself, but not for anyone else.


Quote
Everyone of us who have stocks, 401ks, IRAs, are all shareholders in a sense.  If you found out that your Apple stocks was worth $1 million, but because Apple failed to deduct losses, capital equipment, depreciation, etc.etc. and that costed shareholders $600,000, leaving your stocks worth only $400,000 , I'm sure heads will row and a lawsuit will transpire.

Don't be a hypocrite.

I want every company that my 401k/IRA/Roth IRA funds have an invested interests in, to MAXIMIZE profits for ME when I retire to the FULLEST extent of the law legally possible.


I don't. I want profits to be considered along with other things. I don't want money at the cost of destroying our country, environment, ethics, and civic responsibility. The fact that you want this shows you are part of the short-sighted, greedy group that is not good for this country or this world.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2016, 04:13:22 PM
There remains precious little time for Trump to get more folks who might be inclined to support Trump, to become enthused, actually register, and then get out and vote. Defending his tax situation will burn many days/weeks. Clinton can continue to "run out the clock" just taking a knee and running another play.

The Tax-Returns Story May Eat Up Precious Time For Trump
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-returns-story-may-eat-up-precious-time-for-trump/
Title: .
Post by: YellowFever on October 03, 2016, 04:41:18 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2016, 04:51:57 PM
The US is a frightening dangerous third world place and ONLY TRUMP can fix it! Nobody else can. Nope. No one.

Why aren't you as angry as me!?!  >:D >:(
Title: .
Post by: YellowFever on October 03, 2016, 04:58:07 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 03, 2016, 05:09:40 PM
The US is a frightening dangerous third world place and ONLY TRUMP can fix it! Nobody else can. Nope. No one.

Why aren't you as angry as me!?!  >:D >:(

You forgot, we are losing to Gy-nah (China)

Btw did you watch SNL, it was helarious.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on October 03, 2016, 05:35:38 PM
Wow, BangBros, you've gone off on some weird tangent. You are saying that since many do a thing, including criminals, it is good. I disagree. Also, I do not live in Irvine. I did not grow up in Irvine. You presume to know things that you do not. Is humility a foreign concept to you?

You list many companies that have lost money. How many of those companies you cited went out of business after the CEO got to count the loss on his personal tax return? Legal? I don't know and I don't care. Scummy? Absolutely.

You talk about the poor in various places in the world. And you think I should then want to vote for a guy that rips off the poor?

I grew up poor. And as I grew up, I came to understand what greedy, selfish, short-sighted, narcissistic people look like. Trump is one. You are starting to sound like one. Business is filled with them. People who want money and power at any cost. They deceive themselves when they tell themselves that what they do is okay because everyone does it. But not everyone does it. They just stop having people around them that do not do it.

Before you said that Trump was okay because what he did was in the best interest of his shareholders. When I showed you that it wasn't, you then moved the goal post. You need to pick something and stick with it. Your argument style reminds me of Trump. Justify poor behavior by whatever comes to mind.

Just because you want to get rich, doesn't mean you should treat people like crap, even if it is legal. I DON'T CARE if what Trump did is legal. I am not trying to put him in jail. This is about whether he should be President. I don't want someone to be the most powerful person in the world who only cares about himself and making himself rich. He doesn't care about anyone else. He has a history of using bankruptcies and bullying to get out of paying his debts. I think that is really horrible behavior. The man has no honor. He has gotten out of paying poor and middle-class people by threatening to take the issue to court, which they cannot afford. He knows it. It is a power trip to him. He is disgusting. He doesn't care who he hurts.

Again, not all things legal are good. I know how the world works. That doesn't mean I want the President to be the worst of it. Trump is the worst of it.

Also, there is no shortage of reporting of laws he has broken: Trump Foundation in NY, doing business with Cuba, bribing the AG in Florida, etc.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 03, 2016, 06:27:40 PM
The US is a frightening dangerous third world place and ONLY TRUMP can fix it! Nobody else can. Nope. No one.

Why aren't you as angry as me!?!  >:D >:(

You forgot, we are losing to Gy-nah (China)

Btw did you watch SNL, it was helarious.

Yep. Must See TV:

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 03, 2016, 10:07:37 PM
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 04, 2016, 05:27:51 AM
Xenophobes need scapegoats.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 04, 2016, 06:48:24 AM
The US is a frightening dangerous third world place and ONLY TRUMP can fix it! Nobody else can. Nope. No one.

Why aren't you as angry as me!?!  >:D >:(

You forgot, we are losing to Gy-nah (China)

Btw did you watch SNL, it was helarious.

Alec Baldwin is the best Trump impersonator ever.

Now I know why Hillary had that smug smile on during the debate... like the skit, she should have just let Trump talk most of the time.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 04, 2016, 06:58:33 AM
The US is a frightening dangerous third world place and ONLY TRUMP can fix it! Nobody else can. Nope. No one.

Why aren't you as angry as me!?!  >:D >:(

You forgot, we are losing to Gy-nah (China)

Btw did you watch SNL, it was helarious.

Alec Baldwin is the best Trump impersonator ever.

Now I know why Hillary had that smug smile on during the debate... like the skit, she should have just let Trump talk most of the time.

Agreed. The only thing Alec should add to perfect his Trump, is squinting his eyes more, and using his hand gestures much more - especially that "okay" sign Trump excessively seems to have up in the air with one hand or the other.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on October 04, 2016, 09:47:11 AM
So Whose voting what?  :P

I'm probably going to sit this election out.  I don't like either candidate.  One should be in jail and the other might start a world war.  I would love a woman president but not her (michelle Obama might be a decent choice in the future) and I would love a non politician (but not him)...i'll just close my eyes and pray  >:D

I kind of wish Bernie Sanders went on to run independent to give us a 3rd choice...although socialist aspects of his campaign might not be suitable for the US which is mostly capitalist
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on October 04, 2016, 10:25:27 AM
So Whose voting what?  :P

I'm probably going to sit this election out.  I don't like either candidate.  One should be in jail and the other might start a world war.  I would love a woman president but not her (michelle Obama might be a decent choice in the future) and I would love a non politician (but not him)...i'll just close my eyes and pray  >:D

I kind of wish Bernie Sanders went on to run independent to give us a 3rd choice...although socialist aspects of his campaign might not be suitable for the US which is mostly capitalist

Are there any good propositions we should be voting for?  Didn't really look through everything yet. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on October 04, 2016, 10:32:41 AM
Recreational pot.  Muy Bueno.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on October 04, 2016, 10:32:53 AM
Prop 51 - State bonds for schools.  Gov Brown says we shouldn't do this as it is better for local bonds which have more control.  Construction companies benefit from this.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 04, 2016, 12:19:53 PM
NO on ALL new taxes!!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on October 04, 2016, 01:15:28 PM
Recreational pot.  Muy Bueno.

I'm voting yes on this.  Prob 64 legalization of marijuana
I don't smoke but the tax implications are huge.  People that want it get ahold of it anyways so why not regulate it?  I do believe in the health benefits of it for medical use

http://taxfoundation.org/article/marijuana-legalization-and-taxes-lessons-other-states-colorado-and-washington
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2016, 02:47:39 PM
Recreational pot.  Muy Bueno.

I'm voting yes on this.  Prob 64 legalization of marijuana
I don't smoke but the tax implications are huge.  People that want it get ahold of it anyways so why not regulate it?  I do believe in the health benefits of it for medical use

http://taxfoundation.org/article/marijuana-legalization-and-taxes-lessons-other-states-colorado-and-washington

Have you seen that minivan picture with the parents high and toddler in the backseat?

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/heroin-picture-parents-ohio-police-child-a7235621.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: zubs on October 04, 2016, 02:51:35 PM
Yah heroin is the shit.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 04, 2016, 03:02:50 PM
So Whose voting what?  :P

I'm probably going to sit this election out.  I don't like either candidate.  One should be in jail and the other might start a world war.  I would love a woman president but not her (michelle Obama might be a decent choice in the future) and I would love a non politician (but not him)...i'll just close my eyes and pray  >:D
How much do you know about Michelle Obama to think she might be a decent choice in the future?  Is it simply because she is the wife of the current president and she can pick his brain?  I mean, of all the women in America, why choose her?  Is there none more qualified?  Serious question.  I am curious how people think.

Take Hillary Clinton...  While she's the wife of a former president, she has worked on her resume to become a viable candidate.  She's worked in executive roles, legislative roles and legal roles.  She certainly has the experience to qualify her without the novelty of being Bill's wife.  Being Bill Clinton's wife gives her an edge, however.  I would actually support her if she wasn't so dishonest with the identity politics.  I would support her if she didn't cater to identities (vote for me because you are black.  vote for me because you are a woman...)  I would support her if she wasn't so dishonest about her mistakes and her own actions.  I'd support her if I agreed more with her platform, and I agree with some of it...  That said, I think she has the experience.  What has Michelle Obama done to get an endorsement for POTUS?

If you don't like either candidate, I suggest voting for a 3rd party to help send a message.  I bet that Hillary will win California by a landslide.  California is an all or none state, so basically votes for Trump don't matter here.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: cheetos on October 04, 2016, 03:14:53 PM
I'm all for decriminalizing marijuana but I don't know if we're ready for all the issues that come with this.

How do we regulate homegrowers so they don't blow up their neighborhoods?

Is there a provision to prohibit smoking in spaces that tobacco smoke is prohibited? And what legal protections do you have if your neighbor's smoke drifts into your house?

Is there a way to quantitatively measure if someone is too high to drive?

FYI haven't read the whole prop. Maybe some of things are covered...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 04, 2016, 04:04:44 PM
So Whose voting what?  :P

I'm probably going to sit this election out.  I don't like either candidate.  One should be in jail and the other might start a world war.  I would love a woman president but not her (michelle Obama might be a decent choice in the future) and I would love a non politician (but not him)...i'll just close my eyes and pray  >:D
How much do you know about Michelle Obama to think she might be a decent choice in the future?  Is it simply because she is the wife of the current president and she can pick his brain?  I mean, of all the women in America, why choose her?  Is there none more qualified?  Serious question.  I am curious how people think.

Take Hillary Clinton...  While she's the wife of a former president, she has worked on her resume to become a viable candidate.  She's worked in executive roles, legislative roles and legal roles.  She certainly has the experience to qualify her without the novelty of being Bill's wife.  Being Bill Clinton's wife gives her an edge, however.  I would actually support her if she wasn't so dishonest with the identity politics.  I would support her if she didn't cater to identities (vote for me because you are black.  vote for me because you are a woman...)  I would support her if she wasn't so dishonest about her mistakes and her own actions.  I'd support her if I agreed more with her platform, and I agree with some of it...  That said, I think she has the experience.  What has Michelle Obama done to get an endorsement for POTUS?

If you don't like either candidate, I suggest voting for a 3rd party to help send a message.  I bet that Hillary will win California by a landslide.  California is an all or none state, so basically votes for Trump don't matter here.

Whoa, that was an aggressive retort. I think it was just a political observation that she'd probably do very well in a Presidential election - i.e. substitute Michelle Obama for Hillary Clinton and maybe this election is an Electoral College landslide for the Democrats?

She's a Princeton undergrad and Harvard Law grad. There's that. (I know the Talk Irvine crowd LOVES them some prestige!)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 04, 2016, 04:40:54 PM
Aggressive retort?  lol, not at all.  Why so easily offended?



Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 04, 2016, 07:51:09 PM
Aggressive retort?  lol, not at all.  Why so easily offended?

Not offended at all. Just thought the tone of the response was disproportionate to the initial thought/comment.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: WTTCHMN on October 04, 2016, 08:17:41 PM
She's a Princeton undergrad and Harvard Law grad. There's that. (I know the Talk Irvine crowd LOVES them some prestige!)

Affirmative action admits don't count.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 04, 2016, 08:57:59 PM
So who won the undercard debate?

#atwork
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 04, 2016, 11:45:09 PM
So who won the undercard debate?

#atwork

IMO, Pence won, but not sure if that matters at all. Kaine was pretty annoying and awful.  It's like he came to battle Trump and not Pence.  Kaine couldn't go more than a couple of seconds without interrupting Pence.  Kaine did use a lot of short sighted talking points, though, which does win votes from the ignorant.

For perspective, I thought Hillary won the first debate.

CNN Results
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/politics/mike-pence-tim-kaine-vp-debate-poll/index.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 05:23:45 AM
So who won the undercard debate?

#atwork

IMO, Pence won, but not sure if that matters at all. Kaine was pretty annoying and awful.  It's like he came to battle Trump and not Pence.  Kaine couldn't go more than a couple of seconds without interrupting Pence.  Kaine did use a lot of short sighted talking points, though, which does win votes from the ignorant.

For perspective, I thought Hillary won the first debate.

CNN Results
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/politics/mike-pence-tim-kaine-vp-debate-poll/index.html

What's difficult to forget, is Kaine continuously rudely interrupting Pence. That's the main takeaway. However, it was inexplicable why Pence blatantly lied about what Trump has said, on many occasions. Statements Pence made in this debate will follow any Presidential aspirations he has.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 05:25:45 AM
She's a Princeton undergrad and Harvard Law grad. There's that. (I know the Talk Irvine crowd LOVES them some prestige!)

Affirmative action admits don't count.

This is a classic Trump comment - insulting while assuming facts, and even if accepted as true, irrelevant in the big picture. Do you know she was an affirmative action admit? Even if true, it's not like her qualifications would've been anything more than slightly different than non-affirmative action admittees.

Aren't a third of Ivy admits legacy related? Do we "count" them?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 05, 2016, 07:17:58 AM
So can we vote for Pence instead of Trump or Hillary?

Or maybe we vote Trump, impeach him because you know he'll do something stupid and then we have Pence for prez?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 07:30:52 AM
So can we vote for Pence instead of Trump or Hillary?

Or maybe we vote Trump, impeach him because you know he'll do something stupid and then we have Pence for prez?

Yes, if you want an extreme social conservative in the Oval Office.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 05, 2016, 07:39:31 AM
So can we vote for Pence instead of Trump or Hillary?

Or maybe we vote Trump, impeach him because you know he'll do something stupid and then we have Pence for prez?

Yes, if you want an extreme social conservative in the Oval Office.

Boo... I want a financial conservative. I don't mind socially liberal as long as they are not about using government funding to create a welfare state.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 09:08:28 AM
So can we vote for Pence instead of Trump or Hillary?

Or maybe we vote Trump, impeach him because you know he'll do something stupid and then we have Pence for prez?

Yes, if you want an extreme social conservative in the Oval Office.

Boo... I want a financial conservative. I don't mind socially liberal as long as they are not about using government funding to create a welfare state.

Speaking of the "welfare state," I heard a good line yesterday - "The same Republicans who are applauding Trump's 'genius' use of the tax code to benefit from the tax system financially, decry poor folk for their use of the 'welfare' system to benefit financially."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on October 05, 2016, 09:13:50 AM
Pence won the debate I feel as well...He was calm and kaine came off like a little kid.

Off topic: Is CNN pro Hilary or democrat?
Whenever Pence brought up the Hillary emails, the moderator was fighting to cut him off even though it was on topic of the question asked

video on this site if you missed it: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/10/04/watch-pence-brings-up-hillarys-email-server-debate-moderator-pleads-to-move-on-n2228176
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 09:27:21 AM
So can we vote for Pence instead of Trump or Hillary?

Or maybe we vote Trump, impeach him because you know he'll do something stupid and then we have Pence for prez?

Yes, if you want an extreme social conservative in the Oval Office.

Boo... I want a financial conservative. I don't mind socially liberal as long as they are not about using government funding to create a welfare state.

RWW News: Mike Pence Criticizes Theory Of Evolution
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 05, 2016, 09:45:38 AM
So can we vote for Pence instead of Trump or Hillary?

Or maybe we vote Trump, impeach him because you know he'll do something stupid and then we have Pence for prez?

Yes, if you want an extreme social conservative in the Oval Office.

Boo... I want a financial conservative. I don't mind socially liberal as long as they are not about using government funding to create a welfare state.

Speaking of the "welfare state," I heard a good line yesterday - "The same Republicans who are applauding Trump's 'genius' use of the tax code to benefit from the tax system financially, decry poor folk for their use of the 'welfare' system to benefit financially."

Opposite sides of the same spigot.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on October 05, 2016, 09:47:54 AM
"Senator, you whipped out that Mexican thing again" [Mike Pence]
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 09:50:24 AM
"Senator, you whipped out that Mexican thing again" [Mike Pence]

That was odd, considering building a wall to keep Mexicans out and complaining about free trade have been Trump's two biggest issues raised at every rally.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 05, 2016, 10:46:57 AM
That was odd, considering building a wall to keep Mexicans out and complaining about free trade have been Trump's two biggest issues raised at every rally.
Don't be so racist ;).   He's building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out.  Mexicans have the option to come here legally.  Not all Mexicans are here illegally, you know.

Whether the wall will work or not and whether or not it's feasible is another story.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SuperSuper on October 05, 2016, 12:53:55 PM
For sure I'm going with Trump. I understand he is not some polished talking head, but he doesn't have near the smut Clinton does. She only has one thing on her mind, and that is being the first woman President, period. She is everything good parents teach their children not to be. Besides, how well would our economy do with another 12-14 Trillion in debt? I'm not eager to find out..
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 01:11:26 PM
For sure I'm going with Trump. I understand he is not some polished talking head, but he doesn't have near the smut Clinton does. She only has one thing on her mind, and that is being the first woman President, period. She is everything good parents teach their children not to be. Besides, how well would our economy do with another 12-14 Trillion in debt? I'm not eager to find out..

If you're not interested in increasing the national debt, then you might want to reconsider your support for Trump after reviewing analysis of his tax proposal.

Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 04:31:41 PM
Mike Pence couldn't defend Donald Trump at the Vice Presidential debate | The Briefing

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SuperSuper on October 05, 2016, 04:53:40 PM
Oh I have, but at least he will create the jobs that on the backside can start paying it down. Hillarys jobs creation will be --drum role -- Government jobs, that produce nothing BUT more debt. Naw, Obama was the progressives swan song, that paradigm is in its death convulsions and they Democratic party will not rebound nationally until they move away from extremist progressive ideals and back toward JFK Style true democratic principles. By the way, Reaganomics and Trump ideas were all taken from JFK. This drug inspired, radical left wing socialism, is a  left over from the 60's progressiveism. Its an enormous failure in every sector of our lives. Well unless you are transsexual. I guess you more rights now or something?

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 05, 2016, 05:04:56 PM
SuperSuper,

You're using platitudes and political rhetoric.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on October 05, 2016, 05:30:17 PM
Remember Prop 187, the one where all the polls said would lose by a wide margin because it was so politically incorrect but then passed?  I think we will see the same with Trump.  No matter what some people tell the pollsters, what happens in the privacy of the polling booth will be a different story.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 05, 2016, 05:39:48 PM
Remember Prop 187, the one where all the polls said would lose by a wide margin because it was so politically incorrect but then passed?  I think we will see the same with Trump.  No matter what some people tell the pollsters, what happens in the privacy of the polling booth will be a different story.

You are talking about the reverse Mayor Bradley effect?  (Political junkies know what I'm talking about)
I don't think that will happen.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-trump-says-he-will-outperform-negative-1466181939-htmlstory.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 06, 2016, 09:07:40 AM
Remember Prop 187, the one where all the polls said would lose by a wide margin because it was so politically incorrect but then passed?  I think we will see the same with Trump.  No matter what some people tell the pollsters, what happens in the privacy of the polling booth will be a different story.

Sounds like a reasonable theory, but aren't polls taken anonymously too? I can completely understand being ashamed to admit to friends that you support Trump, but ashamed to admit this to some random pollster calling you? Not sure I buy that.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 06, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
RIGGED!!! | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee | TBS
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on October 06, 2016, 09:47:30 AM
Remember Prop 187, the one where all the polls said would lose by a wide margin because it was so politically incorrect but then passed?  I think we will see the same with Trump.  No matter what some people tell the pollsters, what happens in the privacy of the polling booth will be a different story.

Sounds like a reasonable theory, but aren't polls taken anonymously too? I can completely understand being ashamed to admit to friends that you support Trump, but ashamed to admit this to some random pollster calling you? Not sure I buy that.
People tell others what they think that person wants to hear, including pollsters.  For example, polls always predict strong support for gun control measures but these measure almost always fail in actual voting. In the case of Prop 187, no one wanted to say, even anonymously, that they feared illegal aliens because we've been conditioned to believe that is not a rational belief. Today, many fear Muslims but we know the answer expected of us, even from a pollster, is that that is an irrational belief.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on October 06, 2016, 10:00:38 AM
Remember Prop 187, the one where all the polls said would lose by a wide margin because it was so politically incorrect but then passed?  I think we will see the same with Trump.  No matter what some people tell the pollsters, what happens in the privacy of the polling booth will be a different story.

Sounds like a reasonable theory, but aren't polls taken anonymously too? I can completely understand being ashamed to admit to friends that you support Trump, but ashamed to admit this to some random pollster calling you? Not sure I buy that.

You need to "unskew" the polls.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on October 06, 2016, 10:09:46 AM
For sure I'm going with Trump. I understand he is not some polished talking head, but he doesn't have near the smut Clinton does. She only has one thing on her mind, and that is being the first woman President, period. She is everything good parents teach their children not to be. Besides, how well would our economy do with another 12-14 Trillion in debt? I'm not eager to find out..

Trump is everything I would teach children not to be. He is a complete narcissist who can't talk for more than a few minutes without contradicting himself, lying, insulting others, and expressing paranoia. He has no attention span, which is part of what has led to him doing no preparation for the most powerful job in the world. The other part that leads him to not preparing is that he thinks waaaaay too much of himself.

When I have been part of hiring someone for a job, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that we should hire the guy with no experience who thinks he's better than everyone with experience and who hasn't bothered to prepare for the job interview.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 06, 2016, 10:33:58 AM
Remember Prop 187, the one where all the polls said would lose by a wide margin because it was so politically incorrect but then passed?  I think we will see the same with Trump.  No matter what some people tell the pollsters, what happens in the privacy of the polling booth will be a different story.

Sounds like a reasonable theory, but aren't polls taken anonymously too? I can completely understand being ashamed to admit to friends that you support Trump, but ashamed to admit this to some random pollster calling you? Not sure I buy that.
People tell others what they think that person wants to hear, including pollsters.  For example, polls always predict strong support for gun control measures but these measure almost always fail in actual voting. In the case of Prop 187, no one wanted to say, even anonymously, that they feared illegal aliens because we've been conditioned to believe that is not a rational belief. Today, many fear Muslims but we know the answer expected of us, even from a pollster, is that that is an irrational belief.

Are you recalling the Prop 187 polls correctly?

"Originally one of several immigration reform bills placed before the California legislature in the early 1990s, polls surveying community responses showed that Proposition 187 began with widespread support - a 37-point lead in July 1994, and 62-29% lead among likely voters by September 1994.
...
On November 8, 1994, California voters approved the proposition by a wide margin: 59% to 41%.[8] According to the Los Angeles Times exit polls, 63% of non-Hispanic white voters and 23% of Latino voters voted for Proposition 187; African-American and ethnic Asian voters split their voting equally for and against the law. Although non-Hispanic whites comprised 57% of California's population at the time, they comprised 81% of voters in the 1994 general election. Latinos totaled 8% of voters, although they comprised 26% of the state's population."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 06, 2016, 10:35:31 AM
Remember Prop 187, the one where all the polls said would lose by a wide margin because it was so politically incorrect but then passed?  I think we will see the same with Trump.  No matter what some people tell the pollsters, what happens in the privacy of the polling booth will be a different story.

Sounds like a reasonable theory, but aren't polls taken anonymously too? I can completely understand being ashamed to admit to friends that you support Trump, but ashamed to admit this to some random pollster calling you? Not sure I buy that.

You need to "unskew" the polls.

Do you think pollsters want inaccurate poll results? Are they not trying to eliminate skewing?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 07, 2016, 09:15:05 AM
If there's one thing that explains enthusiastic Trump support best, it might be this:

Older white workers without a college degree have really gotten torched

"If you were a white kid who went to work straight out of high school around 1975, you earned roughly $44,000 two decades later. By 2014, on average, your pay had fallen to $32,000, a stunning 27% decline in real terms, after accounting for inflation. You spent what were supposed to be your peak earning years—your 40s and 50s—falling behind."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/older-white-workers-without-a-college-degree-have-really-gotten-torched-180307835.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 07, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
If there's one thing that explains enthusiastic Trump support best, it might be this:

Older white workers without a college degree have really gotten torched

"If you were a white kid who went to work straight out of high school around 1975, you earned roughly $44,000 two decades later. By 2014, on average, your pay had fallen to $32,000, a stunning 27% decline in real terms, after accounting for inflation. You spent what were supposed to be your peak earning years—your 40s and 50s—falling behind."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/older-white-workers-without-a-college-degree-have-really-gotten-torched-180307835.html

I still don't get the slogan: Make America Great Again (Doesn't make sense)

Also, we are not a third world country. (I have been to third world countries, and trust me we are not)

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 07, 2016, 09:37:20 AM
If there's one thing that explains enthusiastic Trump support best, it might be this:

Older white workers without a college degree have really gotten torched

"If you were a white kid who went to work straight out of high school around 1975, you earned roughly $44,000 two decades later. By 2014, on average, your pay had fallen to $32,000, a stunning 27% decline in real terms, after accounting for inflation. You spent what were supposed to be your peak earning years—your 40s and 50s—falling behind."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/older-white-workers-without-a-college-degree-have-really-gotten-torched-180307835.html

I still don't get the slogan: Make America Great Again (Doesn't make sense)

Also, we are not a third world country. (I have been to third world countries, and trust me we are not)

Agreed, but Obama's "Hope & Change" slogan was equally nonsensical. The difference here, is that Trump's slogan claims at some point in the past, America was great, and now it isn't. When was it great? Before women, LGBTers, and non-white folks had many civil rights?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 07, 2016, 09:40:47 AM
If there's one thing that explains enthusiastic Trump support best, it might be this:

Older white workers without a college degree have really gotten torched

"If you were a white kid who went to work straight out of high school around 1975, you earned roughly $44,000 two decades later. By 2014, on average, your pay had fallen to $32,000, a stunning 27% decline in real terms, after accounting for inflation. You spent what were supposed to be your peak earning years—your 40s and 50s—falling behind."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/older-white-workers-without-a-college-degree-have-really-gotten-torched-180307835.html

I still don't get the slogan: Make America Great Again (Doesn't make sense)

Also, we are not a third world country. (I have been to third world countries, and trust me we are not)

Agreed, but Obama's "Hope & Change" slogan was equally nonsensical. The difference here, is that Trump's slogan claims at some point in the past, America was great, and now it isn't. When was it great? Before women, LGBTers, and non-white folks had many civil rights?

