US Presidential Election 2016: Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump

[Garbarsardar]

.

SHE DID IT WITH A GUY WHO VISITED THE WHITEHOUSE OVER 300 TIMES

40 one on one meetings, 30 3 person meetings, 30 4 person meetings, all the rest as part of groups of 10 up to 1883 people. There is one meeting only in June 2013 with him another person and Obama on the state floor. Try and see how many people visited the WH in the same timeframe. And thank Obama who opened the White House Records.

.WHO JUST WAS "FIRED" FOR ADMITTING ON HIDDEN CAMERA THAT THEY RIG ELECTIONS

No, he was fired because he bragged he could have a plan to do it. Yes, he was an ass, but if that is the extent of your "rigged" evidence, it is quite flimsy.

AND THAT HILARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT IT.

I missed the part where he says "Hillary" and the part where he says the "Hillary knew about election rigging".

Try again and use bigger capital letters because I cannot understand what you're on about.

[Ludicus]

The Wikileaks thing - why is Assange only releasing items about Clinton? That's... partisanship

We are living in a time of unprecedented partisanship.

Acco

and then the culprit turns out not to be .. his own hosts.

That's irrelevant. I would like to read the contents of the mails.

[Garbarsardar]

That's irrelevant. I would like to read the contents of the mails.

There are two separate issues here: the content of mail and the release of said mail. I appreciate the fact that I have access to the content, I think it is very informative, although not exactly an eye opener; there is nothing surprising there: making sausages etc.

The timing and manner of release seem to be motivated by more than a pure desire to inform people. Who ever feeds them to Wikileaks appears to have a very specific agenda.

Therefore both the content, and the manner of release have to be taken into account.

[Phier]

making sausages etc.

Mmmm sausage....



Apparently that lawyer under oath claimed to not have said thumb drive.

Sausages, right, thats the interesting thing in all these emails.

Narrative, stick to it eh?

Edit: Hehe this is a better sausage.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353
(PS despite what CNN said its legal to go to wikileaks)

I mean it makes my life more difficult after telling every reporter I know she's actually progressive but that is really the smallest of issues. It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment.

I agree HRC doesn't seem to know what planet we are living on.

[Ludicus]

Therefore both the content, and the manner of release have to be taken into account.

Assange has an agenda.I am not disputing the unethical (?)manner of release.It's painfully obvious. But, more than anything,I would like to read all the emails, and make my own judgment.

[Garbarsardar]

Mmmm sausage....

Apparently that lawyer under oath claimed to not have said thumb drive.

Sausages, right, thats the interesting thing in all these emails.

Narrative, stick to it eh?

I had the speeches in mind when thinking of sausages. As far HC is concerned the emails are basically hearsay.

Also cheer up, you get your first female head of state and just 76 years after Tannu Tuva.

[caratacus]

No, he was fired because he bragged he could have a plan to do it. Yes, he was an ass, but if that is the extent of your "rigged" evidence, it is quite flimsy.

I think it is safe to assume that someone so senior in the Clinton campaign, is not just bragging about what he could do, but is organising its implementation.

Your dislike of Trump seems to be effecting your judgement as to what constitutes a very serious allegation of electoral fraud, or perhaps you live in somewhere like Russia.

Such attempts at cheating the system may or may not be widespread and have no big implications upon the final result. But for every single cheated vote, is a vote taken away from someone else and that is something which mitigates against democratic principles. They may not have voted the way you wanted, but they still have that right. Deprive enough people of that right and you create a crisis for democracy from which alternatives will emerge.

[Phier]

Lets talk numbers, from an obviously uninformed UK publication but who has something interesting to say.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7368196.html

Whats amusing and infuriating at the same time is the story doesn't seem to know *anything* about whats really going on in this election or what people are talking about, but I expect that from foreigners these days who only get their opinions from biased sources.

What is interesting is the betting pattern.

[Garbarsardar]

I think it is safe to assume that someone so senior in the Clinton campaign, is not just bragging about what he could do, but is organising its implementation.

Your dislike of Trump seems to be effecting your judgement as to what constitutes a very serious allegation of electoral fraud, or perhaps you live in somewhere like Russia.