Look at the Dow at all time high. Wasn't there a recovery from the Great Recession?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 07, 2016, 10:07:02 AM
If there's one thing that explains enthusiastic Trump support best, it might be this:

Older white workers without a college degree have really gotten torched

"If you were a white kid who went to work straight out of high school around 1975, you earned roughly $44,000 two decades later. By 2014, on average, your pay had fallen to $32,000, a stunning 27% decline in real terms, after accounting for inflation. You spent what were supposed to be your peak earning years—your 40s and 50s—falling behind."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/older-white-workers-without-a-college-degree-have-really-gotten-torched-180307835.html

I still don't get the slogan: Make America Great Again (Doesn't make sense)

Also, we are not a third world country. (I have been to third world countries, and trust me we are not)

Agreed, but Obama's "Hope & Change" slogan was equally nonsensical. The difference here, is that Trump's slogan claims at some point in the past, America was great, and now it isn't. When was it great? Before women, LGBTers, and non-white folks had many civil rights?

I think this slogan would have been better: Let's Make America Better. Which will make more sense.

I'm telling you the tax return that was just released is a big issue. He could of got ahead of this and just released it before hand.

This is a general phrase: The common person pays taxes every year.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 07, 2016, 10:34:55 AM
"Let's Make America Great for All Americans" - How about that one?

The released tax return is an onion with many layers. I think Trump's actually used effective talking points for this. However, the bluster about "knowing more about taxes than anyone" is beyond ridiculous, and has been debunked by his own tax attorney.

The interesting issue now is whether he actually took a bona fide loss that he's been carrying forward. Hillary was a Senator in 2001 when this loophole was closed. This should be talking point for her in Sunday's debate.

Trump’s Tax Strategy Seen Turning Unpaid Debt Into Benefit
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-07/trump-s-tax-strategy-seen-turning-unpaid-debt-into-benefit

Trump Tax Attorney: 'He Didn't Understand the Code'
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-tax-attorney-he-didn-t-understand-code-n660111
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 07, 2016, 02:52:52 PM
Not gonna post a link, because the language is offensive, but there's a 2005 video just out with Trump being Trump. Hopefully he doesn't drop out of the race!

It's on Deadspin, and was on Yahoo frontpage for a minute.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: WTTCHMN on October 07, 2016, 03:59:25 PM
Not gonna post a link, because the language is offensive, but there's a 2005 video just out with Trump being Trump. Hopefully he doesn't drop out of the race!

It's on Deadspin, and was on Yahoo frontpage for a minute.

Oh Perspective, don't be so coy.


The Washington Post and NBC News reported Friday on a video from 2005 in which Mr. Trump is having a conversation with TV host Billy Bush as they arrived at a location for Mr. Trump’s cameo on the soap opera “Days of Our Lives.”

In the recording, Mr. Trump says: “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait…

“And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

In the tape, he also refers to a married woman whom he says he tried to seduce.

“And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Mr. Trump said in the recording. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

The Washington Post said it believed the video was recorded in September 2005. Mr. Trump had married his current wife, Melania Trump, in January of that year.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 08, 2016, 07:53:45 AM
With Trump running the Republican party, is a bankruptcy petition available to reset their platform?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on October 08, 2016, 08:42:53 AM
Not gonna post a link, because the language is offensive, but there's a 2005 video just out with Trump being Trump. Hopefully he doesn't drop out of the race!

It's on Deadspin, and was on Yahoo frontpage for a minute.

Oh Perspective, don't be so coy.


The Washington Post and NBC News reported Friday on a video from 2005 in which Mr. Trump is having a conversation with TV host Billy Bush as they arrived at a location for Mr. Trump’s cameo on the soap opera “Days of Our Lives.”

In the recording, Mr. Trump says: “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait…

“And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

In the tape, he also refers to a married woman whom he says he tried to seduce.

“And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Mr. Trump said in the recording. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

The Washington Post said it believed the video was recorded in September 2005. Mr. Trump had married his current wife, Melania Trump, in January of that year.

The married woman he referred to is Nancy O'Dell.  Even the Donald's apology was taking a swipe at the Clintons.  He is done. We can officially prepare for HRC to be our next POTUS.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: AW on October 08, 2016, 09:11:27 AM
It's like watching house of cards in real life...

Grabs popcorn :)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 08, 2016, 09:33:27 AM
Trump vows to never withdraw.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amid-growing-calls-to-drop-out-trump-vows-to-‘never-withdraw’/ar-BBxaM9y?li=BBnbcA1
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 08, 2016, 01:45:44 PM
Trump vows to never withdraw.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amid-growing-calls-to-drop-out-trump-vows-to-‘never-withdraw’/ar-BBxaM9y?li=BBnbcA1

Republican Officials Are Stampeding Away From Trump
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-officials-are-fleeing-trump-in-droves/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on October 08, 2016, 01:58:57 PM
What. .!?!?  You're saying The Tang Menace told a blue story? Quick Jeeves, fetch my fainting couch as I'm suffering from the vapors.

Here's the real difference:

Trump boasts about failed move on a married woman. She said "No". Trump moved on.

Clinton made a move on many women. When they said "No" Clinton raped them.

But...but  Bill isn't running... No, but his chief abetter, apologist, and destroyer of the accusers reputation is.

To put a fine point on it: Ever heard your boss tell a racist joke? Uncool, right. What if your boss fired someone based on race, and his wife in HR gave "two thumbs up" Which is worse?

If people are unable to differentiate between these undeniable sets of facts, God help us all.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 08, 2016, 02:46:55 PM
What. .!?!?  You're saying The Tang Menace told a blue story? Quick Jeeves, fetch my fainting couch as I'm suffering from the vapors.

Here's the real difference:

Trump boasts about failed move on a married woman. She said "No". Trump moved on.

Clinton made a move on many women. When they said "No" Clinton raped them.

But...but  Bill isn't running... No, but his chief abetter, apologist, and destroyer of the accusers reputation is.

To put a fine point on it: Ever heard your boss tell a racist joke? Uncool, right. What if your boss fired someone based on race, and his wife in HR gave "two thumbs up" Which is worse?

If people are unable to differentiate between these undeniable sets of facts, God help us all.

What Bill Clinton did would be relevant, if Bill were running for President.

To the extent Hillary attacked Bill's accusers, this is relevant. If a strategy session video were to emerge showing Hillary calling Bill's accusers fowl names and plotting to destroy them, it would be similarly despicable to Trump's Access Hollywood video.

The difference might be that Trump appears to continue this type of behavior to this day in broad public daylight, and is unapologetic (until the half apology issued last night).
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on October 08, 2016, 07:58:14 PM
One doesn't need a video to make an informed decision. So far no video has turned up on what was the "crime of the century", but I will bet a box of white house sourced, slightly inserted cigars that no one would be willing to rent a room to OJ Simpson while he continues to search for the real killers. Nope, there's enough information for people to put 1 + 1 + 1 together and still get 3, without an audio or video tape. Unfortunately for the Cheeto Faced Vulgarian, the media will never highlight Hillary's willful denigration of BC's victims.

Let's share your position, that an 11 year old video is continuing evidence of DT's state of mind right now towards women. If that's the case, it's only fair to assume that BC continues to be a sexual predator. Perhaps a quick googling of "Clinton Epstein" can shed some light on BC's 2002-2005 behavior - right at about the same time as DT's comments were made.  Again, I completely maintain that actions, not words, are what need to be the issue. The actions of Hillary in blameshifting first "vast right wing conspiracy" or calling Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon" - until the blue stained dress proved otherwise - shows that her judgment is unfit for the Presidency. Ask Michelle Obama - If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't manage the White House"

Now, the MSM is sifting through old Howard Stern show tapes to cull the worst of DT's comments, and roll around in it pre-debate tomorrow. Meh, I say. We know DT's hardly a choirboy. We also know the Scabrous Gorgon is a clear and present danger with comments made only in the last few years! Dear reader, imagine if you did any of the things Hillary did with your E-mail and devices. What would your employment picture look like? If your last name is Clinton, you're afforded one set of rules. If your name is anything but, I hope you look good in Orange. I hear it's the new Black... Take a run through Wikileaks dump of John Podesta's e-mails. In it you'll read about those Goldman speeches and how you need a "public and a private" view on things.... Blegh.

My guess here is that 48% of the voters are committed one way or the other, and these skirmishes are just over the last 3% who will swing this election towards their favorite candidate. Unfortunately the choices before all voters are so difficult, this TI'er may just write in the "Sweet Meteor of Death". At least the SMoD is ready to make an extinction level impact on the electoral process....

My .02c
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on October 08, 2016, 09:12:42 PM
One doesn't need a video to make an informed decision. So far no video has turned up on what was the "crime of the century", but I will bet a box of white house sourced, slightly inserted cigars that no one would be willing to rent a room to OJ Simpson while he continues to search for the real killers. Nope, there's enough information for people to put 1 + 1 + 1 together and still get 3, without an audio or video tape. Unfortunately for the Cheeto Faced Vulgarian, the media will never highlight Hillary's willful denigration of BC's victims.

Let's share your position, that an 11 year old video is continuing evidence of DT's state of mind right now towards women. If that's the case, it's only fair to assume that BC continues to be a sexual predator. Perhaps a quick googling of "Clinton Epstein" can shed some light on BC's 2002-2005 behavior - right at about the same time as DT's comments were made.  Again, I completely maintain that actions, not words, are what need to be the issue. The actions of Hillary in blameshifting first "vast right wing conspiracy" or calling Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon" - until the blue stained dress proved otherwise - shows that her judgment is unfit for the Presidency. Ask Michelle Obama - If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't manage the White House"

Now, the MSM is sifting through old Howard Stern show tapes to cull the worst of DT's comments, and roll around in it pre-debate tomorrow. Meh, I say. We know DT's hardly a choirboy. We also know the Scabrous Gorgon is a clear and present danger with comments made only in the last few years! Dear reader, imagine if you did any of the things Hillary did with your E-mail and devices. What would your employment picture look like? If your last name is Clinton, you're afforded one set of rules. If your name is anything but, I hope you look good in Orange. I hear it's the new Black... Take a run through Wikileaks dump of John Podesta's e-mails. In it you'll read about those Goldman speeches and how you need a "public and a private" view on things.... Blegh.

My guess here is that 48% of the voters are committed one way or the other, and these skirmishes are just over the last 3% who will swing this election towards their favorite candidate. Unfortunately the choices before all voters are so difficult, this TI'er may just write in the "Sweet Meteor of Death". At least the SMoD is ready to make an extinction level impact on the electoral process....

My .02c

Didn't Trump also hang out with Epstein on the Island?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: aquabliss on October 08, 2016, 09:45:55 PM
I can't help but wonder if the RNC is meeting in secret to dump him and announce a 3rd party candidate next week.

Probably not, but here's to hoping.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on October 08, 2016, 10:08:50 PM
Fuck Trump. He's an embarrassment not just to Republicans but to all Americans. He's finally getting the attention he deserves.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 09, 2016, 02:24:19 AM
I can't help but wonder if the RNC is meeting in secret to dump him and announce a 3rd party candidate next week.

Probably not, but here's to hoping.
It's a good theory.  I saw some conspiracy theory that certain people were warned about the microphone incident a few weeks ago but kept it from Trump.  Then they acted shocked yesterday.

If they can't get rid of him, then they still have to vote for him for the sake of the Supreme Court, trade, and immigration issues.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 09, 2016, 07:01:26 AM
I can't help but wonder if the RNC is meeting in secret to dump him and announce a 3rd party candidate next week.

Probably not, but here's to hoping.
If they can't get rid of him, then they still have to vote for him for the sake of the Supreme Court, trade, and immigration issues.

Agreed, at least for SCOTUS. That is the biggest (YUGE!) reason you'd support and vote for Trump. Trade? Trump isn't going to change a thing about trade - pure political rhetoric. Immigration? I could see the border security budget increasing dramatically, but we'll never waste billions building a bigger wall.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 09, 2016, 07:03:46 AM
One doesn't need a video to make an informed decision. So far no video has turned up on what was the "crime of the century", but I will bet a box of white house sourced, slightly inserted cigars that no one would be willing to rent a room to OJ Simpson while he continues to search for the real killers. Nope, there's enough information for people to put 1 + 1 + 1 together and still get 3, without an audio or video tape. Unfortunately for the Cheeto Faced Vulgarian, the media will never highlight Hillary's willful denigration of BC's victims.

Let's share your position, that an 11 year old video is continuing evidence of DT's state of mind right now towards women. If that's the case, it's only fair to assume that BC continues to be a sexual predator. Perhaps a quick googling of "Clinton Epstein" can shed some light on BC's 2002-2005 behavior - right at about the same time as DT's comments were made.  Again, I completely maintain that actions, not words, are what need to be the issue. The actions of Hillary in blameshifting first "vast right wing conspiracy" or calling Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon" - until the blue stained dress proved otherwise - shows that her judgment is unfit for the Presidency. Ask Michelle Obama - If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't manage the White House"

Now, the MSM is sifting through old Howard Stern show tapes to cull the worst of DT's comments, and roll around in it pre-debate tomorrow. Meh, I say. We know DT's hardly a choirboy. We also know the Scabrous Gorgon is a clear and present danger with comments made only in the last few years! Dear reader, imagine if you did any of the things Hillary did with your E-mail and devices. What would your employment picture look like? If your last name is Clinton, you're afforded one set of rules. If your name is anything but, I hope you look good in Orange. I hear it's the new Black... Take a run through Wikileaks dump of John Podesta's e-mails. In it you'll read about those Goldman speeches and how you need a "public and a private" view on things.... Blegh.

My guess here is that 48% of the voters are committed one way or the other, and these skirmishes are just over the last 3% who will swing this election towards their favorite candidate. Unfortunately the choices before all voters are so difficult, this TI'er may just write in the "Sweet Meteor of Death". At least the SMoD is ready to make an extinction level impact on the electoral process....

My .02c

Fair analysis, but I completely disagree that actions matter more than words. That is patently false.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 09, 2016, 07:59:14 AM
VP Debate Cold Open - SNL
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: WTTCHMN on October 09, 2016, 12:01:24 PM
Fair analysis, but I completely disagree that actions matter more than words. That is patently false.

Your wife has sex with qwerty. 

vs.

Your wife says she fantasizes about sex with qwerty.


Actions don't matter more than words?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 09, 2016, 12:24:09 PM
Fair analysis, but I completely disagree that actions matter more than words. That is patently false.

Your wife has sex with qwerty. 

vs.

Your wife says she fantasizes about sex with qwerty.


Actions don't matter more than words?

The number of people Hitler could kill with his own hands was limited. The number of people he could kill with his words and ideas? Unlimited.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on October 09, 2016, 12:47:12 PM
Now with this thread fully Godwin'ed we should move on.

BTW - in the same time period Mr. Baldwin calls his own flesh and blood a rude, thoughtless pig. Now he's mocking someone for a foul mouth? Does no one see the irony. Oh well, in the same vein Sugar Tits McJew Hater likely has an Oscar in his future for his new film so evidently there is a statute of limitations for speech we don't like.  The Tang Menace likely has more revelations to come but at least given everyone else's track record, the guilty are given absolution in about a decades time.

My .02c

Soylent Green Is People
Vote Sweet Meteor of Death in '16 - The only candidate with a fool proof plan to eliminate ISIS - and everyone else...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on October 09, 2016, 06:25:19 PM
Can't wait for SNL this coming Saturday...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 09, 2016, 07:05:03 PM
Can't wait for SNL this coming Saturday...

Trump didn't solve that breathing/sniffing issue after it was mocked by SNL and others. Odd. It even seems a bit worse.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 09, 2016, 09:51:48 PM
I can't count how many times Trump stood up and paced/ walk around when it wasn't his turn to talk during the debate.
 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 10, 2016, 12:49:10 AM
I can't help but wonder if the RNC is meeting in secret to dump him and announce a 3rd party candidate next week.

Probably not, but here's to hoping.
If they can't get rid of him, then they still have to vote for him for the sake of the Supreme Court, trade, and immigration issues.

Agreed, at least for SCOTUS. That is the biggest (YUGE!) reason you'd support and vote for Trump. Trade? Trump isn't going to change a thing about trade - pure political rhetoric. Immigration? I could see the border security budget increasing dramatically, but we'll never waste billions building a bigger wall.
If he's elected:

I think he can have an impact on things with trade like the TPP.  He could also can decide not to ignore certain responsibilities in the executive branch and/or decide to ignore some of them.  I don't see the wall happening, and in 4 years it will bite him in the ass.

Whomever is elected: I think we will see a downturn in the economy at some point in the next 4 years.  They are going to get blame, even if it's out of their control.

VP Debate Cold Open - SNL
That was pretty funny. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 10, 2016, 05:41:47 AM
Clinton's answer to the last question was weak - "Name one thing you admire or respect about the other." She complimented his kids. I was hoping she'd say, "Free and fair trade is better for almost everyone, but there are some people who don't benefit on balance, and are in fact quite negatively affected. I appreciate that Donald has brought this issue to the forefront of our political conscience. There are communities in our country that are painfully suffering due directly to free trade policies. We need to find ways to help these communities, and Donald has focused our attention on this. For that, I am grateful."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 10, 2016, 06:43:00 AM
Donald Trump calls Madea. (Jimmy Fallon The Tonight Show)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 10, 2016, 08:51:40 AM
Clinton's answer to the last question was weak - "Name one thing you admire or respect about the other." She complimented his kids. I was hoping she'd say, "Free and fair trade is better for almost everyone, but there are some people who don't benefit on balance, and are in fact quite negatively affected. I appreciate that Donald has brought this issue to the forefront of our political conscience. There are communities in our country that are painfully suffering due directly to free trade policies. We need to find ways to help these communities, and Donald has focused our attention on this. For that, I am grateful."

That whole trade thing is reduculous. The fact that Trump bought steel from China and not from steel companies in the US speaks for it self, according to the article below.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 10, 2016, 10:34:31 PM
That whole trade thing is reduculous. The fact that Trump bought steel from China and not from steel companies in the US speaks for it self, according to the article below.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717
The logical fallacy is that he should buy the stuff in the US or he has no say in the matter. 

Fact is, he knows exactly why companies buy stuff elsewhere as he does it himself.  Fact is, many politicians were in power when US companies started buying things overseas.  If they were in power then, and weren't able to stop it, why should we believe they can do it now?  (meg whitman vs barbara boxer scenerio).  It's more likely that he knows what incentives or actions need to happen to make buying American more appealing.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 11, 2016, 09:27:54 AM
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: GH on October 11, 2016, 09:52:52 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Wde1fFvPg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Wde1fFvPg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 12, 2016, 09:24:32 AM
Where Do Clinton And Trump Have The Most Upside?
By David Wasserman, Reuben Fischer-Baum and Ritchie King
Non-college-educated whites are moving toward Donald Trump. Non-whites and college-educated whites are swinging Hillary Clinton. We built a county-by-county model to show where shifts in these groups could make the biggest difference.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/clinton-trump-vote-maps-2016/

In November, Donald Trump could become the first Republican presidential nominee to lose Orange County, California, since 1936. ...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 13, 2016, 08:56:21 AM
Lebron calls Trump's comments "trash talk" not locker room talk, according to the article below.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/12/lebron-james-trump-locker-room-talk/91956604/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 13, 2016, 09:31:29 AM
This is an election like no other. It will not follow conventional wisdom.

White House Watch: Trump Takes the Lead

Thursday, October 13, 2016

The full results from Sunday night’s debate are in, and Donald Trump has come from behind to take the lead over Hillary Clinton.

The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 41%. Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but  that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 13, 2016, 09:34:05 AM
Trump has a 13% chance of winning at this moment, according to Silver's metrics:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 13, 2016, 09:39:39 AM
Trump has a 13% chance of winning at this moment, according to Silver's metrics:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

I think the election is over. Now other women are allegedly  saying things about Trump. (I don't know if it's true or not)

Top it odd off, with the #1 recognizable sport star in the US to back Clinton.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on October 13, 2016, 10:14:24 AM
This is an election like no other. It will not follow conventional wisdom.

White House Watch: Trump Takes the Lead

Thursday, October 13, 2016

The full results from Sunday night’s debate are in, and Donald Trump has come from behind to take the lead over Hillary Clinton.

The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 41%. Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but  that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13)

Popular vote doesn't matter. Presidents get elected via the electoral college.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 13, 2016, 10:33:10 AM
Trump has a 13% chance of winning at this moment, according to Silver's metrics:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Will not follow conventional analysis.

7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump

1. June 16, 2015: Why Donald Trump Isn’t A Real Candidate, In One Chart

2. July 16, 2015: Two Good Reasons Not To Take The Donald Trump ‘Surge’ Seriously

3. July 20, 2015: Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll

4. Aug. 6, 2015: Donald Trump’s Six Stages of Doom

5. Aug. 11, 2015: Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls, And Losing The Nomination

6. Nov. 23, 2015: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls

7. Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan

Still, Trump’s sustained polling success was finally cracking even Silver’s resolve. Instead of being openly dismissive of Trump, he simply noted that Trump’s real strength would be revealed by how New Hampshire voted. We all know how that went. On Feb. 10, Silver finally anointed Trump as the GOP frontrunner.


http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/#ixzz4MmSwNIjy (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/#ixzz4MmSwNIjy)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on October 13, 2016, 10:42:10 AM
Trump has a 13% chance of winning at this moment, according to Silver's metrics:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Will not follow conventional analysis.

7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump

1. June 16, 2015: Why Donald Trump Isn’t A Real Candidate, In One Chart

2. July 16, 2015: Two Good Reasons Not To Take The Donald Trump ‘Surge’ Seriously

3. July 20, 2015: Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll

4. Aug. 6, 2015: Donald Trump’s Six Stages of Doom

5. Aug. 11, 2015: Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls, And Losing The Nomination

6. Nov. 23, 2015: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls

7. Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan

Still, Trump’s sustained polling success was finally cracking even Silver’s resolve. Instead of being openly dismissive of Trump, he simply noted that Trump’s real strength would be revealed by how New Hampshire voted. We all know how that went. On Feb. 10, Silver finally anointed Trump as the GOP frontrunner.


http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/#ixzz4MmSwNIjy (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/#ixzz4MmSwNIjy)

Rasmussen in 2012 had an AVERAGE error of 4.2 points with a Republican bias of 3.7 points. They fared at the bottom of the lot in terms of getting their predictions right.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on October 13, 2016, 10:42:17 AM
If all these allegations are true that are coming out, I won't be the least bit surprised to see Melania dump him after the election.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 13, 2016, 10:45:47 AM
If all these allegations are true that are coming out, I won't be the least bit surprised to see Melania dump him after the election.

R2D tells it like how it is.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 13, 2016, 10:46:53 AM
Cliff Notes version of Trump's speech today:

"The polls are all wrong. I don't believe them. But did you see the poll today where I'm leading Clinton?

Nobody watches CNN, MSNBC, or reads NYT and Washington Post. They're failing broke institutions nobody follows. But this powerful media machine is colluding with the elites and the establishment to destroy our movement!

All sexual abuse victims should be believed! But do not believe mine! They're all horrible, horrible people."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Irvine Dream on October 13, 2016, 11:04:06 AM
Cliff Notes version of Trump's speech today:

"The polls are all wrong. I don't believe them. But did you see the poll today where I'm leading Clinton?

Nobody watches CNN, MSNBC, or reads NYT and Washington Post. They're failing broke institutions nobody follows. But this powerful media machine is colluding with the elites and the establishment to destroy our movement!

All sexual abuse victims should be believed! But do not believe mine! They're all horrible, horrible people."
Awesome summary ;D
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on October 13, 2016, 11:42:06 AM
ugh.. both candidates are horrible.  Trump is a doof.. and HRC the less of the two evils.. which isn't sayin much.  WE really need a legit third independent party.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 13, 2016, 01:18:47 PM
New York Times To Donald Trump: Come At Me Bro
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/new-york-times-to-donald-trump-come-at-me-bro/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Compressed-Village on October 13, 2016, 01:26:43 PM
This guy is baked, burnt, well toasted, FUBAR.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 13, 2016, 01:40:22 PM
Conspiracy Theory:

Democrats actually backed Trump to make him the Republican lead knowing it would all blow up eventually.

#wagthedog
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on October 13, 2016, 01:53:41 PM
Trump is like a massive car wreck. You can't help yourself watching the carnage.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 13, 2016, 02:18:48 PM
Conspiracy Theory:

Democrats actually backed Trump to make him the Republican lead knowing it would all blow up eventually.

#wagthedog

That's plausible, unlike most conspiracy theories. The problem is, the theory doesn't benefit Trump:

"Crooked Hillary, the disgusting media, and her Establishment friends, all colluded to ensure a non-serious unqualified despicable Republican would win the party's nomination, so that Crooked Hillary could easily win the White House in a landslide."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 14, 2016, 09:49:58 AM
l know the narrative is set but i really think people dont care about this as much as we are told.

GOOGLE TRENDS SHOWS INTERNET USERS FAR MORE INTERESTED IN WIKILEAKS THAN TRUMP ALLEGATIONS

A Google Trends graph shows that Internet users are vastly more interested in Wikileaks releases than allegations about Donald Trump that have been given blanket coverage by the mainstream media.
The graph illustrates how even on the day the infamous ‘Trump tape’ was released, Google searches for Wikileaks were still significantly higher.
Wikileaks has been releasing emails from the John Podesta hack on a daily basis and on every single day, Google searches for Wikileaks have been higher than those pertaining to new allegations made against Trump.
The whistleblower organization commented on the trend, tweeting, “US mainstream media are completely out of sync with audience demand.”
The graph underscores the fact that the media is following an agenda to smear Trump, even to the detriment of their own audience.

http://www.infowars.com/google-trends-shows-internet-users-far-more-interested-in-wikileaks-than-trump-allegations/ (http://www.infowars.com/google-trends-shows-internet-users-far-more-interested-in-wikileaks-than-trump-allegations/)

White House Watch: No Sign of Allegations Fallout Yet

At the close of a week that began with him trailing by seven points, Donald Trump still holds a slight lead over Hillary Clinton in today’s White House Watch survey despite a flurry of news reports alleging a history of sexual harassment on his part.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Trump with 43% support to Clinton’s 41%. That’s unchanged from yesterday. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson picks up six percent (6%) of vote, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein has two percent (2%) backing. Four percent (4%) like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct14 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct14)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 14, 2016, 10:25:39 AM
You're referencing one national poll, ignoring all other data, polls, and electoral college math. This is a very Republican thing to do - very similar to Trump and his surrogates telling us they're going to win the election because their rallies are well attended and Clinton's are not.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 14, 2016, 11:00:36 AM
We shall surely see in short order. I have said since the start of Trumps run that he significantly under polls. His candidacy now depends on that.  Its been my experience, (and i deal with people all over the country), that most are hesitant to admit publicly that they are voting for this guy.  However, Quite a few privately say they will. We will find out if its enough in a few weeks.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 14, 2016, 11:09:59 AM
We shall surely see in short order. I have said since the start of Trumps run that he significantly under polls. His candidacy now depends on that.  Its been my experience, (and i deal with people all over the country), that most are hesitant to admit publicly that they are voting for this guy.  However, Quite a few privately say they will. We will find out if its enough in a few weeks.

Now you're using anecdotes to prove dozens of scientific polls by many different pollsters are wrong.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 14, 2016, 11:25:02 AM
As i have said from the start, i observe from the sidelines. My vote is irrelevant.  However, i make a living going against the grain of accepted public opinion. It's a cynical way of life, but it pays the bills. I always find myself on the underdog side of the field.  Data is fungible commodity. Garbage in yields garbage out. To me this has been endlessly entertaining but just an exercise in argument.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on October 14, 2016, 11:43:35 AM
I personally think the Trump campaign is over and Hillary will be president as she's the lesser of the two evils, just curious, what are people's thoughts on the Wikileaks from  private emails?

1) Do you trust the authenticity of WikiLeaks?  People say they have 10 years of pristine history
2) Thoughts on her being more favorable to free trade and to banks?
3) Clinton spokesman seems anti-Catholic, anti-Christian perhaps
4) in a paid speech in front of banks, admitted to being "kind of far removed" from the middle class

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on October 14, 2016, 12:40:06 PM
I personally think the Trump campaign is over and Hillary will be president as she's the lesser of the two evils, just curious, what are people's thoughts on the Wikileaks from  private emails?

1) Do you trust the authenticity of WikiLeaks?  People say they have 10 years of pristine history
2) Thoughts on her being more favorable to free trade and to banks?
3) Clinton spokesman seems anti-Catholic, anti-Christian perhaps
4) in a paid speech in front of banks, admitted to being "kind of far removed" from the middle class

1 No way to know unless confirmed by another source
2 I didn't think the day would come were conservatives would deride liberal economic policies (as in, embracing free trade)
3 I agree that Catholicism is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion in the USA. Does that also make me anti-Catholic?
4 Anyone in a household with a net worth > $10mil is most definitely far removed from the Middle Class
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 14, 2016, 12:53:01 PM
As i have said from the start, i observe from the sidelines. My vote is irrelevant.  However, i make a living going against the grain of accepted public opinion. It's a cynical way of life, but it pays the bills. I always find myself on the underdog side of the field.  Data is fungible commodity. Garbage in yields garbage out. To me this has been endlessly entertaining but just an exercise in argument.

Understood. Anecdotally, most folks I know understand their vote in CA doesn't really matter, and will un-enthusiastically vote for Clinton, if for no other reason than to vote "No" to Trump.

I only know two people who share that they'll vote for Trump, and they're both over-enthusiastic about it, to the point where it's not unfair to call it rage.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 14, 2016, 01:20:45 PM
It is probably useless but to me the best way to send a message that you don't like either candidate is to vote for one of the other two.

But I don't think that's an option if you're registered to one of the two parties (?).
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 14, 2016, 02:44:40 PM
It is probably useless but to me the best way to send a message that you don't like either candidate is to vote for one of the other two.

But I don't think that's an option if you're registered to one of the two parties (?).

1. You have to be registered to vote
2. You can vote for anyone in the general election

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 15, 2016, 02:07:38 PM
During celebrity apprentice, Lil John asks trump to stop calling him Uncle Tom, according to the article below.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/lil-jon-says-he-asked-trump-stop-calling-him-uncle-n666826

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 17, 2016, 09:08:12 AM
73% of Republicans believe this election will be stolen from Trump.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/17/donald-trumps-rigged-election-lie-is-working-on-republicans-73-percent-of-gop-voters-think-the-election-could-be-stolen-from-him/

Words matter. Trump's language has been consistently despicable from the moment he announced his candidacy. This will have long lasting consequences, not confined to the Republican party.

Will America ever recover from Donald Trump?
http://theweek.com/articles/654890/america-ever-recover-from-donald-trump?yptr=yahoo

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 17, 2016, 11:02:25 AM
Translation: "I'm a sore loser."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 17, 2016, 12:41:38 PM
Kinda what I've been saying...

'Our polling methods are bunk': Political science professor says pollsters have NO IDEA who will vote in November

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by an average of 6.3 percent in surveys used in Real Clear Politics' projections
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight says there's an 86.6 percent likelihood that Clinton will win; Trump has a 13.4 percent chance of pulling it off

Helmut Norpoth is a political science professor at Stony Brook University and an election forecaster whose model has  been correct since 1996
He's advising voters to 'hold off on trusting poll-driven proclamations of a Clinton victory just yet'
His model, based off of the candidates' primary performances, has Trump winning on Nov. 8; it's 87 percent certain


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3844002/Our-polling-methods-bunk-Political-science-professor-says-pollsters-NO-IDEA-vote-November.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3844002/Our-polling-methods-bunk-Political-science-professor-says-pollsters-NO-IDEA-vote-November.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 18, 2016, 05:48:35 AM
Fair enough - this pollster has a different method and has Trump winning. It's kind of funny that the premise of the article is set-up in the very first sentence establishing the strawman he'll knock down:

"A casual observer of national polling on the White House race might conclude that Hillary Clinton is the assured victor."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 19, 2016, 08:02:22 AM
and then....

The betting pattern that signals a Trump presidency isn't as remote as the world thinks

William Hill slashes odds on Trump victory amid betting patterns eerily reminiscent of those seen in the lead up to the EU referendum

Despite a calamitous week of campaigning, betting markets on the US election are almost a mirror image of those on Britain’s EU referendum at this stage. And they could be pointing to a victory for Donald Trump.

It comes despite a campaign bedevilled and derailed by ugly accusations of sexual abuse on the part of Trump from a growing list of women, together with his claims that the election is somehow being “rigged”.

William Hill’s spokesman and resident betting expert Graham Sharpe, an industry veteran of 44 years standing, said: “It’s very, very similar to the Brexit vote. There is a metropolitan media bias that says Trump can’t win, but they can’t vote. In betting terms, this is not a done deal. I see parallels with the Brexit vote at this stage.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/punters-rush-to-back-trump-despite-disastrous-week-of-campaigning-a7368196.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/punters-rush-to-back-trump-despite-disastrous-week-of-campaigning-a7368196.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on October 19, 2016, 10:17:20 AM
Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 19, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
"As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it,” Rubio tells ABC News. "Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us." (Per abc article link below)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-rubio-talk-wikileaks-donald-trump/story?id=42895586

My comment: I think Rubio makes a good point, seems like Wikileaks is getting info from foreign governments which is interfering in this election. I would even go as far and say these hackers cause havoc with US companies and individuals.

Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 19, 2016, 10:59:27 AM
Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power

Why would the President be indicted for knowing the Secretary of State was using a private server for State Dept business?

If you're gonna float a conspiracy theory, develop it a little bit so that it's faintly plausible.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on October 19, 2016, 11:06:16 AM
Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power

Why would the President be indicted for knowing the Secretary of State was using a private server for State Dept business?

If you're gonna float a conspiracy theory, develop it a little bit so that it's faintly plausible.

Good point.  I haven't done enough research to find out if the President was under oath or in what situation the President told the public,  But essentially he said he only found out about Hillary's private server from the news outlet when it aired and have no idea it was happening before.  If it was under oath, then it's possible right?

I remember the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal...he was impeached not because he slept with another woman but because he lied under oath that he did it.  Not sure if it's related or not though, please educate
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 19, 2016, 11:34:51 AM
Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power

Why would the President be indicted for knowing the Secretary of State was using a private server for State Dept business?

If you're gonna float a conspiracy theory, develop it a little bit so that it's faintly plausible.

Good point.  I haven't done enough research to find out if the President was under oath or in what situation the President told the public,  But essentially he said he only found out about Hillary's private server from the news outlet when it aired and have no idea it was happening before.  If it was under oath, then it's possible right?

I remember the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal...he was impeached not because he slept with another woman but because he lied under oath that he did it.  Not sure if it's related or not though, please educate

Ah, if that were the case, then it makes for good political fodder, but isn't a crime.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: peppy on October 19, 2016, 11:39:00 AM
Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power

Why would the President be indicted for knowing the Secretary of State was using a private server for State Dept business?

If you're gonna float a conspiracy theory, develop it a little bit so that it's faintly plausible.

Good point.  I haven't done enough research to find out if the President was under oath or in what situation the President told the public,  But essentially he said he only found out about Hillary's private server from the news outlet when it aired and have no idea it was happening before.  If it was under oath, then it's possible right?

I remember the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal...he was impeached not because he slept with another woman but because he lied under oath that he did it.  Not sure if it's related or not though, please educate

How come the part where he is acquitted always seems to be forgotten?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 19, 2016, 11:42:25 AM
Regarding HRC's "email scandal," I think it can be summarized as two separate issues:

1) The use of private email/server clearly violated HRC's employer's policies and procedures, for which she could be disciplined up to termination.

2) The mishandling of classified information could result in criminal charges. Comey's testimony before Congress explains this in great detail.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 19, 2016, 11:55:45 AM
"As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it,” Rubio tells ABC News. "Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us." (Per abc article link below)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-rubio-talk-wikileaks-donald-trump/story?id=42895586

My comment: I think Rubio makes a good point, seems like Wikileaks is getting info from foreign governments which is interfering in this election. I would even go as far and say these hackers cause havoc with US companies and individuals.

Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power
So we should just ignore the information coming from Wikileaks?  No. Once the information is out there, it's good for us to know.

Well, yeah, team Hillary is ignoring it all which means the media and celebrities are ignoring it too.  Had the wikileaks been republican stuff, they would be all over it.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 19, 2016, 12:02:33 PM
"As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it,” Rubio tells ABC News. "Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us." (Per abc article link below)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-rubio-talk-wikileaks-donald-trump/story?id=42895586

My comment: I think Rubio makes a good point, seems like Wikileaks is getting info from foreign governments which is interfering in this election. I would even go as far and say these hackers cause havoc with US companies and individuals.

Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power
So we should just ignore the information coming from Wikileaks?  No. Once the information is out there, it's good for us to know.

Well, yeah, team Hillary is ignoring it all which means the media and celebrities are ignoring it too.  Had the wikileaks been republican stuff, they would be all over it.

Do what you want? But you should also beware the information is coming from Russia.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 19, 2016, 12:08:42 PM
"As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it,” Rubio tells ABC News. "Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us." (Per abc article link below)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-rubio-talk-wikileaks-donald-trump/story?id=42895586

My comment: I think Rubio makes a good point, seems like Wikileaks is getting info from foreign governments which is interfering in this election. I would even go as far and say these hackers cause havoc with US companies and individuals.

Take Wikileaks with a grain of salt, but recent wikileaks released yesterday revealed that March 2015 President Obama already knew about the private server for Hillary Clinton.  If he did know, they would have to indict the President possibly.  It was maybe for this reason that she wasn't indicted in the first place because too many higher ups in the White house would be questioned so he was forced to back her.  If true, they will do everything they can to get her into office so she can provide immunity to those involved etc...

obviously voting for trump as the alternative is a whole other can of worms, but interesting to think about at least with those in power
So we should just ignore the information coming from Wikileaks?  No. Once the information is out there, it's good for us to know.

Well, yeah, team Hillary is ignoring it all which means the media and celebrities are ignoring it too.  Had the wikileaks been republican stuff, they would be all over it.

Don't devolve into rhetoric. The "media" is not "ignoring it."
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 19, 2016, 01:25:20 PM
Hillary Clinton’s campaign
Hacked off

What looks like a Russian hack of the Clinton campaign chairman’s e-mail account would, in another year, be causing the candidate problems
Oct 15th 2016 | WASHINGTON, DC | From the print edition

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21708687-what-looks-russian-hack-clinton-campaign-chairmans-e-mail-account-would

IF OPINION polls maintain current trends, the sounds of pursuit by Donald Trump will reach Hillary Clinton’s ears ever-more faintly as she enters the final straight of a long, slog of a race for the White House. But even if the Republican nominee continues to run out of puff (see Briefing) one last worry haunts Democrats: that Mrs Clinton, an uninspiring candidate lugging decades of political baggage, could still somehow slow and lose all by herself. Those concerns have not been eased by a remorseless, ongoing effort by WikiLeaks, an online clearing-house for leaked and hacked information, to load fresh baggage onto the Democratic nominee.

In recent days alone WikiLeaks has published thousands of e-mails that appear to have been hacked from the Gmail account of John Podesta, the chairman of Mrs Clinton’s presidential campaign and a former close aide to President Barack Obama. Though Mr Podesta has not confirmed the authenticity of individual documents, he told reporters aboard a campaign aeroplane that “it doesn’t feel great” to have ten years of e-mails dumped into the public domain.

The stolen information includes politically awkward extracts from paid speeches given by Mrs Clinton to Wall Street banks and other deep-pocketed organisations, and which she steadfastly refused to make public during a drawn-out presidential primary fight against a left-wing populist challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders. Her yen for secrecy is explained by the extracts, flagged up in an internal campaign review of lines likely to make Democratic activists cross. They include praise for free trade, including Mrs Clinton’s dream of a common market throughout the Western hemisphere with “open trade and open borders”. In another address Mrs Clinton ponders the unseemly business of law-making, citing Abraham Lincoln’s willingness to have “both a public and a private position” on sensitive issues.

The hacked e-mails also reveal wrangling about how to minimise negative publicity around Mrs Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server to send and receive secret government information; internal discussions about how to handle touchy Democratic grandees (including at the Obama White House); the uselessness of sundry reporters; and how to finesse moderate policy positions liable to displease the party’s leftish activists. They include spats among members of the Clinton inner circle, as when Chelsea Clinton raises “serious concerns” about a perception that a consulting firm was cashing in on its access to her father, former president Bill Clinton, blurring the lines between business, government and the family’s charitable arm, the Clinton Foundation. Yet mostly the impression is of political operatives doing what might be expected—being political. To date the revelations come closer to gossip than to the campaign-ending “October surprise” that Clinton foes had been looking forward to.

Predictably in this age of canyon-deep political divisions, the actual content of the hacked e-mails is now being overshadowed by partisan squabbling about the motives of those who stole them and made them public, and about the honesty of the news organisations sifting through them and assessing their importance.

In July WikiLeaks released almost 20,000 e-mails from the accounts of officials at the Democratic National Committee, showing that the supposedly neutral party headquarters was rooting for Mrs Clinton to beat Mr Sanders—a not-very-startling revelation that led to the resignation of the DNC chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Hackers linked to Russian intelligence agencies were quickly accused of involvement. On October 7th the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, issued a remarkable statement declaring their confidence that the Russian government directed “recent compromises of e-mails” of individuals and political organisations in order to “interfere with the US election process”.

Mr Trump has pushed back on such findings, including in his most recent TV debate with Mrs Clinton, when he said that his opponent “doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking,” and speculated: “Maybe there is no hacking.” Mr Podesta, in his airborne press briefing two days after that debate, said that the FBI is investigating a “criminal hack” of his account, adding: “Russian interference in this election and apparently on behalf of Trump is, I think, of the utmost concern to all Americans, whether you’re a Democrat or independent or Republican.” That vision of cross-party consensus is a trifle optimistic.

In a campaign rally in Florida, Mr Trump denounced Mrs Clinton’s leaked daydreaming about a common market of the Americas, declaring: “American soldiers have fought and died to win and keep America’s freedom, and now Hillary Clinton wants to surrender that freedom to these open borders, open trade, and a world government.” Warming to his theme, he decided that the leaked e-mails confirm that Mrs Clinton is the “vessel” of a “criminal government cartel [that] doesn’t recognise borders but believes in global governance, unlimited immigration and rule by corporations.” Later, in an angry tweet, the Republican nominee accused news outlets of burying the story, grumbling: “Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!”

To simplify, Mr Trump has two main goals in these final weeks. First, to bring home unhappy voters who voted Republican in previous presidential contests but who loathe him: a group that notably includes educated white women in suburbia. Second, to depress Mrs Clinton’s support among Democrats and swing voters. Mr Trump’s rhetoric about hacked e-mails may help him with the second task, but does almost nothing to help with the first. Hence Mr Trump’s rage.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 19, 2016, 03:12:16 PM
Do what you want? But you should also beware the information is coming from Russia.
I don't think that is 100% certain.  It might be coming from Russia.

Is the information that is being published at least correct?  Is it lies by omission (something that our media does to us on a regular basis)? 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 19, 2016, 03:33:16 PM
Do what you want? But you should also beware the information is coming from Russia.
I don't think that is 100% certain.  It might be coming from Russia.

Is the information that is being published at least correct?  Is it lies by omission (something that our media does to us on a regular basis)?

According to the this NBC article below. The White House has officially blamed Russia for the hacks. In addition, the article states US intelligence has been updating (classified briefings) to Congress.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-hack-u-s-politics-bigger-disclosed-includes-gop-n661866

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 20, 2016, 07:22:42 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 20, 2016, 09:30:06 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.

How could he possibly think calling Clinton a "nasty woman" was a good idea?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 20, 2016, 09:44:15 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.

More like Trump keeps losing them.

At this point, it looks like HRC is going to win the election... anyone undecided or even a Trump supporter who watched these debates have to realize that he is ill-equipped to become the next prez.

I get that many of you may be voting by party lines, but if you think people hated America when Bush was prez... it's going to be exponential with Big League in charge.

#movingtoCanada
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: AW on October 20, 2016, 09:49:17 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.

According to who, it was RIGGED, lol
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on October 20, 2016, 09:50:18 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.

According to who, it was RIGGED, lol

WRONG!!!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 20, 2016, 09:54:06 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.

According to who, it was RIGGED, lol

WRONG!!!

Jyna!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 20, 2016, 10:19:02 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.

How could he possibly think calling Clinton a "nasty woman" was a good idea?

It's not only that, the big issue is his repsonse accepting the election outcome. His other comments: bad hombres, no you're the puppet.

Seems like Clinton was a lot more prepared for the debate.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 20, 2016, 11:00:19 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.

I get that many of you may be voting by party lines, but if you think people hated America when Bush was prez... it's going to be exponential with Big League in charge.

#movingtoCanada

Maybe you can start a talk Canada or something when you move there.  ;)

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 20, 2016, 11:11:16 AM

Maybe you can start a talk Canada or something when you move there.  ;)


talkvancouver.com

But I think I'm too late:

http://www.realestatetalks.com/viewforum.php?f=8
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 20, 2016, 11:12:07 AM
Looks like Hillary won the debate.

How could he possibly think calling Clinton a "nasty woman" was a good idea?

It's not only that, the big issue is his repsonse accepting the election outcome. His other comments: bad hombres, no you're the puppet.

Seems like Clinton was a lot more prepared for the debate.

Right, but most of it seemed like Trump doin' Trump Unshackled. Interrupting Clinton to call her a "nasty woman" was a bit surprising, even for Trump, considering his negatives with women.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: AW on October 20, 2016, 11:12:27 AM
Just saw the news. He'll accept the results if he wins.
LOL
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 20, 2016, 11:19:08 AM
Just saw the news. He'll accept the results if he wins.
LOL

That's funny. Who in the world is his advisors?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 20, 2016, 03:53:02 PM
JUMP!

Trump national political director 'steps back' from campaign
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-national-political-director-steps-back-from-campaign/ar-AAjcDx2?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 20, 2016, 05:50:41 PM
It's not only that, the big issue is his repsonse accepting the election outcome. His other comments: bad hombres, no you're the puppet.

Seems like Clinton was a lot more prepared for the debate.
Exactly why does it matter whether he accepts the outcome?


Right, but most of it seemed like Trump doin' Trump Unshackled. Interrupting Clinton to call her a "nasty woman" was a bit surprising, even for Trump, considering his negatives with women.
It seemed deserved so maybe, maybe not.  She lied about him and threw insults as well, they were just more subtle.  I'd say that his comments were not polite, but defintely Trumplike. 

He's equal opportunity with his insults.  Though they pretend otherwise.

He insults a white man, they just call him a bully.
He then uses the same type of insult on a minority, and they dishonestly call him a racist.
He then uses the same type of insult on a woman, and they dishonestly call him a misogynist.

Probably more accurate to just to call him a rude asshole.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: WTTCHMN on October 20, 2016, 09:03:12 PM
The speeches tonight were pretty entertaining... more zingers than in the debates and definitely funnier than SNL.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/al-smith-dinner-clinton-trump.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 21, 2016, 05:59:05 AM
It doesn't technically matter whether Trump accepts the outcome of this election. The problem is millions of poorly educated/informed Americans will be voting for him, and all of their friends and family too, and they believe the many lies Trump keeps repeating. Democracies only work if we understand and trust the legitimacy of the process and results. This is why everyone, even most folks in Trump's camp, are aghast at his "rigged election" schtick coupled with his refusal to concede the election should he lose.

When Trump called Clinton a "nasty woman," she was discussing SSI and increased payroll taxes on "the wealthy." She joked that Trump might find a way "to get out of it." Is that a lie? Trump has told us he knows the tax code better than anyone (even better than every tax attorney in the US!), and that he's smart to avoid taxes. I don't know why this comment baited him so well, as it seems accurate and tame. It certainly wasn't a "lie."

What difference do the labels ascribed by "them" make, when Trump insults white men, non-white folks, and women?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 21, 2016, 09:19:14 AM
An effective method to evaluate whether something is being said based primarily upon the gender, race, sexual preference, etc. of a person, is asking whether the comment would be made generically.

Would Trump have called Clinton a "nasty man" if she were a man?

Would Trump have championed the birther movement if Obama were a white man?

Would Trump use illegal immigration as his principal campaign issue if the illegal immigrants were from Scandinavian countries?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 21, 2016, 10:04:24 AM
An effective method to evaluate whether something is being said based primarily upon the gender, race, sexual preference, etc., is asking whether the comment would be made generically.

Would Trump have called Clinton a "nasty man" if she were a man?

Would Trump have championed the birther movement if Obama were a white man?

Would Trump use illegal immigration as his principal campaign issue if the illegal immigrants were from Scandinavian countries?

By chance did you see Trump get booed at the charity event?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 21, 2016, 10:40:34 AM
An effective method to evaluate whether something is being said based primarily upon the gender, race, sexual preference, etc., is asking whether the comment would be made generically.

Would Trump have called Clinton a "nasty man" if she were a man?

Would Trump have championed the birther movement if Obama were a white man?

Would Trump use illegal immigration as his principal campaign issue if the illegal immigrants were from Scandinavian countries?

By chance did you see Trump get booed at the charity event?

Saw highlights - Dodger game took precedence. Sounds like they both deviated from decorum by attacking each other, but as usual, Trump took it much further beyond the line and was booed more for doing so.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 21, 2016, 10:45:33 AM
An effective method to evaluate whether something is being said based primarily upon the gender, race, sexual preference, etc., is asking whether the comment would be made generically.

Would Trump have called Clinton a "nasty man" if she were a man?

Would Trump have championed the birther movement if Obama were a white man?

Would Trump use illegal immigration as his principal campaign issue if the illegal immigrants were from Scandinavian countries?

By chance did you see Trump get booed at the charity event?

Saw highlights - Dodger game took precedence. Sounds like they both deviated from decorum by attacking each other, but as usual, Trump took it much further beyond the line and was booed more for doing so.

It was almost like the 4th debate.

#unbelievable
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 21, 2016, 10:56:51 AM
An effective method to evaluate whether something is being said based primarily upon the gender, race, sexual preference, etc., is asking whether the comment would be made generically.

Would Trump have called Clinton a "nasty man" if she were a man?

Would Trump have championed the birther movement if Obama were a white man?

Would Trump use illegal immigration as his principal campaign issue if the illegal immigrants were from Scandinavian countries?

By chance did you see Trump get booed at the charity event?

Saw highlights - Dodger game took precedence. Sounds like they both deviated from decorum by attacking each other, but as usual, Trump took it much further beyond the line and was booed more for doing so.

He brought up calling Hillary a nasty woman, at the charity event.

“Last night, I called Hillary ‘a nasty woman.’ But this stuff is all relative,” he said. “After listening to Hillary rattle on and on and on, I don't think so badly of Rosie O'Donnell anymore. In fact I'm actually starting to like Rosie a lot.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-jokes-al-smith/story?id=42947939

My comment: this definately doesn't help with the women voters


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 21, 2016, 11:02:57 AM
Today, Trump ends interviews when he was asked about racism and sexual harassment.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2016-race-donald-trump-ends-interviews-asked-about-racism-sexism-sexual-harassment-accusations/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 21, 2016, 11:42:38 AM
Dolan said the three of them prayed together. “And after the little prayer, Mr. Trump turned to Secretary Clinton and said, ‘You know, you are one tough and talented woman,’” he recalled. “And he said, ‘This has been a good experience in this whole campaign, as tough as it’s been,’ and she said to him, ‘And Donald, whatever happens, we need to work together afterwards.’ Now I thought: This is the evening at its best.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-nice-words-catholic-dinner-230143 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-nice-words-catholic-dinner-230143)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: aquabliss on October 21, 2016, 11:49:15 AM
Trump said if he wins he's going to task a special prosecutor with going after her legally and he already thinks she should be in jail.  She has a lot of pull but you've got to think that bothers her at lease a little bit.  You can have political friends in high places but it will still be difficult to go up against a sitting president and win.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 21, 2016, 12:00:23 PM
The problem with that in a democracy, you don't send political opponents to jail.

Trump said if he wins he's going to task a special prosecutor with going after her legally and he already thinks she should be in jail.  She has a lot of pull but you've got to think that bothers her at lease a little bit.  You can have political friends in high places but it will still be difficult to go up against a sitting president and win.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: aquabliss on October 21, 2016, 12:28:04 PM
The problem with that in a democracy, you don't send political opponents to jail.

Trump said if he wins he's going to task a special prosecutor with going after her legally and he already thinks she should be in jail.  She has a lot of pull but you've got to think that bothers her at lease a little bit.  You can have political friends in high places but it will still be difficult to go up against a sitting president and win.

Depends how you do it.  If you find enough solid proof to bring her up on charges she could be indicted.  You can't just wave a magic wand and send her to jail.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 21, 2016, 01:05:51 PM
The problem with that in a democracy, you don't send political opponents to jail.

Trump said if he wins he's going to task a special prosecutor with going after her legally and he already thinks she should be in jail.  She has a lot of pull but you've got to think that bothers her at lease a little bit.  You can have political friends in high places but it will still be difficult to go up against a sitting president and win.

Depends how you do it.  If you find enough solid proof to bring her up on charges she could be indicted.  You can't just wave a magic wand and send her to jail.

Congressional Republicans gave it their best effort investigating Benghazi for years spending millions of taxpayer dollars in the process. It unearthed the private email/server, so it was worth it for Republicans.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 21, 2016, 04:22:05 PM
Russia previously asked three states to monitor the elections, according to the Washington post article below. The requests were denied. The 3 states that were asked are the following: Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/21/russia-wants-to-observe-u-s-voters-on-election-day-three-states-said-no/?utm_term=.c6854f9686c3
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on October 21, 2016, 11:56:16 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 22, 2016, 06:27:36 AM
Two words!  VOTER FRAUD!