Such attempts at cheating the system may or may not be widespread and have no big implications upon the final result. But for every single cheated vote, is a vote taken away from someone else and that is something which mitigates against democratic principles. They may not have voted the way you wanted, but they still have that right. Deprive enough people of that right and you create a crisis for democracy from which alternatives will emerge.

There are 31 instances of electoral fraud in one billion ballots cast after 2000. If someone intents to commit fraud he should rot in jail. Still, his intention (if such) to commit fraud does not constitute evidence that fraud has occurred. If you notice the discussion was about the persistent claims of the Donald that massive fraud is already underway and that the election is rigged. One person with criminal intent does not substantiate those claims.

If you care so much about the people's right to a fair representation it would be better to address your efforts towards curbing gerrymandering which by and large brought the present in House majority despite the Republicans receiving 1,2 million less votes.

Or maybe your one hypothetical voter is more important than the 1,2 million people who you don't shed crocodile tears over?


And now for some light entertainment by the always classy and very deep GOP Steve Schmidt:

One of the smartest things anybody has said about politics in this modern era is David Axelrod, when he described this process as an MRI for the soul. It is at the end of the day an elaborate character test, and the test that Hillary Clinton is enduring now is one of testing her dignity.

And so we're seeing someone who wishes to be our Commander in Chief, our American Head of State, the head of government under a relentless assault on her character and on her dignity and her maintenance of that dignity. It is part of the task and I think prepares and serves her well when the inevitable happens which is a very substantial landslide victory on November 8th.

And I'll be clear about something, this race is over.

Now, from a news perspective, I understand we can't say this, but I'm a political analyst. And I can look at the numbers and I can look at the trajectory. The moment of impact of the Titanic did not signal the downing of the ship. The physics take over. But at first after the strike the ship barely shuddered and that's the moment we're in now.

Looking at numbers in Utah and Alaska and Georgia and North Carolina, across the country where Red States are turning Blue and will have dramatic implications for the Republican Party.

But there are two things that are going on that are just extraordinary right now. We have had an uninterrupted peaceful transition of power since 1789 where, one, we have all understood that sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, but the loser grants legitimacy.

And secondly, we have a foreign power, a strategic adversary of the United States trying to effect the outcome of this election with cyberattacks, cyberwarfare against one of the most important institutions in this country which is the Democratic Party. And Republicans are cheerleading it on.

If Ronald Reagan was here, I guarantee you Ronald Reagan would not be supportive of Russian attacks on the infrastructure of one of the most important political institutions in this country, the Democratic Party. He would not. And what Republicans are doing, being apologists for this, is outrageous.

[Phier]

Oh 4chan, sometimes you make gold.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Clinton's make Nixon's dirty tricks seem very amateur (which they were).

[Acco]

Lets talk numbers, from an obviously uninformed UK publication but who has something interesting to say.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7368196.html

Whats amusing and infuriating at the same time is the story doesn't seem to know *anything* about whats really going on in this election or what people are talking about, but I expect that from foreigners these days who only get their opinions from biased sources.

What is interesting is the betting pattern.

This is one of the lowest points in the race for Trump. He's probably down by 6-8 points considering the total average, and that average may increase as quite a few highly-rated pollsters are showing high single digit or even double digit leads for Clinton. So it would make sense that more money is on Clinton, but more individual bets are on Trump as some people move to exploit the especially low odds.

But yeah, there's nothing in that story really. This quote in particular made me laugh:

I saw the media had got it wrong. They were saying the guy has no chance. They were saying he’s doing this for a joke. That’s not the case. His supporters, they’ve been watching media for years and they see through it. Polls are very rarely reliable. I am more confident than ever that Mr Trump will win.

This individual is equating pundits and the polls. Trump was absolutely underestimated by the pundits and analysts, who didn't think his campaign had a serious chance of capturing the nomination. But the polls didn't underestimate Trump. In many cases, the pundits were pushing back against the polls. Trump snatched the polling lead from Jeb Bush in mid-to-late July 2015 and never gave it up. Polls were rather accurate in detailing the rise of Trump. And Trump loved the polls, frequently using them as fodder to attack his opponents (like his barb against Bush). Now, he wavers between loving them (when they show him winning) and calling them rigged (when they show him losing, which has been the case for most of the general election).