Keep spreading the lies. It's working. 73% of Republicans believe this election will be "rigged" despite the fact that studies prove the exact opposite.

If this Trump trend continues, maybe we'll rename the GOP the GUP - the Grand Uneducated Party?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 22, 2016, 06:34:08 AM
Donald Trump’s fine art of losing

"In a series of conversations, more than one of Trump’s biographers noted that he regularly calls others what he fears himself to be — the obese man calling women fat; the man who works hard to hide his balding scalp insulting women who aren’t a 10; the candidate who visibly tires near the end of long debates calling other candidates “low energy”; the man who is on tape describing his own lewd behavior toward women saying it’s his opponent’s husband who is a “sexual predator”; the businessman who makes questionable use of his private foundation and the U.S. tax code, then calls his opponent “crooked” for months and then says she’s the one who’s been “nasty.”

But “loser” is the jab he uses most.  “His deepest insult is to call someone a loser, his deepest fear is him being regarded as a loser, because deep down he knows that he himself is a loser,” Hurt says."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trumps-fine-art-of-losing-192113945.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 22, 2016, 05:52:09 PM
It's not only that, the big issue is his repsonse accepting the election outcome. His other comments: bad hombres, no you're the puppet.

Seems like Clinton was a lot more prepared for the debate.
Exactly why does it matter whether he accepts the outcome?


Right, but most of it seemed like Trump doin' Trump Unshackled. Interrupting Clinton to call her a "nasty woman" was a bit surprising, even for Trump, considering his negatives with women.
It seemed deserved so maybe, maybe not.  She lied about him and threw insults as well, they were just more subtle.  I'd say that his comments were not polite, but defintely Trumplike. 

He's equal opportunity with his insults.  Though they pretend otherwise.

He insults a white man, they just call him a bully.
He then uses the same type of insult on a minority, and they dishonestly call him a racist.
He then uses the same type of insult on a woman, and they dishonestly call him a misogynist.

Probably more accurate to just to call him a rude asshole.


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 24, 2016, 09:29:27 AM
The 281 People, Places and Things Donald
Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 25, 2016, 09:03:11 AM
Election Update: Why Our Model Is More Bullish Than Others On Trump
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on October 26, 2016, 10:25:38 AM
I'm not sure how accurate polls are in America, but a recent poll in the PRC shows that most people in the PRC want Chairman Xi to become dictator for life (only Mao and Deng ever had that status). The pollsters concluded that without a Xi's perpetual leadership, China would likely suffer "civil war, invasion by foreign enemies, and the destitution of the people. This is the painful lesson 100 years of blood and tears in recent Chinese history have given us."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-state-media-urge-status-xi-061923460.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 26, 2016, 01:44:49 PM
Can't say i ever want this clown on my side but he brings up a lot of interesting points...

Michael Moore: People will vote for Donald Trump as a giant “F**k you” — and he’ll win

Moore told audience members that he thinks the loudmouthed GOP nominee is going to win, largely because American elites are so cut off from regular people that they don’t realize just how much the middle class has been harmed in recent years.

“I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump, and they don’t necessarily agree with him,” the left-leaning documentarian said.

Many middle- to lower-income people are going to support the former reality TV star because at least he uses language directly pertinent to issues that have affected their lives, Moore argued.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-people-will-vote-for-donald-trump-as-a-giant-fk-you-and-hell-win/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-people-will-vote-for-donald-trump-as-a-giant-fk-you-and-hell-win/)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 26, 2016, 01:52:38 PM
Trump takes a brake from campaign and promotes hotel.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/donald-trump-washington-hotel/index.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 26, 2016, 02:13:21 PM
Video showing man destroying Trump's Hollywood walk of fame star according to Washington post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/10/26/video-shows-donald-trumps-hollywood-walk-of-fame-star-destroyed/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 26, 2016, 02:14:22 PM
I'll defer to Michael Moore's opinion on what angry poorly educated white men think and how they'll vote. His anecdotes don't prove his conclusion that Trump will win though.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 26, 2016, 02:17:27 PM
Multi-tasking...

"Today is a metaphor for what we can accomplish for this country," Trump said Wednesday in one of the hotel's ballrooms where six chandeliers hanged from the ceiling.

He immediately sought to dispel the criticism that he is spending time promoting his business rather than campaigning for votes in the crucial final stretch, saying that "as soon as we're finished cutting the ribbon," he was taking off for several key swing states.

And after touting the property as "the most coveted piece of real estate in Washington," Trump quickly sought to meld his hotel promotion with his campaign message.
He praised the construction workers and electricians as "really the important ones" and said the hotel opening shows how he can "get things done" at a time when "just about everything our government touches is broken or they break it."

He promised to bring his "under budget and ahead of schedule" mantra to the federal government should he be elected. And he took jabs at Obamacare, calling it "in free fall."
But Trump used the hotel as more than just a stand-in for how he would govern as he appeared to tie the successful completion of his hotel project to the uphill battle his campaign faces as he urged voters to embrace his outsider campaign.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 26, 2016, 02:23:09 PM
Gundlach is a guy whos opinion I do respect...

Gundlach Predicts Trump Upset, Rampant Deficits, Rising Inflation

Trump will win, interest rates will rise and a new era of fiscal stimulus will begin, leading to doom and gloom for the bond markets, said DoubleLine Capital CEO Jeffrey Gundlach.

Deficits and debt are about to mushroom no matter who becomes president, said Gundlach, who addressed attendees at the Schwab IMPACT 2016 conference in San Diego on Tuesday.

As entitlement programs bear the costs of baby boomer retirements, economic policy moves from monetary manipulation to fiscal stimulus and the tabs for three rounds of quantitative easing become due, Gundlach said the deficit could reach $1.5 trillion within five years.

“We’re in the eye of the hurricane for the next three to four years,” Gundlach said. “Come 2018, 2019 and 2020, look out.”

http://www.fa-mag.com/news/gundlach-predicts-rampant-deficits--rising-inflation-29701.html (http://www.fa-mag.com/news/gundlach-predicts-rampant-deficits--rising-inflation-29701.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 26, 2016, 04:34:16 PM
Trump takes a brake from campaign and promotes hotel.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/donald-trump-washington-hotel/index.html

So to take a break to do business is shameful but to sit down for an Adele concert is just savvy?

 Miami (AFP) - Hillary Clinton took time off from storming the campaign trail in the key state of Florida to take in a pre-birthday concert by pop icon Adele.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-miami-gets-adele-her-team-033356144.html
 (https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-miami-gets-adele-her-team-033356144.html)


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 26, 2016, 06:39:53 PM
Trump takes a brake from campaign and promotes hotel.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/donald-trump-washington-hotel/index.html

So to take a break to do business is shameful but to sit down for an Adele concert is just savvy?

 Miami (AFP) - Hillary Clinton took time off from storming the campaign trail in the key state of Florida to take in a pre-birthday concert by pop icon Adele.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-miami-gets-adele-her-team-033356144.html
 (https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-miami-gets-adele-her-team-033356144.html)

Fair point, but it's a bit of a false equivalency. The used car salesman feel of Trump's grand opening would be like Clinton not only attending the Adele concert, but promoting it beforehand, introducing Adele to the stage, and having an ownership interest in the concert revenue.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 27, 2016, 08:59:08 AM
The sleeze equivalency is staggering...

The pay-to-play Clinton Foundation

We have a former president and a prospective future president selling access, the appearance of access and the Clinton aura to Wall Street giants, governments such as Saudi Arabia and Germany, tycoons from several nations, multinational corporations and more. The foundation has collected $2 billion since its 2001 founding. Since then, the Clintons have also amassed more than $150 million in speaking fees, often from the same donors.

These special interests are not giving money because the foundation is such an effective charitable organization; a 2013 New York Times investigation made it seem chaotic. They are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear shopworn speeches because they expect to obtain profound insights. They want the Clintons’ help, and they’re willing to pay for it.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sdut-clinton-foundation-pay-to-play-enterprise-2016aug19-story.html (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sdut-clinton-foundation-pay-to-play-enterprise-2016aug19-story.html)

An aide says he once arranged for $50 million in payments for Bill Clinton

A close aide to Bill Clinton said he arranged for $50 million in payments for the former president, part of a complicated mingling of lucrative business deals and charity work of the Clinton Foundation mapped out in a memo released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday.

“Rightly or wrongly,” Band said, because other fundraisers couldn’t deliver, he and Kelly pushed their clients to donate to the foundation; he also lined up speaking and consulting deals for Bill Clinton. In some cases, it worked the other way, with Teneo winning consulting contracts from foundation donors.

One example, he said, was Laureate International University, the for-profit international school that donated more than $1.4 million to the Clinton Foundation and was paying Bill Clinton $3.5 million a year to serve as “honorary chancellor.”

The company paid Clinton more than $17 million before the relationship ended last year, as Hillary Clinton was launching her presidential bid.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-doug-band-memo-20161026-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-doug-band-memo-20161026-story.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2016, 09:17:09 AM
Clinton has serious issues. She's a typical politician, just on steroids due to her State Dept position and her husband being a former two-term President. If the Republican party were reasonable, they'd have found a way to nominate a Romney type (Kasich) and might actually be leading in the polls today.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 27, 2016, 09:26:57 AM
Clinton has serious issues. She's a typical politician, just on steroids due to her State Dept position and her husband being a former two-term President. If the Republican party were reasonable, they'd have found a way to nominate a Romney type (Kasich) and might actually be leading in the polls today.

Yes and no. A more conventional candidate (ie Bush, Walker) would still get steamrolled, however, because it's Trump news like this that would ordinarily kill Hillary's candidacy is tolerated.  This is why I keep insisting that this can go either way and it wouldn't surprise me.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 27, 2016, 09:30:14 AM
I dunno... in the end I think people will see how crazy it would be to have Trump as POTUS.

I'll call it now... Trump will not win.

(Disclaimer: I didn't think Obama would win 8 years ago either)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2016, 09:42:19 AM
I dunno... in the end I think people will see how crazy it would be to have Trump as POTUS.

I'll call it now... Trump will not win.

(Disclaimer: I didn't think Obama would win 8 years ago either)

Trump will tell you Obama didn't win, because he is ineligible due to his Muslim foreign born history (i.e. not one of "us"). Rigged!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2016, 09:44:28 AM
Regardless of who wins the Presidency, the Republican Party has to decide what it is in 2016 and beyond, and isn't. I don't know if that would be easier, or more difficult, with a President Trump.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 27, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
So will the Dems, If he wins, let the Inquisition begin. If she does these scandals will only get worse with her administration dogged by the charge that it is nothing more than a criminal enterprise. Repub controlled congress will fall over itself to investigate.  Dems will be on the defensive for 4 years.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2016, 10:26:38 AM
I think we can expect a very political four years in Congress with a President Clinton. Two Senators have already suggested that no SCOTUS nominee should move forward during Clinton's full term in office. Congressmen are suggesting the Benghazi investigation will continue, in addition to new investigations.

Speaking of, Issa, a chief Benghazi conspiracy theorist, might not return to Congress:

The non-partisan analysts at the Cook Political Report have moved the 49th Congressional District to a "toss-up," a striking move in what has become a surprisingly competitive race between eight-term Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) and political newcomer Doug Applegate.

The district had previously been considered "leans Republican," which meant the analysts thought it was still more likely Issa would win.

"As it turns out, it's possible to be the wealthiest member of Congress and still run a very poor campaign. Issa, the former House Oversight chair, has cruised to reelection over a decade, but recently he's been high-profile Trump booster in a rapidly changing, well-educated district where Trump is toxic," the analysts wrote in their ratings change explanation. "Issa could have spent millions over the summer to boost his own image and put Democrat Doug Applegate, a retired Marine colonel, away."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-rep-darrell-issa-reelection-bid-named-1476485337-htmlstory.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2016, 10:30:36 AM
Too rich. Guess what Melania Trump would focus on as First Lady?

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/791606283837112320

Yep, she would focus on the hateful things said on social media. Yep, that's Donald Trump sitting right next to her as she's saying this with a straight face.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on October 27, 2016, 11:08:12 AM
Perhaps we might lean upon the wisdom of our elders in this case:

http://komonews.com/news/local/shes-110-and-western-washingtons-oldest-voter (http://komonews.com/news/local/shes-110-and-western-washingtons-oldest-voter)


Vote SMOD - The only candidate with a realistic plan to wipe out ISIS, and everyone else...

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 27, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
Trump continues to amaze, even fewer than two weeks out from election day.  :o

Donald Trump Says He'll Teach Military Expert 'a Couple of Things' About Mosul

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/donald-trump-says-ll-teach-military-expert-couple-214005494--abc-news-topstories.html

Donald Trump went on the offensive against a military expert and former dean of the Army War College, Jeff McCausland, who said the Republican nominee’s comments this weekend about the battle to reclaim Mosul in Iraq show he doesn’t have a firm grasp of military strategy.

“You can tell your military expert that I’ll sit down and I’ll teach him a couple of things,” Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview.

On Sunday, Trump tweeted that the ongoing offensive against the ISIS stronghold of Mosul is turning out to be a “total disaster.”

“We gave them months of notice. U.S. is looking so dumb. VOTE TRUMP and WIN AGAIN!” he tweeted.

Trump doubled down on his assertion that the element of surprise is an important military strategy.

“I’ve been hearing about Mosul now for three months. ‘We’re going to attack. We’re going to attack.’ Meaning Iraq’s going to attack but with us. OK? We’re going to attack. Why do they have to talk about it?” he asked Stephanopoulos.

“Element of surprise. One of the reasons they wanted Mosul, they wanted to get ISIS leaders who they thought were, you know, in Mosul. Those people have all left. As soon as they heard they’re going to be attacked, they left,” Trump added. “The resistance is much greater now because they knew about the attack. Why can’t they win first and talk later?”

But according to The New York Times, some military experts disagree with Trump’s claims that the element of surprise is crucial to win the fight against ISIS.

“What this shows is Trump doesn’t know a damn thing about military strategy,” McCausland told the Times.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter is on the ground in Iraq and told ABC’s Martha Raddatz in an interview earlier this week that he’s “encouraged” by the progress in the fight against ISIS because it “is going according to plan ... ISIL will surely be destroyed.”

Trump blamed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama for the need to reclaim Mosul.

“We had Mosul. We have to take it because Hillary Clinton and Obama left that big vacuum, and ISIS went in, and they took Mosul,” he said.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 28, 2016, 07:35:56 AM
So will the Dems, If he wins, let the Inquisition begin. If she does these scandals will only get worse with her administration dogged by the charge that it is nothing more than a criminal enterprise. Repub controlled congress will fall over itself to investigate.  Dems will be on the defensive for 4 years.

It has already begun...

Grifters-in-Chief

The Clintons don’t draw lines between their ‘charity’ and personal enrichment.

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/grifters-in-chief-1477610771 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/grifters-in-chief-1477610771)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 28, 2016, 09:54:53 AM
Cruz hints GOP won't vote on Scalia replacement if Clinton wins; the idea gains some support

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/cruz_hints_gop_wont_vote_on_scalia_replacement_if_clinton_wins_the_idea_gai/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: zubs on October 28, 2016, 10:02:41 AM
Rich people should vote for Hillary & poor people should vote for Trump.
It's a strange thought, but mostly true.

Since this is TalkIrvine, I expect Hillary would win if we took a poll.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 28, 2016, 10:34:18 AM
FBI informs congress that the email investigation is reopened.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 28, 2016, 10:37:39 AM
Your statement reminds me of Pauline Kael's famous quote when Nixon won in '72

“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”



Precisely what I meant with this statement Zubs...we live surrounded by precious snowflakes that don't accurately reflect the national mood.  We will see who's right very soon.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoCal on October 28, 2016, 11:28:59 AM

He brought up calling Hillary a nasty woman, at the charity event.

“Last night, I called Hillary ‘a nasty woman.’ But this stuff is all relative,” he said. “After listening to Hillary rattle on and on and on, I don't think so badly of Rosie O'Donnell anymore. In fact I'm actually starting to like Rosie a lot.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-jokes-al-smith/story?id=42947939

My comment: this definately doesn't help with the women voters




Well, I'm a woman. I'm offended that he called her "nasty".... because nasty doesn't even begin to describe Hillary Clinton. Her actions are so beyond nasty. Straight up evil. She should be ashamed of herself... I know I am. She does not represent me. She is no role model for young women. She should be held accountable for her misdeeds.

TL;DR - I vote with my lady smarts, not with my lady parts.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on October 28, 2016, 11:29:55 AM
FBI informs congress that the email investigation is reopened.

Crazy timing. I'm not too knowledgeable but it's amazing someone can run for president while under criminal investigation.  Apparently new found evidence showing the mismanagement of classified information "perjury and impropriety" is what is being said. 

11 days before the election is interesting as well.  According to some TI folks here, it reopens the theory that a Trump victory may be possible and the FBI is now protecting itself.  Trump wins, they made the right call. 

Question, if she does win, can she pardon herself? Or would Obama be the one to pardon her?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 28, 2016, 11:30:57 AM
FBI informs congress that the email investigation is reopened.

The official letter sent from the FBI to Congress. (Foxnews source of the letter)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/fbi-letter-to-congress-on-clinton-email-probe.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 28, 2016, 11:37:22 AM

He brought up calling Hillary a nasty woman, at the charity event.

“Last night, I called Hillary ‘a nasty woman.’ But this stuff is all relative,” he said. “After listening to Hillary rattle on and on and on, I don't think so badly of Rosie O'Donnell anymore. In fact I'm actually starting to like Rosie a lot.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-jokes-al-smith/story?id=42947939

My comment: this definately doesn't help with the women voters




Well, I'm a woman. I'm offended that he called her "nasty".... because nasty doesn't even begin to describe Hillary Clinton. Her actions are so beyond nasty. Straight up evil. She should be ashamed of herself... I know I am. She does not represent me. She is no role model for young women. She should be held accountable for her misdeeds.

TL;DR - I vote with my lady smarts, not with my lady parts.

So what are your thoughts regarding Megan Kelly vs. Gingrich?

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on October 28, 2016, 11:43:03 AM
Methinks someone just burped up 33,000 yoga and wedding plan e-mails....

Vote SMOD 16 - You'll love his plan to cut spending -  via an extinction level event.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 28, 2016, 11:45:26 AM
This is so much fun...things are flying apart at the seams, rumor has it the 30000 emails will be releases soon and they are now scrambling to protect the President...break out the popcorn

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ (http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/)

THE LIST
The Top 100 Most Damaging Wikileaks (so far)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 28, 2016, 11:50:33 AM
Methinks someone just burped up 33,000 yoga and wedding plan e-mails....

Vote SMOD 16 - You'll love his plan to cut spending -  via an extinction level event.

I am shifting my loyalty...Harambe for President!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/harambe-gorilla-presidential-candidate-poll-article-1.2733080 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/harambe-gorilla-presidential-candidate-poll-article-1.2733080)

Harambe the dead gorilla would fare well as independent presidential candidate, poll says
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 28, 2016, 12:26:46 PM
The Democrats only have themselves to blame for Clinton as their nominee. The Republicans only have themselves to blame for Trump as their nominee.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 28, 2016, 12:27:50 PM

He brought up calling Hillary a nasty woman, at the charity event.

“Last night, I called Hillary ‘a nasty woman.’ But this stuff is all relative,” he said. “After listening to Hillary rattle on and on and on, I don't think so badly of Rosie O'Donnell anymore. In fact I'm actually starting to like Rosie a lot.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-jokes-al-smith/story?id=42947939

My comment: this definately doesn't help with the women voters




Well, I'm a woman. I'm offended that he called her "nasty".... because nasty doesn't even begin to describe Hillary Clinton. Her actions are so beyond nasty. Straight up evil. She should be ashamed of herself... I know I am. She does not represent me. She is no role model for young women. She should be held accountable for her misdeeds.

TL;DR - I vote with my lady smarts, not with my lady parts.

Please share. There are a lot of conclusions in your statement, with no support nor analysis - a lot like Trump's regular speech. What do you find nasty about Clinton?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 28, 2016, 01:11:16 PM
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive! I find it endlessly amusing and painfully ironic that after weeks of pointing at the disloyal, philandering Trump that it turns out the disloyal philandering men of Hilary and her gang may dash the hopes of the "first female president"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0)


New Emails in Clinton Case Came From Anthony Weiner’s Electronic Devices

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress that emails that surfaced in an unrelated case “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 28, 2016, 01:14:21 PM
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive! I find it endlessly amusing and painfully ironic that after weeks of pointing at the disloyal, philandering Trump that it turns out the disloyal philandering men of Hilary and her gang may dash the hopes of the "first female president"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0)

You're wandering into speculation and innuendo, no?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 28, 2016, 01:17:05 PM
I said "may". Harambe for President!!!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 28, 2016, 01:18:03 PM
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive! I find it endlessly amusing and painfully ironic that after weeks of pointing at the disloyal, philandering Trump that it turns out the disloyal philandering men of Hilary and her gang may dash the hopes of the "first female president"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0)


New Emails in Clinton Case Came From Anthony Weiner’s Electronic Devices

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress that emails that surfaced in an unrelated case “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”

Carlos Danger strikes again.

Google: Carlos Danger
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: USCTrojanCPA on October 28, 2016, 05:45:40 PM
Dickie leaks per reddit.  haha
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on October 28, 2016, 06:41:29 PM
Tomorrow's NY Post headline:

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/10/26/stroking%20gun.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on October 28, 2016, 06:56:09 PM
Tomorrow's NY Post headline:

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/10/26/stroking%20gun.jpg)

Lol
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 31, 2016, 10:08:22 AM
If you're interested in reading a reasonable opinion, all too rare, to Comey's letter, here's one:

Hey Liberals: Stop Attacking James Comey Because It Just Makes You Look Stupid
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/hey-liberals-stop-attacking-james-comey-because-it-just-makes-you-look-stupid/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on October 31, 2016, 10:15:18 AM
Rashida Jones' tweet:

If we're going to equate investigations with criminality, lemme just leave this here for y'all:

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=share_btn_tw
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 31, 2016, 10:16:11 AM
Interesting the reaction when the shoe is on the other foot.

Flashback: Bill Clinton cheered 11th hour indictment that doomed Bush re-election

Whispers of "payback" are being directed at Hillary Clinton after she decried as "unprecedented" the surprise FBI revival of its probe of her email scandal.

That's because 24 years ago, as former President George H.W. Bush was surging back against challenger Bill Clinton, a special prosecutor raised new charges against Bush in the Iran-Contra probe, prompting Clinton to claim he was running against a "culture of corruption."

Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush's claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-cheered-11th-hour-indictment-that-doomed-bush-reelection/article/2606000 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-cheered-11th-hour-indictment-that-doomed-bush-reelection/article/2606000)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on October 31, 2016, 11:22:12 AM
Rashida Jones' tweet:

If we're going to equate investigations with criminality, lemme just leave this here for y'all:

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=share_btn_tw


That story has a few holes in it....

A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.

Harambe for President!!!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on October 31, 2016, 12:29:08 PM
So there is this article on Rolling Stone listing why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712

But many of those things make me want to vote for him.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 31, 2016, 01:13:57 PM
Trump warns that Hillary will allow 650 million illegals to the US.

Source: http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-reaches-panic-mode-warns-clinton-will-allow-650-million-illegals-into-u-s-001221323.html

My comment: who comes up with Trump's speeches?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 31, 2016, 01:17:33 PM
Trump warns that Hillary will allow 650 million illegals to the US.

Source: http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-reaches-panic-mode-warns-clinton-will-allow-650-million-illegals-into-u-s-001221323.html

My comment: who comes up with Trump's speeches?

Breitbart-types, where truth, facts, and science are immaterial and speculation, innuendo, and conspiracy theories rule.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on October 31, 2016, 02:05:36 PM
So there is this article on Rolling Stone listing why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712

But many of those things make me want to vote for him.
You might as well vote for him.
- Your presidential vote in California doesn't count.  It's going to Hillary regardless if you vote for her or not.  A vote for her is basically a thrown away vote.
- Johnson isn't going to win, so you don't have to worry about him winning.  He isn't the brightest tool in the shed, but he isn't as awful as the other 2 candidates.
- It helps support a 3rd party and sends a message
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on October 31, 2016, 02:19:35 PM
How about Evan McMullin? He is an ex CIA Operation officer. There are polls that he might win the state of Utah.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/inside-evan-mcmullins-10-years-undercover-in-the-cia/2016/10/30/10347aa6-9d42-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?utm_term=.b96fa186452e
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on October 31, 2016, 02:27:33 PM
So there is this article on Rolling Stone listing why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712

But many of those things make me want to vote for him.
You might as well vote for him.
- Your presidential vote in California doesn't count.  It's going to Hillary regardless if you vote for her or not.  A vote for her is basically a thrown away vote.
- Johnson isn't going to win, so you don't have to worry about him winning.  He isn't the brightest tool in the shed, but he isn't as awful as the other 2 candidates.
- It helps support a 3rd party and sends a message

You can also just leave the Presidential vote boxes blank, while voting on other races/propositions.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 01, 2016, 01:04:02 AM
You can also just leave the Presidential vote boxes blank, while voting on other races/propositions.
That doesn't help send a message.  Also, might as well not even vote.  Just kidding about not voting, but most people have no idea what they are voting for on the other items.  It's basically what sounds good at first short sighted glance without much thought.

We should have another thread here to discuss that.  Here's a site that has a lot of useful information with as little bias as possible as far as I can tell.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2016_ballot_propositions


Prop 61 probably deserves it's own thread.  Bernie Sanders is Campaigning in California for it.  Most of the veterans groups are very much against it.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_61,_Drug_Price_Standards_(2016)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 01, 2016, 09:22:39 AM
[Prop 61 probably deserves it's own thread.  Bernie Sanders is Campaigning in California for it.  Most of the veterans groups are very much against it.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_61,_Drug_Price_Standards_(2016)
So Prop 61 says the drug companies can't charge California more for a drug than they charge veterans.  So this means if Prop 61 passes, one of two things will happen: (1) drug companies will keep drug prices for veterans the same and lower prices charged to California or (2) drug companies will raise prices for veterans so they don't have to lower prices for California.  Which do you think the immoral, evil, greedy, blood-sucking un-American drug companies will do?

BTW, Mylan sells epipens for $600 in the USA and sells epipens in Germany for $50.  You think Mylan is losing any money in Germany?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 01, 2016, 09:48:43 AM
Inside Trump TV, The Best Network Yet
http://www.gq.com/story/inside-trump-tv-network
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 01, 2016, 10:15:23 AM
"Donald Trump threatens legal action against NBC over 'Access Hollywood' tape"

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/27/media/donald-trump-nbc-access-

Comments: I heard arguments from legal expert, that it may be hard for Trump to win that argument that it was a private conversation. Because there was a microphone device that was put on him and he knew that it was on him.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: tim on November 01, 2016, 10:57:09 AM
Rashida Jones' tweet:

If we're going to equate investigations with criminality, lemme just leave this here for y'all:

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=share_btn_tw


That story has a few holes in it....

A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.

Harambe for President!!!

Of course there are holes in it. My point is not about whether a crime took place. My point is that if people are going to knock Clinton for the wiff of guilt from the FBI, then they also need to knock Trump for this wiff of guilt.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 01, 2016, 11:20:33 AM
I don't know about that equivocation.  Being the target of a formal FBI investigation or having your story shopped around by a sketchy lawyer or Gloria Allred for a few bucks doesn't seem to hold up to the same light of credibility...at least to me.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 01, 2016, 11:34:17 AM
I don't know about that equivocation.  Being the target of a formal FBI investigation or having your story shopped around by a sketchy lawyer or Gloria Allred for a few bucks doesn't seem to hold up to the same light of credibility...at least to me.

Tax evasion is a federal crime, no?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 01, 2016, 11:36:12 AM
Who is under investigation for tax evasion?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 01, 2016, 11:42:13 AM
Who is under investigation for tax evasion?

"People are saying" Trump evaded taxes inappropriately for many years carrying-over losses he didn't genuinely have.  ;)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 01, 2016, 11:53:52 AM
Responding to tims charge, there still is no comparing "People are saying" to a formally announced FBI investigation.  Using headlines like this...

Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes

Thanks to a maneuver later outlawed by Congress, Mr. Trump potentially escaped paying tens of millions of dollars in federal personal income taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html)

...is both untrue and misleading.  Legal but dubious? It's either legal or not and in this instance, LEGAL!!. No story here, no investigation.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 01, 2016, 12:13:23 PM
Former Attorney Generals (AG) rip the current AG

"Republican former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday slammed the FBI director's recent actions in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.

He called Comey's actions an "error in judgment" and said he is "somewhat perplexed about what the director was trying to accomplish here."

Gonzales said Comey's letter Friday informing lawmakers that the FBI is reviewing new emails potentially related to its investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state breaks from long-standing Justice Department practice. The protocol is not to comment on investigations and to stay silent on politically sensitive matters less than 60 days from an election."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/eric-holder-op-ed-rips-comey-letter/





Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 01, 2016, 12:23:52 PM
Responding to tims charge, there still is no comparing "People are saying" to a formally announced FBI investigation.  Using headlines like this...

Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes

Thanks to a maneuver later outlawed by Congress, Mr. Trump potentially escaped paying tens of millions of dollars in federal personal income taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html)

...is both untrue and misleading.  Legal but dubious? It's either legal or not and in this instance, LEGAL!!. No story here, no investigation.

No, it is not either "legal or not." There are many shades of grey.

Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-used-legally-dubious-method-to-avoid-paying-taxes/ar-AAjFiec?li=BBnbcA1

... Before proceeding with his plan, Mr. Trump did what most prudent taxpayers do — he sought a formal tax opinion letter. Such letters, typically written by highly-paid lawyers who spend entire careers mastering the roughly 10,000 pages of ever-changing statutes that make up the United States tax code, can provide important protection to taxpayers. As long as a tax adviser blesses a particular tax strategy in a formal opinion letter, the taxpayer most likely will not face penalties even if the I.R.S. ultimately rules the strategy was improper.

The language used in tax opinion letters has a specialized meaning understood by all tax professionals. So, for example, when a tax lawyer writes that a shelter is “more likely than not” going to be approved by the I.R.S., this means there is at least a 51 percent chance the shelter will withstand scrutiny. (This is known as an “M.L.T.N.” letter in the vernacular of tax lawyers.) A “should” letter means there is about a 75 percent chance the I.R.S. will not object. The gold standard, a “will” letter, means the I.R.S. is all but certain to bless the tax avoidance strategy.

But the opinion letters Mr. Trump received from his tax lawyers at Willkie Farr & Gallagher were far from the gold standard. The letters bluntly warned that there was no statute, regulation or judicial opinion that explicitly permitted Mr. Trump’s tax gambit. “Due to the lack of definitive judicial or administrative authority,” his lawyers wrote, “substantial uncertainties exist with respect to many of the tax consequences of the plan.” ...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 01, 2016, 12:29:46 PM
Grey or not there is no official investigation. Its a non-story.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoclosetoIrvine on November 01, 2016, 01:58:19 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here yet, but Wikileaks strikes again lol

I think it's a non story with Donna Brazile apparently feeding Clinton the debate questions beforehand...I mean the questions asked weren't out of the ordinary but it is interesting how quick CNN president Jeff Zucker took to action to fire Brazile, calling it "unethical" and "disgusting".  Obviously the order came from higher ups and Brazile was the scapegoat, but it is scary to think in this country, the official presidential debates, which uses CNN supposedly for being a neutral 3rd party would have significant ties with one party.  Secondly, it raises the whole Wikileaks authenticity again (is it Russian hackers?) and how it is still possible for these sensitive information to be transmitted via email boggles my mind...I mean how hard is it to pick up the phone and say it instead of putting it in writing?  :o

Do you guys care about this at all, non story? or do you think all parties should get the questions in advance to take any advantage from both sides?  Like Rubio said, right now the democrats are suffering, tomorrow it could be the republicans.  It is scary how Wikileaks can have so much of an impact on our politics...

I still think Trump has no shot at winning but we will see what happens
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 01, 2016, 02:28:34 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here yet, but Wikileaks strikes again lol

I think it's a non story with Donna Brazile apparently feeding Clinton the debate questions beforehand...I mean the questions asked weren't out of the ordinary but it is interesting how quick CNN president Jeff Zucker took to action to fire Brazile, calling it "unethical" and "disgusting".  Obviously the order came from higher ups and Brazile was the scapegoat, but it is scary to think in this country, the official presidential debates, which uses CNN supposedly for being a neutral 3rd party would have significant ties with one party.  Secondly, it raises the whole Wikileaks authenticity again (is it Russian hackers?) and how it is still possible for these sensitive information to be transmitted via email boggles my mind...I mean how hard is it to pick up the phone and say it instead of putting it in writing?  :o

Do you guys care about this at all, non story? or do you think all parties should get the questions in advance to take any advantage from both sides?  Like Rubio said, right now the democrats are suffering, tomorrow it could be the republicans.  It is scary how Wikileaks can have so much of an impact on our politics...

I still think Trump has no shot at winning but we will see what happens

This feeds the Trump narrative that "everybody" is against him, especially the "media." Brazile was a talking head/pundit for CNN, not a journalist. Much of broadcast "news" isn't journalism, but rather entertainment.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 01, 2016, 02:29:04 PM
GOP Told by Judge to Turn Over Any Trump Poll-Watching Deals
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-01/n-j-judge-orders-rnc-to-turn-over-trump-poll-watching-deals
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 01, 2016, 02:41:49 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here yet, but Wikileaks strikes again lol

I think it's a non story with Donna Brazile apparently feeding Clinton the debate questions beforehand...I mean the questions asked weren't out of the ordinary but it is interesting how quick CNN president Jeff Zucker took to action to fire Brazile, calling it "unethical" and "disgusting".  Obviously the order came from higher ups and Brazile was the scapegoat, but it is scary to think in this country, the official presidential debates, which uses CNN supposedly for being a neutral 3rd party would have significant ties with one party.  Secondly, it raises the whole Wikileaks authenticity again (is it Russian hackers?) and how it is still possible for these sensitive information to be transmitted via email boggles my mind...I mean how hard is it to pick up the phone and say it instead of putting it in writing?  :o

Do you guys care about this at all, non story? or do you think all parties should get the questions in advance to take any advantage from both sides?  Like Rubio said, right now the democrats are suffering, tomorrow it could be the republicans.  It is scary how Wikileaks can have so much of an impact on our politics...

I still think Trump has no shot at winning but we will see what happens

Let's do a brief summary:
Let's create more jobs and buy goods in America.
Bring back the US steel jobs. But in reality he bought steel from China.
http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717

Trump hired foreign workers at his Florida club, according to the article.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/28/news/donald-trump-foreign-workers/

According to fortune, Trump hired approximately 1,100 foreign workers.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/03/donald-trump-foreign-workers-visas/

Trump not paying taxes because of his losses. (Allegedly losses, we don't know since he won't release his taxes)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/news/trump-tax-strategy-theory/index.html

My comment: Losing approximately $1 billion dollars, using the loss not to pay taxes is not genius. It shows weakness in business skills. I'll tell what is a genius tax play, making money mega bucks and paying low taxes or a no taxes in a tax haven. (Tax inversion)

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: WTTCHMN on November 01, 2016, 02:52:29 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here yet, but Wikileaks strikes again lol

I think it's a non story with Donna Brazile apparently feeding Clinton the debate questions beforehand...I mean the questions asked weren't out of the ordinary but it is interesting how quick CNN president Jeff Zucker took to action to fire Brazile, calling it "unethical" and "disgusting".  Obviously the order came from higher ups and Brazile was the scapegoat, but it is scary to think in this country, the official presidential debates, which uses CNN supposedly for being a neutral 3rd party would have significant ties with one party.  Secondly, it raises the whole Wikileaks authenticity again (is it Russian hackers?) and how it is still possible for these sensitive information to be transmitted via email boggles my mind...I mean how hard is it to pick up the phone and say it instead of putting it in writing?  :o

Do you guys care about this at all, non story? or do you think all parties should get the questions in advance to take any advantage from both sides?  Like Rubio said, right now the democrats are suffering, tomorrow it could be the republicans.  It is scary how Wikileaks can have so much of an impact on our politics...

I still think Trump has no shot at winning but we will see what happens

This feeds the Trump narrative that "everybody" is against him, especially the "media." Brazile was a talking head/pundit for CNN, not a journalist. Much of broadcast "news" isn't journalism, but rather entertainment.

The irony is that Trump joked about this a few weeks ago at the Al Smith dinner, and people thought he was just kidding.

 “Now, if some of you haven't noticed, Hillary isn't laughing as much as the rest of us. That's because she knows the jokes and all of the jokes were given to her in advance of the dinner by Donna Brazile,” he added.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-jokes-al-smith/story?id=42947939
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 01, 2016, 11:24:18 PM

Bring back the US steel jobs. But in reality he bought steel from China.
...
Trump hired foreign workers at his Florida club, according to the article.
...
According to fortune, Trump hired approximately 1,100 foreign workers.
Not sure how your response relates to what you quoted.  Seems like quite a deflection.

IMO, it's ignorant or dishonest to criticize him for that in that context.   

He has even explained that he must do those things in order to be competitive.  That's what you do in business.  Meanwhile, he did all those things while the career politicians were in office.  A businessperson turned politician might better understand why businesses do those things and possibly have ideas on how to fix them.  Whether he can actually fulfill his promises, is doubtful and another story.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: zubs on November 02, 2016, 10:51:48 AM
Your comment made me think of this movie:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51bPnAto--L.jpg)

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 02, 2016, 01:32:02 PM
Mailed my absentee ballot today. Split ticket. Left President boxes blank (would've voted for Clinton if this state were contested because I'm squarely in the Never Trump camp); voted for Democrats for Congress/Senate; voted for Republicans in CA Assembly/Senate; and voted for local candidates not beholden to superstition.

Good times...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 02, 2016, 05:53:12 PM
Rashida Jones' tweet:

If we're going to equate investigations with criminality, lemme just leave this here for y'all:

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=share_btn_tw


That story has a few holes in it....

A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.

Harambe for President!!!

Of course there are holes in it. My point is not about whether a crime took place. My point is that if people are going to knock Clinton for the wiff of guilt from the FBI, then they also need to knock Trump for this wiff of guilt.


There is a whiff in this story and it stinks to high heaven.

A woman who claims she was raped by Donald Trump when she was 13 cancelled a press meeting Wednesday. Her lawyer (pictured) said she was 'too afraid' after a series of 'threats' against her.

 http://dailym.ai/2fFJllQ (http://dailym.ai/2fFJllQ)


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 04, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
If you're interested in detailed civil/criminal procedure and evidence gathering limitations on government, read on.

Did FBI's Clinton disclosure and its search of Anthony Weiner's computer violate the law?
POSTED OCT 31, 2016 09:12 AM CDT
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_fbis_clinton_disclosure_and_its_search_of_anthony_weiners_computer_viol/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

FBI director James Comey’s disclosure on Friday that the bureau will investigate a Clinton aide’s emails has politicians and experts considering whether any laws were broken or whether any rights were violated.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said in a letter on Sunday that Comey’s disclosure 11 days before the election may have violated the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities of government workers, the Washington Post reports. And the Volokh Conspiracy’s Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, says it’s possible the new investigation will be found to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Comey disclosed on Friday that the bureau was investigating new emails that may be relevant to its probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. The emails were discovered on the computer of Anthony Weiner, who was under investigation for allegedly sexting a 15-year-old girl. His wife. Huma Abedin, is a top aide to Clinton.

The FBI has obtained a search warrant, unnamed law enforcement officials told the New York Times on Sunday. Weiner’s laptop was seized on Oct. 3, and FBI agents soon learned that Abedin’s emails were on the computer. At that point, agents were told to search the metadata to see if any emails were relevant to the Clinton investigation, according to the Times. Authorities decided to seek a search warrant late last week.

University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer, sees some merit in Reid’s argument. In a New York Times op-ed, he said he filed a complaint on Saturday with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics.

“The FBI’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election,” he wrote.

Painter says a government official doesn’t have to have a specific intent to influence an election to violate the Hatch Act. “The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election,” he wrote.

Painter says he is supporting Clinton in the election, though he previously supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich.

Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy, meanwhile, considers case law on the Fourth Amendment and the facts that were known as of Oct. 30, when the blog post was written.

Kerr says he assumes the FBI obtained a warrant to search Weiner’s computer, as is required absent special circumstances. The search warrant presumably authorized a search relating relating only to Weiner’s communications with underage girls, Kerr says.

The first issue, he says, is whether the FBI was permitted to search through Abedin’s email account for records of Weiner’s improper messages to underage girls. He notes a Colorado Supreme Court case—which he has criticized—that dealt with officers who had a warrant to search for texts between a suspect and an undercover officer posing as an underage girl. The court found a search of a different folder that contained texts to a real underage girl violated the Fourth Amendment.

There might be similar problems in Clinton’s case because Weiner’s alleged texting crimes occurred in 2016. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. “If I’m right that there was a several-year gap between the warrant crime and the second investigation, it’s not clear the government could search through older emails for evidence of such a recent crime,” Kerr writes.

A second issue is whether the FBI could seize the Abedin emails because they were outside the scope of the warrant, Kerr says. The “plain view” exception allows a law enforcement official who is searching a computer to obtain a second warrant to search for items in plain view that are evidence of a second crime. That standard may not be satisfied in the Clinton case, Kerr says.

“The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is ‘immediately apparent’ upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Just looking quickly at the new evidence, there needs to be probable cause that it is evidence of a second crime to justify its seizure, which would presumably be necessary to apply for the second warrant,” Kerr writes.

“The Fourth Amendment plain view standard doesn’t allow a seizure of emails based on a mere we-hope-to-later-determine standard. The government can’t seize the emails just because the Clinton investigation is extra important and any possible evidence is worth considering.”

Kerr adds that the scope of the plain view doctrine with regards to computer searches “is very much in flux.”

He also said he wanted “to flag the question of whose rights are at issue.” If the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment, the only Clinton person who could move to suppress any evidence of crimes would be Abedin.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 04, 2016, 11:34:57 AM
The genie is out of the bottle. None of this will be settled till after Tuesday so its a bit theoretical for now. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on November 04, 2016, 02:55:12 PM
(http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/files/2016/10/Early-voting-featured.jpg)

Early Voting began October 29th and will run trough November 7th.

You can cast your vote at the Irvine Civic Center and other locations throughout OC.

http://www.ocvote.com/votecenter/
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 04, 2016, 03:21:46 PM
Trump dump: Wall Street slides for 9th day in a row

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wall-street-slides-for-ninth-straight-day/


It's not too late to change your 401k allocation. If Trump wins, expect the worse.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 04, 2016, 08:32:18 PM
Rashida Jones' tweet:

If we're going to equate investigations with criminality, lemme just leave this here for y'all:

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=share_btn_tw


That story has a few holes in it....

A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.

Harambe for President!!!

Of course there are holes in it. My point is not about whether a crime took place. My point is that if people are going to knock Clinton for the wiff of guilt from the FBI, then they also need to knock Trump for this wiff of guilt.


There is a whiff in this story and it stinks to high heaven.

A woman who claims she was raped by Donald Trump when she was 13 cancelled a press meeting Wednesday. Her lawyer (pictured) said she was 'too afraid' after a series of 'threats' against her.

 http://dailym.ai/2fFJllQ (http://dailym.ai/2fFJllQ)




Total BS....no suprise!!

Woman who alleged she was raped by Donald  Trump DROPS case

http://dailym.ai/2fMGB68
 (http://dailym.ai/2fMGB68)


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 06, 2016, 06:27:39 AM
‘SNL’ Recap: Benedict Cumberbatch is Just What the Doctor Ordered

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/saturday-night-live-benedict-cumberbatch-recap-123656836.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 06, 2016, 03:07:51 PM
Rashida Jones' tweet:

If we're going to equate investigations with criminality, lemme just leave this here for y'all:

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=share_btn_tw


That story has a few holes in it....

A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.

Harambe for President!!!

Of course there are holes in it. My point is not about whether a crime took place. My point is that if people are going to knock Clinton for the wiff of guilt from the FBI, then they also need to knock Trump for this wiff of guilt.


There is a whiff in this story and it stinks to high heaven.

A woman who claims she was raped by Donald Trump when she was 13 cancelled a press meeting Wednesday. Her lawyer (pictured) said she was 'too afraid' after a series of 'threats' against her.

 http://dailym.ai/2fFJllQ (http://dailym.ai/2fFJllQ)




Total BS....no suprise!!

Woman who alleged she was raped by Donald  Trump DROPS case

http://dailym.ai/2fMGB68
 (http://dailym.ai/2fMGB68)

Are you going to report on Comey's latest letter, in bold huge font red colored letters?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on November 06, 2016, 03:41:05 PM
Just two days before the big day, Anthony send Hillary a good luck message.  :)



(https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hillary-Clinton-Anthony-Weiner.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 07, 2016, 09:19:40 AM
No, Jim Comey Didn’t Try To Swing The Election (or ‘I TOLD YOU SO’)

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/11/no-jim-comey-didnt-try-to-swing-the-election-like-i-told-you-a-week-ago/

James Comey isn’t working for Donald Trump. If he worked for Trump he’d have made yesterday’s announcement on Wednesday. Or never made the original July announcement that the FBI saw no basis for criminally prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

It’s time to let go of the crazy conspiracy theories, kids.

When Comey wrote the first letter to Congress about Anthony Weiner’s stash of hot Hillary Clinton private server action, Republicans started doing victory laps, the media started openly rooting for a horse race to break out, and liberals became whining babies. That’s when people who have actually dealt with the FBI on numerous occasions spent the week explaining in posts, on social media, and in local bars how Comey did exactly what he had to because of his unorthodox (but welcome) decision to clear Clinton in July and that this review would inevitably turn up nothing and be over in advance of Election Day.

When a mass of people are proven spectacularly wrong — especially about stuff they barely understood in the first place — it’s not uncommon to flock to paranoia rather than face up. For the Republicans this means questioning how the FBI and “technology” could review that many emails in a week. A myth any fifth-year associate could dispel.

Meanwhile some Democrats persist that Comey only wrote this letter because he felt guilty from the public outcry — yeah, because if a guy WANTED to brazenly swing an election they would totally reverse course if someone on MSNBC said mean things about them. Or worse yet, there are Hillary supporters somehow some still arguing that Comey could have looked at these emails and dismissed them as nothing without making any public announcement.

Welcome to the “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” of the left.

Let me reintroduce you all to the Fourth Amendment. It’s taken quite a beating over the years, so you may not recognize it, but it’s still a thing. Remember that the FBI needed to secure a warrant to view the Hillary-related emails on Weiner’s porn box. Trying to review these emails without flagging the issue first would mean a public free-for-all once everyone figured out that the Director of the FBI — who told the world that his agency was confident that they’d seen everything and there was “nothing to see here” — was out getting warrants to look for more stuff. “Is this the beginning of a whole flurry of new warrants?” “Does this prove he was reckless in clearing Hillary in July?” “Was he trying to swing the election toward Clinton?” The only way to blunt the impact of that move was Comey’s altogether reserved letter promising a prompt review.

And now here we are, with Hillary receiving a second all-clear from the FBI.

But, sure, keep talking about the FBI’s nefarious secret plan to get Trump elected. I think it involves chemtrails and reverse vampires.

Listen, liberals: save the paranoia for Alex Jones. It’s not a good look on you.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: SoCal on November 07, 2016, 07:29:33 PM
There's more to tomorrow than just the big race. Here's one useful voter guide I've enjoyed that includes important state/local propositions.

http://nancyspicks.com/

She includes links to other sites, for example:

https://robynnordell.com/ where you can do your own research.

In every election season in California, there are important local races which are won or lost by less than 100 votes.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 07, 2016, 09:46:30 PM
Trump dump: Wall Street slides for 9th day in a row

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wall-street-slides-for-ninth-straight-day/


It's not too late to change your 401k allocation. If Trump wins, expect the worse.

Update: It looks like Wall St. wants Clinton to win. The Dow ends the day up 376 points. FBI Director Comey announces it wont charge Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/wall-street-rallies-clinton-230886
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 07, 2016, 10:28:36 PM
There's more to tomorrow than just the big race. Here's one useful voter guide I've enjoyed that includes important state/local propositions.

http://nancyspicks.com/

She includes links to other sites, for example:

https://robynnordell.com/ where you can do your own research.

In every election season in California, there are important local races which are won or lost by less than 100 votes.
Sadly when it comes to local politics and even most state politics, most of the voters were pretty ignorant of who or what they were voting for.   
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 07, 2016, 10:59:33 PM
Trump dump: Wall Street slides for 9th day in a row

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wall-street-slides-for-ninth-straight-day/


It's not too late to change your 401k allocation. If Trump wins, expect the worse.

Update: It looks like Wall St. wants Clinton to win. The Dow ends the day up 376 points. FBI Director Comey announces it wont charge Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/wall-street-rallies-clinton-230886

Reminds me of something...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-rise-with-1-day-to-go-before-brexit-vote/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-rise-with-1-day-to-go-before-brexit-vote/)

Stocks rise with 1 day to go before Brexit vote
Britain's FTSE 100 was up 0.5 percent to 6,259 and Germany's DAX was 0.7 percent higher at 10,082. France's CAC 40 rose 0.5 percent to 4,388.

U.S. futures indicated small gains on Wall Street, with S&P 500 and Dow futures each up 0.1 percent.

Campaigners on both sides of Thursday's crucial vote on whether Britain should remain in the EU began the final frantic day of campaigning. Polls indicate it will be a tight race but bookies are giving the "remain" camp a higher probability of winning. Many voters remain undecided and bookies and investors appear to be betting that they will settle for the status quo. International experts, including Yellen, have said that a British exit would cause a lot of volatility in global markets and uncertainty for the world economy.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 05:45:54 AM
There's more to tomorrow than just the big race. Here's one useful voter guide I've enjoyed that includes important state/local propositions.

http://nancyspicks.com/

She includes links to other sites, for example:

https://robynnordell.com/ where you can do your own research.

In every election season in California, there are important local races which are won or lost by less than 100 votes.
Sadly when it comes to local politics and even most state politics, most of the voters were pretty ignorant of who or what they were voting for.   

Anyone else see Gang Chen on Culver/Alton yesterday morning and Culver/Barranca last night? He was holding a banner waving to commuters.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 08:54:18 AM
Trump dump: Wall Street slides for 9th day in a row

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wall-street-slides-for-ninth-straight-day/


It's not too late to change your 401k allocation. If Trump wins, expect the worse.

Update: It looks like Wall St. wants Clinton to win. The Dow ends the day up 376 points. FBI Director Comey announces it wont charge Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/wall-street-rallies-clinton-230886

Reminds me of something...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-rise-with-1-day-to-go-before-brexit-vote/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-rise-with-1-day-to-go-before-brexit-vote/)

Stocks rise with 1 day to go before Brexit vote
Britain's FTSE 100 was up 0.5 percent to 6,259 and Germany's DAX was 0.7 percent higher at 10,082. France's CAC 40 rose 0.5 percent to 4,388.

U.S. futures indicated small gains on Wall Street, with S&P 500 and Dow futures each up 0.1 percent.

Campaigners on both sides of Thursday's crucial vote on whether Britain should remain in the EU began the final frantic day of campaigning. Polls indicate it will be a tight race but bookies are giving the "remain" camp a higher probability of winning. Many voters remain undecided and bookies and investors appear to be betting that they will settle for the status quo. International experts, including Yellen, have said that a British exit would cause a lot of volatility in global markets and uncertainty for the world economy.

Never underestimate a democratic election full of poorly educated misinformed voters.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 09:06:23 AM
Trump was booed today walking into his NY precinct's voting place. This is his new reality he's created. He will be vilified by a majority of folks on the coasts, and celebrated by a majority of folks in middle America.

Where does he spend most of his time? For a deeply insecure man, this figures to be a tough transition for him, even if he were to win today.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 08, 2016, 09:09:45 AM
Brady voted for trump! 

I guess Hillary is the lesser of the two terrible candidates..more liberal hogwash coming.  Hope the republicans can hold the senate. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 09:12:06 AM
Brady voted for trump! 

I guess Hillary is the lesser of the two terrible candidates..more liberal hogwash coming.  Hope the republicans can hold the senate.

The Dems have a 50.7% chance of taking the Senate:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 08, 2016, 10:58:41 AM
Nate Silver is hedging his bets...

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538  3h3 hours ago

Undecideds are MUCH higher than normal. So risk of a polling error -- in either direction -- is higher than usual.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 08, 2016, 11:46:38 AM
So is it over yet? Am I moving to Canada?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 12:37:06 PM
So is it over yet? Am I moving to Canada?

That's the tame rhetoric. Should you be gathering your pitchforks, knives and muskets?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 08, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
Is Canada's healthcare program better than ACA?

#virtualpitchfork
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 08, 2016, 12:55:57 PM
I voted no on all California proposition, except for prop 53. I voted yes.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 08, 2016, 01:22:36 PM
FYI - kind of election related. Free coffee (hot) any size at 711 today. Just install the 711 app on your phone. [I got the  xl  coffee size.