[Diglytron]

Kek I logged in onto TWC after some months cause I was interested to see what people would vote here, majority for Trump, Oh 'Murricans of TWC, u never disappoint.

The poll should have a ''none of all'' option though, as all candidates are totally ridiculous. I suppose that for myself I'd prefer Hilary the most as she at least hopefully with do something against Russian aggression in Eastern-Europe and hopefully deliver some good old stingers to the Syrian opposition so we can see some Russian and SyAAF jets burn. Hilary might be an absolute person without backbone or dignity, that also might be her only positive point as she's basically copying decent economic/social policies and maybe even decent foreign policy for once, as frankly, US foreign policy is crap.

[Phier]

Kek I logged in onto TWC after some months cause I was interested to see what people would vote here, majority for Trump, Oh 'Murricans of TWC, u never disappoint.

The poll should have a ''none of all'' option though, as all candidates are totally ridiculous. I suppose that for myself I'd prefer Hilary the most as she at least hopefully with do something against Russian aggression in Eastern-Europe and hopefully deliver some good old stingers to the Syrian opposition so we can see some Russian and SyAAF jets burn. Hilary might be an absolute person without backbone or dignity, that also might be her only positive point as she's basically copying decent economic/social policies and maybe even decent foreign policy for once, as frankly, US foreign policy is crap.

Great, you want war with Russia, well thanks for your opinion.

[Prodromos]

Great, you want war with Russia, well thanks for your opinion.

I have no idea why Hillary fans always portray themselves as moderate, non-partisan, uncommitted, and equally opposed to Democrats and Republicans alike.

"Both candidates are terrible, but I totally agree with Hillary's domestic and foreign policy. Go Hillary! BTW I'm independent you guys."

Huh?

[Ludicus]

I have no idea why Hillary fans always portray themselves as moderate, non-partisan, uncommitted

Just a comment- I'm not a "fan" of Hillary- read my posts- but to be fair (for better or worse) even with all her weaknesses, she is infinitely more fitted to serve as President than the supreme idiot.

[Phier]

Just a comment- I'm not a "fan" of Hillary- read my posts- but to be fair (for better or worse) even with all her weaknesses, she is infinitely more fitted to serve as President than the supreme idiot.

Hes a Buffoon not an idiot, get it right.

But that being said I'll take buffoon over evil any day.

Speaking of evil, it seems a housewife did what the MSM can't.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ferrets I love you man, this is excellent, you are trying sooooooo hard to deflect the narrative to something unimportant. No one really cares what over priced shoes Mrs. Obama wore to some stupid food bank photoop in 2009.

The part people should care about is ......

SHE DID IT WITH A GUY WHO VISITED THE WHITEHOUSE OVER 300 TIMES WHO JUST WAS "FIRED" FOR ADMITTING ON HIDDEN CAMERA THAT THEY RIG ELECTIONS AND THAT HILARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT IT.

That is the funny part. There is she all smiles and happiness with someone who admitted about what we all suspected and couldn't prove.

Garb already explained this to you before the all caps, he's done it again now. Sorry dude, I know its the final debate and this is the last hail Mary but this is pathetic even by the standards of a Donald supporter conspiracy.

[Ludicus]

Hes a Buffoon not an idiot

According to Jeb Bush, he is a buffoon,clown and .In my opinion,he is an idiot. I heartily agree with Gavin Newlands,
The many insulting adjectives the British Parliament used to describe Donald Trump

“I have tried to find different, perhaps more parliamentary adjectives to describe him but none was clear enough. He is an idiot,”

[Prodromos]

The many insulting adjectives the British Parliament used to describe Donald Trump

If true that is pretty disrespectful for a close ally to do.

[Prodromos]

Just a comment- I'm not a "fan" of Hillary- read my posts- but to be fair (for better or worse) even with all her weaknesses, she is infinitely more fitted to serve as President than the supreme idiot.

Then just don't pretend to be impartial and objective. You have a choice of two candidates, and you pick one over the other due to agreeing with you politically. Just like any other election.

I mean, would you or djehoety choose any conservative Republican over Hillary?