So when I was at 711, this vet asked these two guys who they voted for. (I was minding my own business, keep that in mind) Then all of the sudden I hear from the old guy said vote for Trump. Then I noticed the two guys were Latino. They were like too bad we voted for Hillary. Then there was a semi shouting conversation. Then the two guys laughed and walked out. But then the old guy shouted build the wall. The two young guys stopped and just laughed it off.


Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 01:23:29 PM
The litigious Trump is already planting the seeds for supporting his rigged election argument:

Nevada judge rejects Trump request for order over early voting
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-sues-nevada-over-polling-place-hours-182710106.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 02:59:57 PM
The probability this letter/endorsement is fake? 99%?

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-bill-belichick-letter-tom-brady-518274?rx=us
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 08, 2016, 03:33:30 PM
The probability this letter/endorsement is fake? 99%?

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-bill-belichick-letter-tom-brady-518274?rx=us

"Gisele Bündchen — wife of NFL superstar Tom Brady — flatly rejected Donald Trump’s assertion that her husband had voted for the GOP nominee.

“NO!” the Brazilian model told an Instagram user who asked if it were true that she and Brady were backing the brash billionaire."

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/gisele-bundchen-tom-brady-no-trump-230930
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 07:13:48 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 08, 2016, 07:25:54 PM
 ;D ;D ;D ;)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 07:38:54 PM
A couple coin flips now will determine this election.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 07:42:29 PM
DOW Futures project a 700 point drop at tomorrow's opening.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 07:43:01 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 07:54:05 PM
It is amazing how all the white women on TV right now (NBC) being interviewed are asked why they voted for Trump.

All that sexist talk and "grab 'em by the pussy" don't phase 'em.  One white woman was like... "Hell I've said worse stuff than that.  Woman say the same things about men too".

Sure, in your world. Not mine.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 08, 2016, 08:03:29 PM
Buy the selloff, it's going to be easy money
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 08, 2016, 08:39:33 PM
I get to do this....Told ya!!!!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 08, 2016, 08:45:38 PM
Once again, never underestimate a democratic election full of poorly educated misinformed voters. It's the worst form of government, except for all of the others.

I'm not upset that a Republican is likely to become President. I am embarrassed a man like Trump will likely be President.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 09:13:02 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: cheetos on November 08, 2016, 09:17:04 PM
Exactly. He won the uneducated white vote like no one before.

Once again, never underestimate a democratic election full of poorly educated misinformed voters. It's the worst form of government, except for all of the others.

I'm not upset that a Republican is likely to become President. I am embarrassed a man like Trump will likely be President.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on November 08, 2016, 09:25:14 PM
As much as I hate Trump...err President Trump. I support the democratic process and will pray for him that he governs this country fairly.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 09:36:19 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 08, 2016, 09:41:39 PM
Crazy. The fact that it's this close really tells you how much neither candidate is liked.

I am surprised at the current count. Is it really hinging on PA?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 08, 2016, 09:48:23 PM
Dow futures down 700

Lets face it, we all lost thousands of dollars.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 08, 2016, 09:55:37 PM
So funny how the media is slanting the results:

Fox has Trump at 254, CNN at 238 and NBC at 244.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on November 08, 2016, 09:56:09 PM
Hey at least prop 64 passed
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 08, 2016, 10:00:36 PM
Hey at least prop 64 passed

you smoke?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: AW on November 08, 2016, 10:02:49 PM
Dow futures down 700

Lets face it, we all lost thousands of dollars.
Note to self.
Options trading on Election Day 4 years from now.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 08, 2016, 10:09:49 PM
Dow futures down 700

Lets face it, we all lost thousands of dollars.
Note to self.
Options trading on Election Day 4 years from now.

Update: Dow down 800.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 08, 2016, 10:11:59 PM
Exactly. He won the uneducated white vote like no one before.

Once again, never underestimate a democratic election full of poorly educated misinformed voters. It's the worst form of government, except for all of the others.

I'm not upset that a Republican is likely to become President. I am embarrassed a man like Trump will likely be President.

Incredibly disingenuous and unfair to blanket label 49% of your fellow citizens white, uneducated fools simply because they didn't see the election your way.  It wasn't just white men, it was women, Latinos, blacks , educated, religious, diverse, young, old,citizens in all shapes and sizes. It goes back to what i posted earlier that we live in this elitist echo chamber which is precisely what the people of this country have had it with.See this result for what it is and try and learn a little bit instead of groping for racial excuses.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: AW on November 08, 2016, 10:17:40 PM
Dow futures down 700

Lets face it, we all lost thousands of dollars.
Note to self.
Options trading on Election Day 4 years from now.

Update: Dow down 800.
Any currency traders here? Canadian up, pesos down?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: cheetos on November 08, 2016, 10:23:05 PM
Actually that's the statistics presented on the news. Numbers, not my opinion, show that he was able to mobilize this demographic like no one else.

Exactly. He won the uneducated white vote like no one before.

Once again, never underestimate a democratic election full of poorly educated misinformed voters. It's the worst form of government, except for all of the others.

I'm not upset that a Republican is likely to become President. I am embarrassed a man like Trump will likely be President.

Incredibly disingenuous and unfair to blanket label 49% of your fellow citizens white, uneducated fools simply because they didn't see the election your way.  It wasn't just white men, it was women, Latinos, blacks , educated, religious, diverse, young, old,citizens in all shapes and sizes. It goes back to what i posted earlier that we live in this elitist echo chamber which is precisely what the people of this country have had it with.See this result for what it is and try and learn a little bit instead of groping for racial excuses.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 10:35:34 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 08, 2016, 10:37:58 PM
I haven't voted in the last few presidential elections and I wasn't going to vote this time either because I didn't like either candidate until........................ Hillary called half the country deplorables.

Looking past Donald Trump's personality, brashness and flaws, looking past the fact that he probably can't get done what he says he will do I remember Hillary as being way too secretive in the health care stuff back when she wasn't even a paid employee, Whitewater, etc and I just don't trust her.

Still I wasn't going to vote for either as I just don't like either but......... when the ideology of each is put side by side, I cast my vote (literally 5 seconds before the polls closed) along with a whole lot of other evangelicals, part of the silent majority who has just about had it with the way the country has been sliding and who probably made their mind up this last Sunday morning. It's more than just the next four years, it's about who is nominated and confirmed for the Supreme Court.

Never did I think I'd vote for the guy but sure enough I did. Had the dems put someone else out there, could have been a different vote for me.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 10:39:59 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: ps9 on November 08, 2016, 10:47:29 PM

Pretty much sums up how I feel right now.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 08, 2016, 10:53:37 PM
I'm not comfortable with this. I don't want Trump to win, though I'm not a fan of Hillary either. I didn't vote for either of them.  Mot that it matters, as Cali is a Clinton state.

I kept telling liberals to stop being dishonest as it will backfire on them. They took it as if I was insulting them and increased their dishonestly exaggerated cry wolf insults.  Dems should have focused more on the issues and getting that message across.  Instead, all anyone remembers is both sides insulting each other.  Clinton should have catered to the center as those votes matter.  The far left already is stuck with her.  She should have stopped with identity politics and treating sexes, genders... as if they were her puppets.  Also the whole Bernie movement really hurt Hillary. Bernie campaigned too long. Treating her as the better of two evils hurt her more than it helped her.

It is amazing how all the white women on TV right now (NBC) being interviewed are asked why they voted for Trump.

All that sexist talk and "grab 'em by the pussy" don't phase 'em.  One white woman was like... "Hell I've said worse stuff than that.  Woman say the same things about men too".
I'd bet that women are much bigger offenders.  Had my d grabbed by lots of random women in the clubs when I used to club.  It happens and I never complained.  If guys do that, they go home with the police.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 10:59:44 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 11:28:42 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 08, 2016, 11:38:15 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on November 08, 2016, 11:56:34 PM
Congratulations to the Trump supporters. I'm listening to his victory speech and I hope he keeps his promise to be the President for all Americans. It is time to unify this country.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: cheetos on November 09, 2016, 12:44:01 AM
The point is that this pussy grabbing shouldn't happen ever, male or female.

I never said the poor shouldn't vote. You can be uneducated and rich, educated and poor. I definitely did not say everyone who voted for trump was uneducated. It gave him a push that other candidates probably would not have had. I don't think they would have come out for Jeb.

Anyways time to move forward. I hope he can bring the change ppl are looking for.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 09, 2016, 06:55:29 AM
At least his speech writers were good:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/trump-speech-transcript.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 09, 2016, 08:29:54 AM
Where is everybody? Packing for Canada?

Has HRC made her concession speech yet?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 09, 2016, 08:38:37 AM
Who cares...so 90's. She has already receded into irrelivance.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 09, 2016, 09:05:53 AM
We're witnessing history folks. Never has a candidate since politics became a "science" ever won a presidential election (or even get nominated) without the support of a major political party, professional consultants, media support and most of all,  big time financial backers. We're heading into uncharted waters.  You'll be able to tell your grandkids you were there when the revolution happened.

Brexit was no aberration. A tectonic change is beginning to happen in Western Civilization.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 09, 2016, 09:54:13 AM
Once again, never underestimate a democratic election full of poorly educated misinformed voters. It's the worst form of government, except for all of the others.

I'm not upset that a Republican is likely to become President. I am embarrassed a man like Trump will likely be President.
Don't be embarrassed that a man like Trump will be president.  Be proud that democracy actually works in America. Many other countries in the world call themselves "democratic" but their people know that their lives and destinies are controlled by a ruling political-academic-financial elite and there is nothing they can do about it.  Trump's election has shown the world that there are limits to the power of the political-academic-financial elite and Trump's election will inspire other such movements in the world.  When the global elites meet for their annual boondoggle in Davos next year, you can believe the top of their agenda will be how to reverse the Trump revolution.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 10:17:33 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 09, 2016, 10:29:58 AM
I'm proud that our democracy system works and the powerful elites and corrupt do not control this nation.  Otherwise, we'd have a communist regime.  The people have the right to elect a Hitler if they want to.

This is not a true Democracy as the popular vote doesn't win the presidency. (However it is for everything else such as elected officials)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 10:39:39 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 11:07:57 AM
12,686 folks carried Michigan for Trump:

Michigan 16 electoral votes
100% reporting
Candidate  Pop Votes   Pop Pct.
Trump(R)   2,278,621   47.6%
Clinton(D) 2,265,935   47.3%
Johnson(L) 172,937   3.6%
Others     69,818   1.5%

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elections
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 11:14:50 AM
Former KKK leader David Duke: 'Our people have played a HUGE role in electing Trump!'
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-075823237.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: GH on November 09, 2016, 11:25:48 AM
Pollster are just way wrong big time !!

Based on fivethirtyeight last forecast before election .. Clinton has an 83.5% chance of winning Wisconsion, 78.9% change on MI and 77% chance on PA.   That's giving Trump like less than 1% chance of winning all three states.. boom..

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: The California Court Company on November 09, 2016, 11:30:29 AM
"poorly educated older white males"
I think many people will be offended by that. I will take a person with real life experience over a fresh college graduate.
Any way, it is time for California to leave the Union. California is vastly different from the rest of country any way.
#CalExit
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: GH on November 09, 2016, 11:30:58 AM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.

change the word "white" to some other color or race and male to female and see how racist that statement is... just saying...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 11:34:10 AM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.

change the word "white" to some other color or race and male to female and see how racist that statement is... just saying...

That's a good exercise, and when I do so, applied to the facts we have about this election, it isn't racist.

It's not racist to identify the percentage of non-white voters who supported Clinton either.

That was a quick "reverse racism" trigger!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 09, 2016, 11:35:06 AM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.

Funny how this all turned to "uneducated" voters.  In states like MI, these are your blue collar workers and yes.. they have a vote!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 11:39:06 AM
So, was this election rigged or not? I'm so confused today.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: GH on November 09, 2016, 11:41:53 AM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.

change the word "white" to some other color or race and male to female and see how racist that statement is... just saying...

That's a good exercise, and when I do so, applied to the facts we have about this election, it isn't racist.

I think the blame really lie on Clinton itself more than the other side.  If she just have gotten the same amount of support from their traditional minority constituents .. it would not have matter:

She can't even get more votes compared to Obama from women given the Trumps reputation with women"

"When it came to women voters, Clinton won 54% compared to Trump's 42%. Even though 70% of voters said that Trump's treatment of women bothered them, they still didn't flock to the woman who could have broken the glass ceiling. Obama won 55% of the women's vote in 2012."


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-votes-african-americans-latinos-women-white-voters/index.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 09, 2016, 11:43:41 AM
"uneducated"...  Geesh, seems like a wannabe bully elitist trying to insult others because she/he/ze/te/lasdkhdfe didn't get his way. 

My opinion is that well over 80% of the voters on both sides are uneducated. 

But what does educated mean?  It's kind of insulting to claim someone isn't educated because they didn't take the same college classes as someone else.  Shaming someone for not having the same level of college as you kinda puts you in an elitist prick category.

So what would educated be?  It's gotta be whether they did their due diligence with research on everyone and everything they are going to vote for.  Many people were easily swayed by their biased media (on both sides).  Too many people feel that since they did some research that they are experts on the topics.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: GH on November 09, 2016, 11:46:31 AM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.

change the word "white" to some other color or race and male to female and see how racist that statement is... just saying...

That's a good exercise, and when I do so, applied to the facts we have about this election, it isn't racist.

It's not racist to identify the percentage of non-white voters who supported Clinton either.

That was a quick "reverse racism" trigger!

It becomes racist when you label them as poorly educated -- same as labeling all Mexican illegal or Muslim as terrorist etc...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 11:48:15 AM
"poorly educated older white males"
I think many people will be offended by that. I will take a person with real life experience over a fresh college graduate.
Any way, it is time for California to leave the Union. California is vastly different from the rest of country any way.
#CalExit
He seems like a wannabe bully trying to insult others because he didn't get his way.

Is that ad hominem directed at me? I didn't vote for Clinton. I never get my way in Presidential elections, as a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Although, with a Republican Congress and President, I'm very likely to pay much less in taxes soon.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 09, 2016, 12:00:44 PM
Is that ad hominem directed at me?
It's directed at the word "uneducated".  I edited/expanded my post above.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 12:31:33 PM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.

change the word "white" to some other color or race and male to female and see how racist that statement is... just saying...

That's a good exercise, and when I do so, applied to the facts we have about this election, it isn't racist.

It's not racist to identify the percentage of non-white voters who supported Clinton either.

That was a quick "reverse racism" trigger!

It becomes racist when you label them as poorly educated -- same as labeling all Mexican illegal or Muslim as terrorist etc...

Bit of a false equivalency there, but, let's label them "non-college educated" then.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 09, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.

change the word "white" to some other color or race and male to female and see how racist that statement is... just saying...

That's a good exercise, and when I do so, applied to the facts we have about this election, it isn't racist.

It's not racist to identify the percentage of non-white voters who supported Clinton either.

That was a quick "reverse racism" trigger!

It becomes racist when you label them as poorly educated -- same as labeling all Mexican illegal or Muslim as terrorist etc...

Bit of a false equivalency there, but, let's label them "non-college educated" then.

Perspective must have lots of friends. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 12:40:37 PM
Congrats to Trump are in order. Nobody believed he could motivate and enthuse a sufficient percentage of poorly educated older white male voters to win the non-metro areas of PA, MI, WI, and FL. Kudos.

What's the gameplan going forward in Presidential elections for Republicans? Is Trump even a Republican? The demographics of the US continue to make duplicating this effort extremely difficult.

change the word "white" to some other color or race and male to female and see how racist that statement is... just saying...

That's a good exercise, and when I do so, applied to the facts we have about this election, it isn't racist.

It's not racist to identify the percentage of non-white voters who supported Clinton either.

That was a quick "reverse racism" trigger!

It becomes racist when you label them as poorly educated -- same as labeling all Mexican illegal or Muslim as terrorist etc...

Bit of a false equivalency there, but, let's label them "non-college educated" then.

Perspective must have lots of friends.

Another ad hominem.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 09, 2016, 01:15:48 PM
Blame the media and data analyst for making that term up. In my opinion, she should blame her campaign staffers for the loss. She didn't even step into Wisconsin during the general election. Michigan she should of won.

"uneducated"...  Geesh, seems like a wannabe bully elitist trying to insult others because she/he/ze/te/lasdkhdfe didn't get his way. 

My opinion is that well over 80% of the voters on both sides are uneducated. 

But what does educated mean?  It's kind of insulting to claim someone isn't educated because they didn't take the same college classes as someone else.  Shaming someone for not having the same level of college as you kinda puts you in an elitist prick category.

So what would educated be?  It's gotta be whether they did their due diligence with research on everyone and everything they are going to vote for.  Many people were easily swayed by their biased media (on both sides).  Too many people feel that since they did some research that they are experts on the topics.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 01:19:16 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 09, 2016, 01:22:31 PM
It wasn't just stupid white people, The vaunted latino vote pushed him in too...

Why the Latino Vote Didn’t Save America

Hispanic voters were supposed to be one of Clinton’s blue firewalls—but one in three ended up splitting for Trump.

Given the bad blood between Trump and Latinos, one of the biggest surprises on Election Night was that so many Latinos ended up voting for their tormentor. According to CNN’s exit polls, about 27 percent of Latinos voted for Trump. Exit polls from The New York Times put the figure at 29 percent.
This means that Trump did better with Hispanics than Bob Dole in 1996 (21 percent), and wound up comparable to Mitt Romney in 2012 (27 percent).
Que paso? I myself, on this page, have compared the concept of Latinos for Trump to the absurd idea of “Chickens for Colonel Sanders.” And yet here we are. What makes these people tick?
And what will a Trump presidency mean for the group of Americans that he first targeted, the group that hates him the most but which also seems to have given him a slight opening—say about 27 to 29 percent worth—to start a conversation?
As for Trump’s Latino support, I was shocked that it was so high. But, for months, I’ve been predicting that Trump would get about 20 percent of the Latino vote—which is a lot higher than many of his Latino critics thought possible.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/09/why-the-latino-vote-didn-t-save-america.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/09/why-the-latino-vote-didn-t-save-america.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 01:26:54 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 09, 2016, 01:29:24 PM
It wasn't just stupid white people, The vaunted latino vote pushed him in too...

Why the Latino Vote Didn’t Save America

Hispanic voters were supposed to be one of Clinton’s blue firewalls—but one in three ended up splitting for Trump.

Given the bad blood between Trump and Latinos, one of the biggest surprises on Election Night was that so many Latinos ended up voting for their tormentor. According to CNN’s exit polls, about 27 percent of Latinos voted for Trump. Exit polls from The New York Times put the figure at 29 percent.
This means that Trump did better with Hispanics than Bob Dole in 1996 (21 percent), and wound up comparable to Mitt Romney in 2012 (27 percent).
Que paso? I myself, on this page, have compared the concept of Latinos for Trump to the absurd idea of “Chickens for Colonel Sanders.” And yet here we are. What makes these people tick?
And what will a Trump presidency mean for the group of Americans that he first targeted, the group that hates him the most but which also seems to have given him a slight opening—say about 27 to 29 percent worth—to start a conversation?
As for Trump’s Latino support, I was shocked that it was so high. But, for months, I’ve been predicting that Trump would get about 20 percent of the Latino vote—which is a lot higher than many of his Latino critics thought possible.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/09/why-the-latino-vote-didn-t-save-america.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/09/why-the-latino-vote-didn-t-save-america.html)
Mexicans who are already here don't want more Mexicans to come here to take their jobs, they want the wall and thus voted Trump... am I right qwerxican?*

*This is satire.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on November 09, 2016, 01:31:39 PM
Someone at Camp Hillary sorely misunderestimated the size and depth of those in the Basket of Deplorables.

If I'm not mistaken the largest voting block out there are women (all colors, shapes, and sizes) and could have elected her. Clearly it's not White Males (a rapidly declining target group) who pulled this off. The complete mix of all races, creeds, education levels, etc made this happen.

I do so love hearing Starbucks Barista's In Training Social Justice Warriors bemoaning how it's low brow whitey's fault it, or how "The Blacks" - as they put it, not me... - Latina/Latino/Hispanics or the alphabet LGBTQWERTYZYX people groups that didn't get out and come through for HRC. They really need to point the finger of blame at the quality of their candidate and nothing more. President Elect Rabid Orangutan had his issues, but the Scabrous Gorgon was clearly unpalatable to so many of us.

My .02c
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 09, 2016, 01:40:32 PM
Polls suggested Clinton might win the white college educated vote, but Trump pulled this group, like every other Republican before, albeit by just a couple points.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on November 09, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
I'm not sure what that says Soylent, but the issue is simple.  In 2008 President Obama got 69.5 million votes to McCain's 59.9 million.  In 2012 he got about 65.9 million votes to Romney's 60.9.

Yesterday. Hillary got 59.5 million votes.  Trump got less, 59.2.

16% of President Obama's supporters said no to Hillary.

Not to mention the 112 million adult Americans that didn't vote at all. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on November 09, 2016, 01:52:07 PM
Ultimately Hillary represented the establishment Washington. Half the electorate rejected a continuation of Obama's policies. The people demanded change and that is what they got. We'll see how that translates into policy over the next 4 years.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 09, 2016, 01:53:18 PM
We shall see if President Trump acts with the same steady conciliatory attitude to help bring the country together as  Barack Obama did in 2010...


Eric Cantor went to the White house on day three of President Obama's presidency. At the time, Obama and Democrats had total control of the White House, Senate and House. Cantor tried to share ideas with President Obama for stimulating the economy and creating jobs. When Cantor pushed for small business tax-cuts, President Obama said

"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."

Instead of business tax cuts that would have actually stimulated the economy, we got the failed Porkulus bill that only stimulated unions and other democratic special interest groups. Unemployment has skyrocketed to 9.5% since the Stimulus was passed and even President Obama is indirectly admitting Democrats made a mistake
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 01:59:23 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on November 09, 2016, 02:06:37 PM
My two favorite stats so far:

President Elect Rabid Orangutan won 76% of counties with a Cracker Barrel restaurant and 22% of counties with a Whole Foods - a 54% gap, compared to 19% gap in same counties last go round.

and

231,556,622 Eligible Voters

46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for The Scabrous Gorgon
25.5% voted for The Tang Menace

Numbers RULE!
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 09, 2016, 02:07:24 PM
When I worked in healthcare, the majority of my patients were Hispanic.

But not all Hispanics fit in the same basket.

There were many who had been here many years, some first generation, some second generation but "those" Hispanics were against amnesty that Reagan granted in the early 90's. They felt they had paid their dues, gone to school, learned English and were proud to be Americans after studying to get thru the test. They felt that those coming across the border needed to pay their dues as well and "they" were a threat to their jobs.

THOSE Hispanics can vote. The ones just over the border..... not so much.

You can't put that group into one big boat and think it's all going to be one big homogenous voting block.

Seemed as if no one courted the senior citizens. Nothing mentioned about social security (other than Hillary saying it should be expanded once in a while and we all know.......... fat chance for THAT happening).
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 09, 2016, 02:27:18 PM
Somebody explain what it does "poorly" educated or "non-college" educated old white folks mean?

uneducated: [uhn-ej-oo-key-tid/ʌnˈɛdjʊˌkeɪtɪd], adjective, definition: disagrees with me.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 09, 2016, 02:40:21 PM
Just blame her and her staffers. She didn't match Trump's enthusiasm. What can I say?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 09, 2016, 02:53:02 PM
Remember Prop 187, the one where all the polls said would lose by a wide margin because it was so politically incorrect but then passed?  I think we will see the same with Trump.  No matter what some people tell the pollsters, what happens in the privacy of the polling booth will be a different story.

See, told ya so!  Polls LOL.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 03:21:39 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Goriot on November 09, 2016, 03:36:27 PM
Clinton spent $450 million+ campaigning for her election for a job that pays only $400,000 a year for a maximum payout of $3.2 million.  Sounds like a terrible, terrible investment by TI/Panda standards.  Talk about cash flow negative...

The real money comes after the presidency like her husband.  $100,000 to $1 million per speech + book + consulting fee.  Bill Clinton is getting close to $100 million net worth.   Not bad.  Clinton spent/wasted $450 million of Wall Street's money so it's all good.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 09, 2016, 04:07:02 PM
Perspective must have lots of friends.

Another ad hominem.
Ad hominem as a logical fallacy is when you rebuke a statement by using an insult.  That's not what happened here.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: USCTrojanCPA on November 09, 2016, 04:13:42 PM
"poorly educated older white males"
I think many people will be offended by that. I will take a person with real life experience over a fresh college graduate.
Any way, it is time for California to leave the Union. California is vastly different from the rest of country any way.
#CalExit

And create a new country called the People's Republic of California?  haha
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 04:34:57 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 09, 2016, 04:37:48 PM
What I want to know is..... why Obama didn't pick Hillary as VP back in '08?   She was in better shape then without all the scandals. ;D
Once they went head to head with each other, that wasn't going to happen. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 09, 2016, 04:41:54 PM
What I want to know is..... why Obama didn't pick Hillary as VP back in '08?   She was in better shape then without all the scandals. ;D
Once they went head to head with each other, that wasn't going to happen.

They should of replaced her after the 9/11 incident. Blame the dnc. Thinking it through, the way the campaign was run is a joke.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: aquabliss on November 09, 2016, 05:08:05 PM
What I want to know is..... why Obama didn't pick Hillary as VP back in '08?   She was in better shape then without all the scandals. ;D
Once they went head to head with each other, that wasn't going to happen.

They should of replaced her after the 9/11 incident. Blame the dnc. Thinking it through, the way the campaign was run is a joke.

Doesn't it also feel any time Trump runs a press conference or a rally, it's put together by a bunch of High School kids in Videography class or something...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: USCTrojanCPA on November 09, 2016, 05:55:16 PM
Clinton spent $450 million+ campaigning for her election for a job that pays only $400,000 a year for a maximum payout of $3.2 million.  Sounds like a terrible, terrible investment by TI/Panda standards.  Talk about cash flow negative...

Other people's money bro...
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 09, 2016, 06:52:52 PM
No one talks about how bad Hilary's VP selection was. The writing was on the wall that she should of picked Bernie for VP.

Also, I think Bernie would of been a better choice the Hilary. But after the Wikileaks's dump, seemed like the DNC didn't want Bernie. But it look like the people wanted Bernie. If it wasn't for super delegates, Bernie would have been the Democrat nominee and better candidate. He was more polarizing than Clinton.

Bottom line the DNC dropped the ball. Trump out played them.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 07:12:30 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 07:32:55 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 08:21:05 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 09, 2016, 08:49:51 PM
Lots of protests going on now.  LA and Oakland.  People are as stupid as a piece of rock if they believe a peaceful protest or a little of civil unrest can make a difference.

If people want to oust this President-elect, they all need to run to gun stores, take up arms, form a militia, and start a rebellion or revolution.  This would then be worthy of being in our K-12 history books!

All organized by Moveon.org and George Soros..... fake, paid for outrage,  it won't last long

America on Edge: MoveOn Organizes Anti-Trump Protests Around Country

MoveOn.org released the following press release Wednesday afternoon:

Americans to Come Together in Hundreds Peaceful Gatherings of Solidarity, Resistance, and Resolve Following Election Results

Hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

Tonight, thousands of Americans will come together at hundreds of peaceful gatherings in cities and towns across the nation, including outside the White House, following the results of Tuesday’s presidential election.

The gatherings – organized by MoveOn.org and allies – will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on November 09, 2016, 09:19:52 PM
  People are as stupid as a piece of rock if they believe a peaceful protest or a little of civil unrest can make a difference.

You might want to review your US history books:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1954–68) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1954–68))
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 09, 2016, 09:35:00 PM
Lots of protests going on now.  LA and Oakland.  People are as stupid as a piece of rock if they believe a peaceful protest or a little of civil unrest can make a difference.

If people want to oust this President-elect, they all need to run to gun stores, take up arms, form a militia, and start a rebellion or revolution.  This would then be worthy of being in our K-12 history books!

I think we all want peace. Let's be clear your the rogue one on TI.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 09, 2016, 09:55:06 PM
No one talks about how bad Hilary's VP selection was. The writing was on the wall that she should of picked Bernie for VP.

Also, I think Bernie would of been a better choice the Hilary. But after the Wikileaks's dump, seemed like the DNC didn't want Bernie. But it look like the people wanted Bernie. If it wasn't for super delegates, Bernie would have been the Democrat nominee and better candidate. He was more polarizing than Clinton.

Bottom line the DNC dropped the ball. Trump out played them.
Rumor is, she had her VP pick a long time ago. 

That said...  Bernie wouldn't be her VP pick because of the long drawn out head to head battle between each other.   Had he not run against her for so long, she probably would have won the presidency.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 09, 2016, 09:56:45 PM
I think we all want peace. Let's be clear your the rogue one on TI.
They are doing much more harm for their movement than good.  They all seem to be dumb brainwashed sheep.

What do they want?  A redo?  Do they want Trump to say something?  Are they just venting their anger by disrupting other peoples days?


--
Oh and the girl on the news being interviewed right now was just asked who she voted for.  She said she was a Sanders supporter, but she voted for Clinton.  But she gave very classic tells of a lie when she says she voted for Clinton.  I'm guessing she didn't vote for Clinton.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 10:25:56 PM
.
Title: .
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 10:29:36 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 09, 2016, 10:30:27 PM
I think we all want peace. Let's be clear your the rogue one on TI.
They are doing much more harm for their movement than good.  They all seem to be dumb brainwashed sheep.

What do they want?  A redo?  Do they want Trump to say something?  Are they just venting their anger by disrupting other peoples days?


--
Oh and the girl on the news being interviewed right now was just asked who she voted for.  She said she was a Sanders supporter, but she voted for Clinton.  But she gave very classic tells of a lie when she says she voted for Clinton.  I'm guessing she didn't vote for Clinton.

I told people the DNC, miscalculated Sanders. He has a big following.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 09, 2016, 10:34:15 PM
No one talks about how bad Hilary's VP selection was. The writing was on the wall that she should of picked Bernie for VP.

Also, I think Bernie would of been a better choice the Hilary. But after the Wikileaks's dump, seemed like the DNC didn't want Bernie. But it look like the people wanted Bernie. If it wasn't for super delegates, Bernie would have been the Democrat nominee and better candidate. He was more polarizing than Clinton.

Bottom line the DNC dropped the ball. Trump out played them.
Rumor is, she had her VP pick a long time ago. 

That said...  Bernie wouldn't be her VP pick because of the long drawn out head to head battle between each other.   Had he not run against her for so long, she probably would have won the presidency.

Hillary had trouble with the young voters in the primaries and the gen election.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 10:42:46 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: aquabliss on November 09, 2016, 10:42:52 PM
Bernie would have won... Lucky us, we all would have had a 50% tax rate and no deductions.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 10:56:25 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 09, 2016, 11:14:33 PM
Hillary should be asking all these people to stand down. 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 09, 2016, 11:18:06 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on November 09, 2016, 11:39:46 PM
This is the beauty of our great democracy. The checks and balances; constitutional rights. The people voted and have the right for their elected candidate to be  president. Those who lost the election also have the right to express their protest.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 09, 2016, 11:50:57 PM
This is the beauty of our great democracy. The checks and balances; constitutional rights. The people voted and have the right for their elected candidate to be  president. Those who lost the election also have the right to express their protest.
I'm pretty sure that it's not a right to block the freeways.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 10, 2016, 06:51:44 AM
Bernie would have won... Lucky us, we all would have had a 50% tax rate and no deductions.

I would've voted Bernie 100%.  FREE EDUCATION.

Seems like the DNC was targeting Bernie and called his campaign a mess, according to the verge from the Wikileaks's dump.

"DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has said she would resign in the wake of the hack. "Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess."

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/25/12279134/dnc-apology-leaks-bernie-sanders

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: AW on November 10, 2016, 07:29:55 AM
This all feels like a Netflix special
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 10, 2016, 07:40:35 AM
It was the economy stupid....and immigration.  Not race, gender, abortion, global warming,  or LGBT rights.  What a surprise.

Trump fared well with women voters despite sex assault claims

Los Angeles (AFP) - Despite sex assault allegations hounding him, fat-shaming a former beauty queen and his controversial abortion stand, a large number of women voters helped put Donald Trump in the White House.

Though his rival, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, clinched 54 percent of the female vote, Trump was backed by 42 percent of women voters, which contributed to his stunning victory, according to CNN exit polls.

Experts said the outcome is not surprising, and reflects an election in which issues about the economy, jobs and immigration were much higher on all voters' priority list than gender issues.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fared-well-women-voters-despite-sex-assault-050433269.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fared-well-women-voters-despite-sex-assault-050433269.html)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 10, 2016, 07:46:26 AM
Another thing people don't talk about is the final stretch of the election. Trump was visiting 3 to 5 different states going to rallies and energizing the base. While Hilary did rallies and concerts. It all came down to, who wants it more.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 10, 2016, 07:51:06 AM
What I want to know is..... why Obama didn't pick Hillary as VP back in '08?   She was in better shape then without all the scandals. ;D
Once they went head to head with each other, that wasn't going to happen.

They should of replaced her after the 9/11 incident. Blame the dnc. Thinking it through, the way the campaign was run is a joke.

Doesn't it also feel any time Trump runs a press conference or a rally, it's put together by a bunch of High School kids in Videography class or something...

Looking back seems like people attended his rallies more.

He had phrases that people can remember. I can't even think of a phrase from Hillary's campaign. I remember for Bernie, free education for everybody or something.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 10, 2016, 08:04:49 AM
To me, the results was more about how how much people disliked Hillary over how much they liked Trump.

I think this was a fitting result, HRC was so smug that she had the female vote locked up, the blue states locked up, the Latino vote locked up, and that the debates/locker room video/etc was gravy... and that's what most of the media thought (including myself)... and then the results exposed her hubris.

While I think Trump isn't qualified to be prez (luckily, there are other branches to check him), people just didn't like the current establishment (as seen by the Senate and House votes). This is the same thing that happened 8 years ago where many didn't think America was going to vote in an African American president.

Or maybe, it is the glass ceiling, when Obama won, McCain has a woman vice president, would it had been different if McCain chose a male running mate?

Maybe it's as simple as America isn't ready for women in the highest office... at least not for the the two that we could vote for.

If Hillary couldn't beat someone like Trump, she has to know how disliked she is. Maybe Michelle Obama can run in 2020/24. :)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 10, 2016, 09:04:09 AM
Lots of protests going on now.  LA and Oakland.  People are as stupid as a piece of rock if they believe a peaceful protest or a little of civil unrest can make a difference.

If people want to oust this President-elect, they all need to run to gun stores, take up arms, form a militia, and start a rebellion or revolution.  This would then be worthy of being in our K-12 history books!

I think we all want peace. Let's be clear your the rogue one on TI.

Uhh no I said "IF".  I didn't say let's do it.  Please read English.

If you are horny, go jerk off.  I didn't ask you to go jerk off.  But only "if" you are horny.  So I said "If" people want to oust him, then form a rebellion in arms and get the job done.

If you haven't noticed, I'm a Trump supporter.  Why do you think I want violence?  But I'll certainly throw in my free advice for people who may consider it. :). I am providing my free advice for the protesters who want to see action done.  Whether or not they act on it is their own choice. 

I am just belittling the protesters because clearly their action right now is absolutely futile unless they take drastic measures above. 

So I will repeat my english again and I hope you can comprehend it.  If the protesters out on the streets want to see progress, then take up arms and form a rebellion and start a revolution.  Otherwise, these protestors need to go home, go to bed, suck it up, and stop wasting public resources like riot control and police presence and causing traffic jams and littering our streets.

And eyephone, when are you going to have that SX negro vodka drink with me?    Or are you still offended because the bottle says "Negro" ?

It doesn't matter who you voted for and supported. But if you give advice to bring "Chaos" (words that you mentioned: revolution, militia, making history in our books, etc.) that's a problem.

In regards to drinking with you, I think I'll pass. (You wouldn't be the first choice I would drink with, that I can tell you)  ;)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 09:10:38 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 09:19:52 AM
Read Michael Moore's Full 'Trumpland' Explanation for How Trump Won

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/read-michael-moores-full-trumpland-explanation-for-how-trump-won/ar-AAk6BxT?li=BBnbfcL

Back in October, filmmaker Michael Moore released the surprise documentary Michael Moore in Trumpland, which detailed Hillary Clinton's strengths as a presidential candidate and also featured a lengthy section on how Donald Trump could win the election.

In the film, which Moore filmed over two days in Ohio in September, the Oscar-winning director explains how voters in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin -- all states won by Trump on Election Day -- could put the GOP nominee into power. (Moore called those states "Brexit states.") Moore's remarks in the video, which echoed comments he wrote on his website earlier this year, were even picked up by Trump himself, who tweeted out an edited video of the Michael Moore in Trumpland segment, and said he agreed with Moore. (Moore later slammed Trump for promoting the edited video.)

In the wake of Trump's victory, Moore tweeted, "The American Brexit. In June, Britain voted to leave Europe. Yesterday, America voted to leave America." Below, read Moore's full comments from Michael Moore in Trumpland, which provide further context to his post-election tweet.

Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club, and stood there in front of the Ford Motor executives, and said, 'If you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35 percent tariff on those cars when you send them back, and nobody is going to buy them.' It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives. And it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Brexit states. ... Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting. And it's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff, who used to be part of what was called the middle class, loves Trump. He is the human Molotov cocktail that they've been waiting for. The human hand grenade that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on Nov. 8, Election Day, although they've lost their jobs, although they've been foreclosed on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repo'd, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the sh--ty Obamacare bronze plan, where you can't even get a f---ing Percocet. They've essentially lost everything they had, except one thing. The one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American Constitution: the right to vote. They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be f---ed over and f---ed up, it doesn't matter. Because it's equalized on that day: a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job, one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class.

So on Nov. 8, the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touch screen and put a big f---ing 'X' in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J. Trump.

They see that the elites, who ruined their lives, hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump -- after they loved him, and created him, and now hate him. Thank you, media. The enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on Nov. 8. Yes, on Nov. 8, you: Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, Billy Bob Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system, because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest 'f--- you' ever recorded in human history. And it will feel good. For a day. Maybe a week. Possibly a month. And then? Like the Brits, who wanted to send a message, so they voted to leave Europe. Only to find out, that if you voted to leave Europe, you actually have to leave Europe. And now they regret it. All the Ohioans, Pennsylvanians, Michiganders, and Wisconsinites of Middle England, right? They all voted to leave, and now they regret it -- and over 4 million of them have signed a petition to have a do-over. They want another election. It ain't going to happen. Because you used the ballot as an anger-management tool. And now you're f---ed. And the rest of Europe? They're like, 'Bye, Felicia.'

So when the rightfully angry people of Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin find out after a few months in office that President Trump wasn't going to do a damn thing for them, it'll be too late for them to do anything about it. But I get it. You wanted to send a message. You had righteous anger, and justifiable anger. Well, message sent. Good night, America. You just elected the last President of the United States.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 09:27:17 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on November 10, 2016, 09:37:50 AM
America's A-OK with a woman president, just not Hillbilly R Cankles. Michelle O in 2020? This is the same Michelle who's sole accomplishment is telling everyone they need to eat better, right?  Well, if a completely unqualified junior senator could become President, I guess there's hope....

On the R side of the aisle I'd vote for Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona. On the Dems side there's Tammy Duckworth although I'm not sure if there would be a birther issue in her case. A solid pick in my mind.

I'm sure a few other names will be floated up as time moves on.

SGIP
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 09:45:25 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 09:57:02 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on November 10, 2016, 10:29:11 AM
I don't see the Senate floor rules changing which means even though Dems are now the minority party, nothing moves forward without consent of their leader or at least eight of them stabbing him in the back.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 10, 2016, 10:34:07 AM
I don't see the Senate floor rules changing which means even though Dems are now the minority party, nothing moves forward with consent of their leader or at least eight of them stabbing him in the back.


Its a classic juxtaposition.  Now the Dems will have to live with the very "executive order" world they created and defended under Obama while trying to not look like hypocritical fools...good luck with that.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 10:49:21 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 10:58:40 AM
People are stupid.  Parents wake up and don't know what to tell their kids.  It's simple. 

First of all.  Kids aren't stupid.  Kids are smart.  They just need guidance and the truth.  Tell the kids the truth:

'Poor old white folks who are under-represented came out during the election this time, fed up with low pay, long work hours, lack of progress, soaring health care costs, and the entitled getting richer, all while jobs are being lost overseas.  So people are pissed and they want someone who promises them he'll fix all these issues and sure the man has a bit of attitude problem, a little sexist, and anti-LBGT but that's okay.  We'll live with it for four years and remove him later once he fixes our issues.  The poor is willing to accept a racist, narcissist, sexist, and pussy-grabbin' President to make their lives a lot better, and that the cost and risk is worth the gain they can expect to get."

But mommy, why do Irvine people not like this?
"Because Irvine-nites are self entitled pricks and they're already living in a bubble and they don't want the possibility that sudden changes could disrupt their lives and the status quo."

But mommy, why don't Irvine people have equal say?
"Because there are more poor people in this country than rich.  And majority rules.  Unlike communist regimes like North Korea, where it is more even, we have a class system of rich, middle, and poor and unfortunately son, the poor outnumber the rich."

This is one of your reasonable comments. I mostly agree, but for the "entitled" party. I don't think Irvine folks, or other Never Trump campers, are "entitled" simply because they find Trump's words and ideas despicable.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 10, 2016, 11:00:52 AM
Here is what sore loser, foul mouthed, elitist, filthy rich, self important,  Aaron Sorkin told his daughter...what a DB.

Sorkin Girls,

Well the world changed late last night in a way I couldn’t protect us from. That’s a terrible feeling for a father. I won’t sugarcoat it—this is truly horrible. It’s hardly the first time my candidate didn’t win (in fact it’s the sixth time) but it is the first time that a thoroughly incompetent pig with dangerous ideas, a serious psychiatric disorder, no knowledge of the world and no curiosity to learn has.

And it wasn’t just Donald Trump who won last night—it was his supporters too. The Klan won last night. White nationalists. Sexists, racists and buffoons. Angry young white men who think rap music and Cinco de Mayo are a threat to their way of life (or are the reason for their way of life) have been given cause to celebrate. Men who have no right to call themselves that and who think that women who aspire to more than looking hot are shrill, ugly, and otherwise worthy of our scorn rather than our admiration struck a blow for misogynistic shitheads everywhere. Hate was given hope. Abject dumbness was glamorized as being “the fresh voice of an outsider” who’s going to “shake things up.” (Did anyone bother to ask how? Is he going to re-arrange the chairs in the Roosevelt Room?) For the next four years, the President of the United States, the same office held by Washington and Jefferson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, F.D.R., J.F.K. and Barack Obama, will be held by a man-boy who’ll spend his hours exacting Twitter vengeance against all who criticize him (and those numbers will be legion). We’ve embarrassed ourselves in front of our children and the world.
And the world took no time to react. The Dow futures dropped 7000 points overnight. Economists are predicting a deep and prolonged recession. Our NATO allies are in a state of legitimate fear. And speaking of fear, Muslim-Americans, Mexican-Americans and African-Americans are shaking in their shoes. And we’d be right to note that many of Donald Trump’s fans are not fans of Jews. On the other hand, there is a party going on at ISIS headquarters. What wouldn’t we give to trade this small fraction of a man for Richard Nixon right now?
So what do we do?

First of all, we remember that we’re not alone. A hundred million people in America and a billion more around the world feel exactly the same way we do.

Second, we get out of bed. The Trumpsters want to see people like us (Jewish, “coastal elites,” educated, socially progressive, Hollywood…) sobbing and wailing and talking about moving to Canada. I won’t give them that and neither will you. Here’s what we’ll do…
…we’ll fucking fight. (Roxy, there’s a time for this kind of language and it’s now.) We’re not powerless and we’re not voiceless. We don’t have majorities in the House or Senate but we do have representatives there. It’s also good to remember that most members of Trump’s own party feel exactly the same way about him that we do. We make sure that the people we sent to Washington—including Kamala Harris—take our strength with them and never take a day off.

We get involved. We do what we can to fight injustice anywhere we see it—whether it’s writing a check or rolling up our sleeves. Our family is fairly insulated from the effects of a Trump presidency so we fight for the families that aren’t. We fight for a woman to keep her right to choose. We fight for the First Amendment and we fight mostly for equality—not for a guarantee of equal outcomes but for equal opportunities. We stand up.
America didn’t stop being America last night and we didn’t stop being Americans and here’s the thing about Americans: Our darkest days have always—always—been followed by our finest hours.

Roxy, I know my predictions have let you down in the past, but personally, I don’t think this guy can make it a year without committing an impeachable crime. If he does manage to be a douche nozzle without breaking the law for four years, we’ll make it through those four years. And three years from now we’ll fight like hell for our candidate and we’ll win and they’ll lose and this time they’ll lose for good. Honey, it’ll be your first vote.
The battle isn’t over, it’s just begun. Grandpa fought in World War II and when he came home this country handed him an opportunity to make a great life for his family. I will not hand his granddaughter a country shaped by hateful and stupid men. Your tears last night woke me up, and I’ll never go to sleep on you again.

Love,

Dad
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 10, 2016, 12:13:55 PM
I love watching arrogant, self-righteous, elitists throwing hissy fits at people with 1/10000 their net worth.  Are they going to sell their Palisades mansion and take their kids out of Harvard Westlake and send them to LAUSD so they can give their money to the folks who are supposed to be abused by President Trump? Of course not, they're just going to throw hissy fits.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 12:14:41 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 10, 2016, 12:24:54 PM
Don't drag my name in your conspiracy theory and other statements.

Maybe a movement is necessary.  This could unite the undocumented hispanics and the Muslims who are so afraid of Trump.  When people come together and unite, perhaps they'll begin to be more accepting of each other.

Look at Americans today.  They're so scared of the Niqab/Hajib wearing Muslims that they're automatically suspected to be a terrorist.  Once the revolution is won, maybe people will realize, hey, we can be friends with Muslims and they're not so bad after all !!!

Don't lie to me eyephone.  I bet if I had a two rows of these woman sitting next to you on your plane, it'd give you a little mind-fuck.


(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/09/16/303D8D9100000578-3484219-image-m-61_1457542134585.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 12:44:08 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 01:33:44 PM
The Republican mantra is "less regulation." Wouldn't the slapping of 35% tariffs on domestic imported autos increase regulation? Wouldn't that also be the government "picking winners and losers" - something Republicans claim to abhor?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 01:49:49 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on November 10, 2016, 01:57:41 PM
Sorkin's butthurt because he can no longer visit the WH. Someone should challenge him to come up with one single anti-Semitic statement The Tang Menace has said in the last 10 years. Then, if successful in doing so, ask Sorkin when did he last demand the Scabrous Gordon to return all of the money The Clinton Foundation received from Qatar and Saudi - governments committed to destroying all things Jewish, LGBTQUERTYXZ etc.  All we'll hear are crickets.

I prefer John Podhoretz's letter to his daughters:

Dear Daughters,

Trump won.
Signed,
Daddy.

PS: You'll live.




My .02c

SGIP
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Liar Loan on November 10, 2016, 02:05:32 PM
I normally don't post at TI anymore, but I had to drop in to see Perspective's reaction firsthand.  Unfortunately, what he doesn't get is that the condescending, reverse racism he displays is exactly what got Trump elected.  It was the coalition of bitter clingers & deplorables that are sick of that type of rhetoric.  What Perspective's highly educated, yet out-of-touch, compadres don't understand is that 1/3 of Hispanics also voted for Trump, as did up to perhaps 15% of black voters (many would not state who they voted for in exit polling).  Trump got a higher percentage of both groups than Romney did.

There are also three large groups that Trump won, despite not fitting Perspective's narrative of "poorly educated older white males":

-College-educated Whites (Yep, he won people that graduated from college and have light pigmentation)
-White women (Yes, WHITE WOMEN!  How could Hillary have lost this group??)
-Catholics across all races (presumably many Hispanics included here; Obama won this group in 2008/2012)

At some point Perspective will have to put his education to use and accept the fact that a broad coalition supported Trump, not just the stereotypical people that he equates as closet KKK members.

Sorry to interrupt the normally scheduled identity politics here, but as somebody wise once said:  "Facts are stubborn."




Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 10, 2016, 02:31:55 PM
Good to read you Liar Loan
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 02:33:35 PM
Thanks for stopping by Mellow Ruse. That's not a fair characterization of my point of view, but whatever. This is just a blog for folks to share their thoughts and perspectives.

If I were to reduce this Presidential election to a brief explanation of an extremely complex issue, I'd characterize it as:

~40% of voters will vote Republican no matter what, and
~40% of voters will vote Democrat no matter what.

There are the remaining 20% of voters in the middle, of which I am one, who either abstain, vote for a third party, or pick the least worst candidate each Presidential election.

Enthusiasm for Trump, and lack of enthusiasm for Clinton, swung the swing states (Rust Belt) to Trump, with Clinton winning the popular vote ever so slightly.

Who were these enthusiastic Rust Belt voters?

Oh, and thanks for attacking me personally, rather than simply discussing the issues refraining from ad hominems.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: paydawg on November 10, 2016, 02:39:11 PM
The Republican mantra is "less regulation." Wouldn't the slapping of 35% tariffs on domestic imported autos increase regulation? Wouldn't that also be the government "picking winners and losers" - something Republicans claim to abhor?

what makes you think Trump is a Republican?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 10, 2016, 02:49:05 PM
The Republican mantra is "less regulation." Wouldn't the slapping of 35% tariffs on domestic imported autos increase regulation? Wouldn't that also be the government "picking winners and losers" - something Republicans claim to abhor?

what makes you think Trump is a Republican?

I would say he is a new type/form of Republican.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 02:50:18 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 03:00:55 PM
The irony in this election for me, is that my life isn't likely to change much at all as a result, except that I could pay a lot less in federal income taxes and possibly no ACA taxes. The lives of folks struggling in middle America aren't likely to change much at all either, and whatever tax break they see will be nominal.

Good times.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: AW on November 10, 2016, 03:21:09 PM
OVER 90 MILLION ELIGIBLE VOTERS DIDN'T VOTE!!


So 43% or over 90 million qualified voters didn't vote.  There's your fuckin' problem.  The 90 million deplorables didn't give a shit.

In one of the biggest elections in the history of all time, 43% just sat on the bench spectating.  WOW.  There's your fucking problem right there.  This election is not a hillary or trump problem.  This is clearly a people problem.

They should make it law to force people to vote  OR ELSE pay a fine ;) ;) just like how they make it law to force people to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-2016-data-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-republican-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/
is there a demographic breakdown of the non voters, i'm thinking there is a fair section of retirees that don't feel like voting will do anything, but what about the rest... hate both candidates so much so that didn't even bother?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 03:24:43 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 10, 2016, 03:25:38 PM

-White women (Yes, WHITE WOMEN!  How could Hillary have lost this group??)
-Catholics across all races (presumably many Hispanics included here; Obama won this group in 2008/2012)


As a white woman, I can say I don't identify with Hillary. I consider her sneaky, dishonest and out for herself. Women "help" each other more than men and I look at Hillary as the last person who would help others without some ulterior motive.

Trump successfully brought Hillary down to his level and slinging mud wasn't helpful, imo. She called out Trump for bullying and then called half his supporters deplorables., implying a whole lot of people are worth less than those who support her.

As for Catholics, that's an easy one. It comes down to the abortion issue which spans far more than Catholics. For some that may have been a very big issue... enough to cause someone to overlook Trump's baggage and cast their vote for him.

Oh and there are a lot of Hispanic catholics so that might have eaten into some of Hillary's expected Latino vote.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 03:30:29 PM
"I consider her sneaky, dishonest and out for herself."

Would you not say the same for Trump?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 10, 2016, 03:44:37 PM
The irony in this election for me, is that my life isn't likely to change much at all as a result, except that I could pay a lot less in federal income taxes and possibly no ACA taxes. The lives of folks struggling in middle America aren't likely to change much at all either, and whatever tax break they see will be nominal.

Good times.
Every middle American I've seen interviewed said they didn't expect Trump to bring their jobs back.  Despite their lack of education, they fully understand that their former manufacturing jobs are gone for good.  They voted for Trump not because they actually believe Trump will bring their old jobs back, they voted for Trump as a big F-U to the Washington mandarins and Wall Street vampires who wrecked their lives.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 10, 2016, 03:45:41 PM
Yes but I know a lot of guys like that.

It's different for men and women. Women look to other women as equals and helpers. We don't view men the same way.

I think Martha Stewart probably is thought of by some with some of those qualities (and she's an ex con) but she is "helpful".

Hillary would be excluded by lots of clicks and Martha let in even though we know Martha probably is out for herself too the difference being she seems to help others improve.

I have nothing against a woman president, I just didn't want Hillary. Not enough to vote against her till she made the deplorable remark.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 03:48:03 PM
Yes but I know a lot of guys like that.

It's different for men and women. Women look to other women as equals and helpers. We don't view men the same way.

I think Martha Stewart probably is thought of by some with some of those qualities (and she's an ex con) but she is "helpful".

Hillary would be excluded by lots of clicks and Martha let in even though we know Martha probably is out for herself too the difference being she seems to help others improve.

I have nothing against a woman president, I just didn't want Hillary. Not enough to vote against her till she made the deplorable remark.

Fair enough, but the deplorable remark pales in comparison to Trump's many similar comments, no?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 03:49:47 PM
The irony in this election for me, is that my life isn't likely to change much at all as a result, except that I could pay a lot less in federal income taxes and possibly no ACA taxes. The lives of folks struggling in middle America aren't likely to change much at all either, and whatever tax break they see will be nominal.

Good times.
Every middle American I've seen interviewed said they didn't expect Trump to bring their jobs back.  Despite their lack of education, they fully understand that their former manufacturing jobs are gone for good.  They voted for Trump not because they actually believe Trump will bring their old jobs back, they voted for Trump as a big F-U to the Washington mandarins and Wall Street vampires who wrecked their lives.

Agreed. What do you think will be the consensus for enthusiastic Trump supporters if/when Trump starts cutting taxes for "the rich" and curtailing regulation on the big banks/Wall Street (Dodd-Frank et. al)?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 10, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
I knew my vote in California wouldn't be counted but I still went out and voted because I wanted it known there was someone out there NOT HAPPY with how things are going.

Do I think much will change? No, not really because I think Trump won't be able to get things thru congress but if he does, so be it.

Do I think the economy will be better off with Trump or Clinton? I don't know but I was pretty sure I and my family would be much worse off with a liberal agenda and I would like to see Obama Care repealed. Beyond that, we're overdue for a downturn in the economy and the business cycle can't be repealed indefinitely.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 10, 2016, 03:51:59 PM
He will have to get congress to go along. What are the chances of that? Not so good I bet.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 03:53:34 PM
I think that's the biggest problem with the Electoral College - everyone not living in a swing state, or near swing state, is disenfranchised.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 10, 2016, 03:56:18 PM
Yes but I know a lot of guys like that.

It's different for men and women. Women look to other women as equals and helpers. We don't view men the same way.

I think Martha Stewart probably is thought of by some with some of those qualities (and she's an ex con) but she is "helpful".

Hillary would be excluded by lots of clicks and Martha let in even though we know Martha probably is out for herself too the difference being she seems to help others improve.

I have nothing against a woman president, I just didn't want Hillary. Not enough to vote against her till she made the deplorable remark.

Fair enough, but the deplorable remark pales in comparison to Trump's many similar comments, no?

No because Trump lives in the mud. Hillary joined him and threw a big fat bowl of mud right in my face and I wasn't even doing anything but sitting minding my own business.

It's like J.R. Ewing. He's a anti hero. You just roll your eyes and laugh it off as J.R. (Trump) being J.R. (Trump) and wonder if he can top the last bit of entertainment.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 10, 2016, 03:59:12 PM
I think that's the biggest problem with the Electoral College - everyone not living in a swing state, or near swing state, is disenfranchised.

Hillary will win the popular vote (as did Gore) but if we didn't have the electoral college who is to say the results wouldn't be even more skewed as no one pays attention to California. If we had a real fight and campaigning here, who's to say the dems would have as many votes as they did?

Take out California and Hillary loses the popular vote.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 10, 2016, 04:04:48 PM
Yes but I know a lot of guys like that.

It's different for men and women. Women look to other women as equals and helpers. We don't view men the same way.

I think Martha Stewart probably is thought of by some with some of those qualities (and she's an ex con) but she is "helpful".

Hillary would be excluded by lots of clicks and Martha let in even though we know Martha probably is out for herself too the difference being she seems to help others improve.

I have nothing against a woman president, I just didn't want Hillary. Not enough to vote against her till she made the deplorable remark.

Fair enough, but the deplorable remark pales in comparison to Trump's many similar comments, no?

I already mentioned it earlier. It comes down to the campaign slogans. We all know Trump's slogans, but we don't remember any slogans from Hillary.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 04:07:57 PM
I think that's the biggest problem with the Electoral College - everyone not living in a swing state, or near swing state, is disenfranchised.

Hillary will win the popular vote (as did Gore) but if we didn't have the electoral college who is to say the results wouldn't be even more skewed as no one pays attention to California. If we had a real fight and campaigning here, who's to say the dems would have as many votes as they did?

Take out California and Hillary loses the popular vote.

I'm not speculating on who would've won the popular vote in the absence of the Electoral College. I'm suggesting Presidential candidates should be forced to fight for voters' support in all 50 states, not just ~10 or so every Presidential election. Then all of our votes would actually count, and perhaps more of us would vote.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 10, 2016, 05:46:33 PM
Yes but I know a lot of guys like that.

It's different for men and women. Women look to other women as equals and helpers. We don't view men the same way.

I think Martha Stewart probably is thought of by some with some of those qualities (and she's an ex con) but she is "helpful".

Hillary would be excluded by lots of clicks and Martha let in even though we know Martha probably is out for herself too the difference being she seems to help others improve.

I have nothing against a woman president, I just didn't want Hillary. Not enough to vote against her till she made the deplorable remark.

Fair enough, but the deplorable remark pales in comparison to Trump's many similar comments, no?

I already mentioned it earlier. It comes down to the campaign slogans. We all know Trump's slogans, but we don't remember any slogans from Hillary.

Interesting pulling up trumps old interviews. Hes very moderate. Well see what he actually ends up doing.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 05:55:40 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: spootieho on November 10, 2016, 05:59:53 PM
I already mentioned it earlier. It comes down to the campaign slogans. We all know Trump's slogans, but we don't remember any slogans from Hillary.
True true

And what does "I'm with her" imply?  We all know it has more meaning.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 06:58:36 PM
Ku Klux Klan to hold North Carolina rally celebrating Trump victory

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ku-klux-klan-hold-north-230227525.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on November 10, 2016, 07:00:28 PM
Look at these basket of deplorables now blocking the 10 FWY in LA.  Last night it was the 101.

Now it really makes sense to round these people up and deport them!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/11/10/protesters-block-10-freeway-in-boyle-heights/

The media keeps telling me these are massive protests, but to me it always looks like a smaller crowd that the one that's pushing and shoving on TV for the black Friday deals at a single Walmart that will coat our TV screens in a couple weeks.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 07:02:48 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 10, 2016, 07:06:40 PM
Black thugs were celebrating obama. So what. Pbama didn't represent them nor help them during his reign.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 10, 2016, 07:10:32 PM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nyc to oc on November 10, 2016, 07:34:55 PM
Keep it a few weeks, protests will end and people will realize, it ain't so bad after all.

And then just watch, for the impossible in 2020, Trump is RE-Elected for a 2nd term.  Now that, will be epic!  Won't be quite as epic as the 1st election but will certainly show that even the most ruthless presidents can win the votes twice!

First order of business, let's get started with that special prosecutor shall we?  ;)
Then we round them up and deport.
Then we build the wall.
Then we bring the jobs back.
Making America Great Now


just wait, he'll be after you next.
manzanar part 2
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 10, 2016, 07:39:09 PM
Keep it a few weeks, protests will end and people will realize, it ain't so bad after all.

And then just watch, for the impossible in 2020, Trump is RE-Elected for a 2nd term.  Now that, will be epic!  Won't be quite as epic as the 1st election but will certainly show that even the most ruthless presidents can win the votes twice!

First order of business, let's get started with that special prosecutor shall we?  ;)
Then we round them up and deport.
Then we build the wall.
Then we bring the jobs back.
Making America Great Now

I doubt we do mass deportations.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 07:56:58 PM
Keep it a few weeks, protests will end and people will realize, it ain't so bad after all.

And then just watch, for the impossible in 2020, Trump is RE-Elected for a 2nd term.  Now that, will be epic!  Won't be quite as epic as the 1st election but will certainly show that even the most ruthless presidents can win the votes twice!

First order of business, let's get started with that special prosecutor shall we?  ;)
Then we round them up and deport.
Then we build the wall.
Then we bring the jobs back.
Making America Great Now

I doubt we do mass deportations.

That's all you doubt? There will be no wall (new wall at least), and the rate of job growth is not going to outpace its current pace.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 10, 2016, 08:41:05 PM
Keep it a few weeks, protests will end and people will realize, it ain't so bad after all.

And then just watch, for the impossible in 2020, Trump is RE-Elected for a 2nd term.  Now that, will be epic!  Won't be quite as epic as the 1st election but will certainly show that even the most ruthless presidents can win the votes twice!

First order of business, let's get started with that special prosecutor shall we?  ;)
Then we round them up and deport.
Then we build the wall.
Then we bring the jobs back.
Making America Great Now

I doubt we do mass deportations.

That's all you doubt? There will be no wall (new wall at least), and the rate of job growth is not going to outpace its current pace.

You still jabbering?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 10, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
Keep it a few weeks, protests will end and people will realize, it ain't so bad after all.

And then just watch, for the impossible in 2020, Trump is RE-Elected for a 2nd term.  Now that, will be epic!  Won't be quite as epic as the 1st election but will certainly show that even the most ruthless presidents can win the votes twice!

First order of business, let's get started with that special prosecutor shall we?  ;)
Then we round them up and deport.
Then we build the wall.
Then we bring the jobs back.
Making America Great Now

I doubt we do mass deportations.

That's all you doubt? There will be no wall (new wall at least), and the rate of job growth is not going to outpace its current pace.

You still jabbering?

Are you asking me to leave?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: morekaos on November 11, 2016, 08:20:37 AM
This is why Trumpsters hate the press.  A mainstream media outlet that wants to push a narrative that Trump people...not Hillary supporters, are causing racial violence.  They quote an incident as fact that already has been refuted in support for a story released 2 hours ago....deplorable!!

Reports of racist graffiti, hate crimes post-election

By Holly Yan, Ralph Ellis and Kayla Rodgers, CNN
Updated 9:50 AM ET, Fri November 11, 2016

(CNN)Fears of heightened bigotry and hate crimes have turned into reality for some Americans after Donald Trump's presidential win.

Racist, pro-Trump graffiti painted inside a high school. A hijab-wearing college student robbed by men talking about Trump and Muslims.
While Trump has been accused of fostering xenophobia and Islamophobia, some of his supporters have used his words as justification to carry out hateful act.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/index.html)

Muslim Student Who Reported Trump-Inspired Attack Admits She Made It Up, Police Say

A Muslim woman in Louisiana who told police she was attacked with a metal object and robbed of her headscarf and wallet by two men wearing Donald Trump clothing just hours after Trump was elected president admitted to police today that she made it up, Lafayette police told ABC News.

“She made up the entire story about being attacked, about her hijab being taken. There was no truth to any of it,” Lafayette Police Department spokesman Cpl. Karol Ratcliff said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/muslim-student-reported-trump-inspired-attack-admits-made/story?id=43442471 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/muslim-student-reported-trump-inspired-attack-admits-made/story?id=43442471)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 11, 2016, 09:07:58 AM
I already mentioned it earlier. It comes down to the campaign slogans. We all know Trump's slogans, but we don't remember any slogans from Hillary.
I'm with her.

Trumped up trickle down economics.

Fact checking.

<shoulder shimmy>
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 11, 2016, 09:09:46 AM
The irony is that prior to the election, the talking heads were making a big deal about Trump not conceding and how he will be a poor loser.

So, uh, what are those riots for?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Liar Loan on November 11, 2016, 10:13:05 AM
I already mentioned it earlier. It comes down to the campaign slogans. We all know Trump's slogans, but we don't remember any slogans from Hillary.
I'm with her.

Trumped up trickle down economics.

Fact checking.

<shoulder shimmy>

Scott Adams' blog was a fun read throughout the election season, and one post I particularly enjoyed was when he explained how the "Love Trumps Hate" slogan failed on so many levels.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143789982926/clinton-versus-trump-persuasion-scores

Quote
LOVE TRUMPS HATE

Based on the slogan, I can tell you with confidence that the Clinton campaign doesn’t have anyone with a persuasion background helping with the big decisions. Here’s why:

1. Humans put greater cognitive weight on the first part of a sentence than the last part. This is a well-understood phenomenon. And the first part literally pairs LOVE and TRUMP.

2. The slogan increases exposure to the name Trump. That’s never a good idea.

3. Spoken aloud, the slogan sounds like asking people to agree with Trump’s hate, as in “Love Trump’s hate (because Trump hates war, terrorism, and bad trade deals, same as you?).

This is the sort of mistake you never see out of the Trump campaign. The slogan is pure amateur hour. It accomplishes the opposite of its intent, and you can’t fail harder than that.

He also did a breakdown of why "We're Stronger Together" was not as effective as "Make America Great Again":

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144816352346/battle-of-the-campaign-slogans

And on a personal level, I can say that anytime I saw the online banner ad for "I'm With Her" it reminded me of a Mad Magazine cover that I saw after the re-election of Bush:

(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5302/2533/1600/Alfred%20&%20Bush.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 11, 2016, 10:34:16 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 11, 2016, 10:59:35 AM

He also did a breakdown of why "We're Stronger Together" was not as effective as "Make America Great Again":

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144816352346/battle-of-the-campaign-slogans

Yes, Hillary is a terrible persuader.  Strange thing is, Hilary is married to the master persuader.  Bill Clinton can sell a sno cone to an Eskimo. In fact, Bill used the "Make America Great Again" slogan himself in 1991-1992. How can you live with the master for 40 years and not have some of the magic rub off on you?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: YellowFever on November 11, 2016, 11:07:19 AM
.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: irvinehomeowner on November 11, 2016, 11:35:33 AM
Can't wait for Season 7!!

(http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trump-Game-of-Thrones.jpg)
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: lnc on November 11, 2016, 11:37:38 AM
Can't wait for Season 7!!

(http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trump-Game-of-Thrones.jpg)

And he's going to build that wall! 
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 11, 2016, 02:02:58 PM
Pence in charge of Trump's transition team replaces Chris Christie.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-replaces-chris-christie-mike-pence-head/story?id=43474352


FAA implements no fly zone over Trump Tower through Inauguration Day.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/faa-implements-fly-zone-trump-tower-inauguration-day/story?id=43443566





Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 11, 2016, 04:15:01 PM
Trump wants to keep some obamacare provisons. Thats the moderate that i voted for. Lol
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 11, 2016, 04:17:47 PM
Trump wants to keep some obamacare provisons. Thats the moderate that i voted for. Lol

Who knows. He still needs to pick a cabinet.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 11, 2016, 04:22:35 PM
Trump wants to keep some obamacare provisons. Thats the moderate that i voted for. Lol

Who knows. He still needs to pick a cabinet.

I think he is a one term guy. Hoping this is the candidate that most owuld want. Social progressive and fiscal conservative.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 11, 2016, 04:46:26 PM
Trump wants to keep some obamacare provisons. Thats the moderate that i voted for. Lol

Who knows. He still needs to pick a cabinet.

I think he is a one term guy. Hoping this is the candidate that most owuld want. Social progressive and fiscal conservative.

The Simpsons show predicted Trump would become President a while back.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 11, 2016, 04:47:52 PM
Trump wants to keep some obamacare provisons. Thats the moderate that i voted for. Lol

Who knows. He still needs to pick a cabinet.

I think he is a one term guy. Hoping this is the candidate that most owuld want. Social progressive and fiscal conservative.

The Simpsons show predicted Trump would become President a while back.

Yeah the elevator scene matched up
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on November 11, 2016, 05:38:48 PM

He also did a breakdown of why "We're Stronger Together" was not as effective as "Make America Great Again":

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144816352346/battle-of-the-campaign-slogans

How can you live with the master for 40 years and not have some of the magic rub off on you
Yes, Hillary is a terrible persuader.  Strange thing is, Hilary is married to the master persuader.


Ahem... WJC was rubbing some of that magic off on someone other than HRC if I recall correctly.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 11, 2016, 06:25:25 PM

He also did a breakdown of why "We're Stronger Together" was not as effective as "Make America Great Again":

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144816352346/battle-of-the-campaign-slogans

How can you live with the master for 40 years and not have some of the magic rub off on you
Yes, Hillary is a terrible persuader.  Strange thing is, Hilary is married to the master persuader.


Ahem... WJC was rubbing some of that magic off on someone other than HRC if I recall correctly.
Are you referring to Gennifer,  Kathleen, Paula, Monica or all of the above.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on November 11, 2016, 06:36:02 PM
All of the above and then some. WJC's behavior, just as with Carlos Danger's valuable contribution to this entire mess, helped ultimately to doom HRC's presupposed coronation.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: eyephone on November 11, 2016, 06:38:10 PM
All of the above and then some. WJC's behavior, just as with Carlos Danger's valuable contribution to this entire mess, helped ultimately to doom HRC's presupposed coronation.

Bottom line, a lot of people didn't trust Hillary regarding the emails. She has no one to blame but her self and people around her.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 11, 2016, 10:43:25 PM
Will Trump enthusiasts ever admit they were conned?

Trump and advisers hedge on major pledges, including Obamacare and the wall

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-advisers-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/ar-AAkccEu?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Movingup on November 12, 2016, 12:14:31 AM
Will Trump enthusiasts ever admit they were conned?

Trump and advisers hedge on major pledges, including Obamacare and the wall

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-advisers-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/ar-AAkccEu?li=BBnb7Kz

LOL. Trump hasn't even officially become the POTUS and you are spreading the theory that his supporters are being conned? How much will you pay me to keep your crystal ball? Priceless.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: nosuchreality on November 12, 2016, 07:11:01 AM
LA Times says the crowd protesting in downtown LA last night got up to 3000 people.

Didn't they say half a million showed up a couple years ago for immigration?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 12, 2016, 07:31:21 AM
Will Trump enthusiasts ever admit they were conned?

Trump and advisers hedge on major pledges, including Obamacare and the wall

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-advisers-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/ar-AAkccEu?li=BBnb7Kz

LOL. Trump hasn't even officially become the POTUS and you are spreading the theory that his supporters are being conned? How much will you pay me to keep your crystal ball? Priceless.

Theory? Trump is apparently walking back his three biggest positions. It was a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 12, 2016, 07:54:04 AM
Will Trump enthusiasts ever admit they were conned?

Trump and advisers hedge on major pledges, including Obamacare and the wall

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-advisers-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/ar-AAkccEu?li=BBnb7Kz

LOL. Trump hasn't even officially become the POTUS and you are spreading the theory that his supporters are being conned? How much will you pay me to keep your crystal ball? Priceless.

Theory? Trump is apparently walking back his three biggest positions. It was a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.

Trump's transition team signals return to GOP establishment
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-transition-team-signals-return-gop-establishment-072703965.html
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Ready2Downsize on November 12, 2016, 07:58:40 AM
Candidates ALWAYS backtrack.

As for the wall. I don't think it's a viable plan.

Take away the reasons for illegals coming to the US and you'll eliminate the need for the wall. In other words, change the law that anyone born here gets U.S. citizenship and stop handing out free housing, food stamps, etc to the kids born here, never mind their parents are not legal. That puts an end to those coming from down south and probably shuts down birth motels.

Way easier to pass a law than build a wall that will just have tunnels and be ugly.

Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 12, 2016, 08:53:18 AM
Candidates ALWAYS backtrack.

As for the wall. I don't think it's a viable plan.

Take away the reasons for illegals coming to the US and you'll eliminate the need for the wall. In other words, change the law that anyone born here gets U.S. citizenship and stop handing out free housing, food stamps, etc to the kids born here, never mind their parents are not legal. That puts an end to those coming from down south and probably shuts down birth motels.

Way easier to pass a law than build a wall that will just have tunnels and be ugly.

Absolutely, but there's a question of degree and actual intent here, that is abnormal, to say the least. Most Presidential candidates share huge aspirational policy objectives, whether politicaly viable or not, and actually believe in and want these objectives achieved.

Trump's biggest objectives were pretty extreme on our normal political spectrum and there's a growing likelihood he never really intended to achieve them.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: iacrenter on November 12, 2016, 10:18:32 AM
Candidates ALWAYS backtrack.

As for the wall. I don't think it's a viable plan.

Take away the reasons for illegals coming to the US and you'll eliminate the need for the wall. In other words, change the law that anyone born here gets U.S. citizenship and stop handing out free housing, food stamps, etc to the kids born here, never mind their parents are not legal. That puts an end to those coming from down south and probably shuts down birth motels.

Way easier to pass a law than build a wall that will just have tunnels and be ugly.

Absolutely, but there's a question of degree and actual intent here, that is abnormal, to say the least. Most Presidential candidates share huge aspirational policy objectives, whether politicaly viable or not, and actually believe in and want these objectives achieved.

Trump's biggest objectives were pretty extreme on our normal political spectrum and there's a growing likelihood he never really intended to achieve them.

I didn't vote for Trump but I think we should give him a chance. He is not a politician in the traditional sense. He broke almost every mold in running a presidential campaign and was heavily underestimated by the media and his opponents. We are in new territory with this president and I wouldn't bet against him. Let's just pray he gets it right for our country.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Movingup on November 12, 2016, 10:25:47 AM

We are in new territory with this president and I wouldn't bet against him. Let's just pray he gets it right for our country.

Everyone who bet against him are eating crow so far. Amen
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Movingup on November 12, 2016, 10:33:24 AM
Will Trump enthusiasts ever admit they were conned?

Trump and advisers hedge on major pledges, including Obamacare and the wall

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-advisers-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/ar-AAkccEu?li=BBnb7Kz

LOL. Trump hasn't even officially become the POTUS and you are spreading the theory that his supporters are being conned? How much will you pay me to keep your crystal ball? Priceless.

Theory? Trump is apparently walking back his three biggest positions. It was a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.

I know you are only happy with a liberal dictator like shoving Obamacare down our throats. Compromise is needed in politics and Trump is doing exactly what he needs to do. Your views did nothing to unify our country. If you cannot keep an open mind, you will be miserable for the next 4 years.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 12, 2016, 10:41:59 AM
Will Trump enthusiasts ever admit they were conned?

Trump and advisers hedge on major pledges, including Obamacare and the wall

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-advisers-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/ar-AAkccEu?li=BBnb7Kz

LOL. Trump hasn't even officially become the POTUS and you are spreading the theory that his supporters are being conned? How much will you pay me to keep your crystal ball? Priceless.

Theory? Trump is apparently walking back his three biggest positions. It was a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.

I know you are only happy with a liberal dictator like shoving Obamacare down our throats. Compromise is needed in politics and Trump is doing exactly what he needs to do. Your views did nothing to unify our country. If you cannot keep an open mind, you will be miserable for the next 4 years.

Thank you for the personal attacks/insults and mischaracterizations of my comments. I know this is just a blog, but it would be nice if more than just a few folks could refrain from rhetoric, ad hominems, and logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.

The level of political conversation here, and elsewhere, would be so much greater, if folks would simply resist every temptation to insult others commenting on politics.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Movingup on November 12, 2016, 10:52:53 AM

Thank you for the personal attacks/insults and mischaracterizations of my comments. I know this is just a blog, but it would be nice if more than just a few folks could refrain from rhetoric, ad hominems, and logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.

The level of political conversation here, and elsewhere, would be so much greater, if folks would simply resist every temptation to insult others commenting on politics.

It would be nice if you can post some positive links so people can come together and realize the people succeed when the President succeeds. You have links after links targeting Trump and acted like you can predict the future. Or am I wrong?
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 12, 2016, 10:56:02 AM

Thank you for the personal attacks/insults and mischaracterizations of my comments. I know this is just a blog, but it would be nice if more than just a few folks could refrain from rhetoric, ad hominems, and logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.

The level of political conversation here, and elsewhere, would be so much greater, if folks would simply resist every temptation to insult others commenting on politics.

It would be nice if you can post some positive links so people can come together and realize the people succeed when the President succeeds. You have links after links targeting Trump and acted like you can predict the future. Or am I wrong?

I'm posting links trying to determine what Trump's real plans are. I'm not predicting anything.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: qwerty on November 12, 2016, 10:56:30 AM
I hope trump does build the wall. The cheap labor source goes away and then we can all start paying more for everything. Then wages will naturally go up. And there wouldn't be a better sight than watching white people clean toilets and cook food at Asian restaurants  I won't even pretend white people will try to pick fruits and veggies to make a living cause they can't hack it
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Soylent Green Is People on November 12, 2016, 11:00:54 AM
Here's a fun map of each precincts voting results. I know in my area (Melinda Heights, Rancho Santa Margarita) most of the HRC votes came from the surrounding apartments. I'm not saying it's renters turning a red county blue... but it was renters....

http://www.ocvote.com/maps/#33.6981/-117.7879/10/type=results| (http://www.ocvote.com/maps/#33.6981/-117.7879/10/type=results|)

Fascinating fact: The Green Party won one precinct in OC when both eligible voters in the area picked Stein.


My .02c
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: jmoney74 on November 12, 2016, 11:25:05 AM

Thank you for the personal attacks/insults and mischaracterizations of my comments. I know this is just a blog, but it would be nice if more than just a few folks could refrain from rhetoric, ad hominems, and logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.

The level of political conversation here, and elsewhere, would be so much greater, if folks would simply resist every temptation to insult others commenting on politics.

It would be nice if you can post some positive links so people can come together and realize the people succeed when the President succeeds. You have links after links targeting Trump and acted like you can predict the future. Or am I wrong?

I'm posting links trying to determine what Trump's real plans are. I'm not predicting anything.

Same ole perspective.  Doesnt get it.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Perspective on November 12, 2016, 11:36:06 AM

Thank you for the personal attacks/insults and mischaracterizations of my comments. I know this is just a blog, but it would be nice if more than just a few folks could refrain from rhetoric, ad hominems, and logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.

The level of political conversation here, and elsewhere, would be so much greater, if folks would simply resist every temptation to insult others commenting on politics.

It would be nice if you can post some positive links so people can come together and realize the people succeed when the President succeeds. You have links after links targeting Trump and acted like you can predict the future. Or am I wrong?

I'm posting links trying to determine what Trump's real plans are. I'm not predicting anything.

Same ole perspective.  Doesnt get it.

Thanks for yet another personal insult.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Happiness on November 12, 2016, 12:09:55 PM
I don't think Trump will succeed in pulling back NATO, getting our "allies" to pay more of the tab for their defense, curb Chinese imports, bring manufacturing jobs back, stop illegal immigration, etc. because there's too much money involved in maintain the status quo.  However, I give Trump credit for at least starting the conversation so we may at least get some improvement in these areas.  Hillary is 100% establishment and would have scoffed at even having the conversation. Trump may not succeed but at least he offers hope.  Hillary is just another link in the chain of the same old postwar economic/financial/political structure.

Disclaimer: This post should not be taken as an ad hominem attack on any person or entity, living or dead, real or imagined.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Kangen.Irvine on November 12, 2016, 12:14:51 PM
The ocvote.com Voter Turnout site does offer an interesting perspective. In an election like this, economic perspectives probably do influence how people vote, but traditionally I think that's how it normally is. The government has a great influence on taxation so people would be smart to vote accordingly.
Title: Re: Presidential Elections
Post by: Movingup on November 12, 2016, 12:16:13 PM
I hope trump does build the wall. The cheap labor source goes away and then we can all start paying more for everything. Then wages will naturally go up. And there wouldn't be a better sight than watching white people clean toilets and cook food at Asian restaurants  I won't even pretend white people will try to pick fruits and veggies to make a living cause they can't hack it