a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016

Who do you vote into the office of USA President?


  • Total voters
    48
Reactions
2,083 431 6
Currently imagining 4 more years of Supreme Court Justices not getting replaced.

Basically what I'm saying is, I find it hard to applaud the poor decision making that led to the point where they feel they have an unviable candidate, but promising to be as crazy obstructionist as they have been. COMPROMISE IS NOT A DIRTY WORD. But I mean actual compromise, not rider ridden bullshit on top of a terrible bill.
 
Last edited:
Reactions
892 353 14
I'm glad we have choices in this country.

Next month we'll be able to choose between corruption and incompetence.
Still beats the choice between corruption and "disappearing" for voring the wrong way a lot of countries in the world have, or the choice between corruption and incompetence, and corruption and incompetence.
 
Reactions
626 100 7
http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/wikileaks-falsified-documents-trump-russia/

So Wikileaks' real October Surprise seems to be that Russian hackers definitely are involved in the Wikileaks documents, that some of the documents have in fact been falsified, and that somehow, Trump is pushing the exact same narrative and attributed source that Sputnik, a Putin mouthpiece, is. To wit, supposedly there is an email from Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton adviser, admitting that Clinton bore responsibility for the attacks. "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate.” However, when attempting to verify the source of the quote, Newsweek reporter Ken Eichenwald realized that the source of the email wasn't Blumenthal at all, because those were his words, from a 10,000 word editorial about the politicization of the Benghazi inquiries that Eichenwald had emailed to John Podesta.

The only two places pushing that specific story? Sputnik, and Trump at a campaign rally in Wilkes-Barre, PA.
 
Reactions
1,417 510 7
Well if we're going to allow multiple adjectives we can simply use both to describe both, and add a more on top of each. The list would be unending, and could possibly start with amoral and self centered for both.
I doubt Hilldawg is going to be incompetent as president, anymore than literally every other senator, governor or congressperson in government currently would be.

also, Trump called out Warren Buffett for pulling the same tax shenanigans he does. Warrenn Buffett said, nupe, youse lying again!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/b...his-tax-return.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur[DOUBLEPOST=1476206180,1476206078][/DOUBLEPOST]
http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/wikileaks-falsified-documents-trump-russia/

So Wikileaks' real October Surprise seems to be that Russian hackers definitely are involved in the Wikileaks documents, that some of the documents have in fact been falsified, and that somehow, Trump is pushing the exact same narrative and attributed source that Sputnik, a Putin mouthpiece, is. To wit, supposedly there is an email from Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton adviser, admitting that Clinton bore responsibility for the attacks. "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate.” However, when attempting to verify the source of the quote, Newsweek reporter Ken Eichenwald realized that the source of the email wasn't Blumenthal at all, because those were his words, from a 10,000 word editorial about the politicization of the Benghazi inquiries that Eichenwald had emailed to John Podesta.

The only two places pushing that specific story? Sputnik, and Trump at a campaign rally in Wilkes-Barre, PA.
Yeah, this is just more piled on proof that Trump is a Russian stooge. That should terrify literally everyone in the US. Trump is a hand grenade! Yeah, thrown by Vladimir Putin.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Reactions
104 0 0
Hillary is nowhere near as incompetent as Trump. For evidence I would suggest people watch the current campaigns...[DOUBLEPOST=1476206783,1476206541][/DOUBLEPOST]He really just doesn't get it



Saw this great quote on Reddit

"Trump is simultaneously the blackest pot and the blackest kettle, and manages to point at the microwave"
 

Necronic

Staff member
Reactions
104 0 0
The best hope for the Republican Party at this point is that they will have done a good enough job with voter ID laws to disenfranchise their opposition, or that Trumps "poll watchers" will create a hostile enough environment to keep them from voting.
 
Reactions
504 140 7
The best hope for the Republican Party at this point is that they will have done a good enough job with voter ID laws to disenfranchise their opposition, or that Trumps "poll watchers" will create a hostile enough environment to keep them from voting.
Meanwhile there's strong evidence that Clinton and/or the DNC may have caused voting irregularities in states without a paper voting trail:

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
 
Reactions
626 100 7
Meanwhile there's strong evidence that Clinton and/or the DNC may have caused voting irregularities in states without a paper voting trail:

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
Not really, Steinman. Did you read past the headline?

WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.
WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.

What that means is that their claims at this point hold no water. It's about as a valid as your average Breitbart article.

Specifically from their paper: Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system.

If you're alleging a pattern of misconduct based on quantitative analysis, and you don't have the numbers right, your results are meaningless.

More the point, their entire theory is that there might have been primary election fraud due to the disagreement between election results and exit polls, but the way the US does exit polls is not set up to detect fraud. From an article The Nation:

While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours aren’t designed, and aren’t accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. They’re far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so that’s what they pay for.​
As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including:
o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out.
o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected aren’t representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isn’t so helpful in a primary.
o Absentee voters aren’t included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote.​
As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do."

So that's another discredited, misinterpreted swing at the Dems from Steinman. Strike two.
 
Last edited:

Necronic

Staff member
Reactions
104 0 0
So apparently Christianity Today just denounced Trump. As have a number of high profile Mormons.

Jerry Falwell Jr and Pat Robertson of course still firmly support him.
 
Reactions
367 78 1
Here's the part that I think is funny. Say for the sake of chaos that Trump somehow still pulls in his deplorables and wins. Can you just imagine the revenge wave he's going to unleash on the republican party? This is a small-minded, petty, vindictive man who internalizes every slight and holds grudges so long that their expiration dates reset and become relevant again. He'd be so busy trying to get revenge that he'd forget that he's supposed to be running the country.
Assuming he waits until after the election before going for revenge.




 
Reactions
626 100 7
"I will institute a purge of all the disloyal members of my party"... Damn, that's right out of the despot handbook.
 
Reactions
504 140 7
It sounds like you didn't read the study, @Null. Granted, it hasn't been peer reviewed, and exit polls are notoriously unreliable.

However exit polls aren't the only thing they looked at, and my post mentioned voting irregularities - i.e., unexplained problems that shouldn't have affected the outcome but might have.

It isn't conclusive, but there are enough things that don't add up to question whether the voting system is accurately representing the will of the people.

For a lot of Bernie supporters, and given the DNC's hidden support of Hillary, it appears to be a valid question.

I'm glad you're counting "strikes" on me though, it's nothing less than Hillary demands of her sycophantic adherents.
 
Seeing alot of people with that kind of mentality in the left wing lately. Seems like when your political narrative is the norm, simple liberties like free speech become another inconvenience.
 
Reactions
626 100 7
They're allowed to speak because of Free Speech. Now, why they're being encouraged to speak to the public and release their asinine statements via media, well, like or not, they're directly linked to a regretfully significant political figure. I'm sure it makes for good ratings. They've got every right to speak, just as we have the right to hold every sociopathic idiotic word against those Patrick Bateman wannabe motherfuckers.
 
Reactions
507 176 1
Seeing alot of people with that kind of mentality in the left wing lately. Seems like when your political narrative is the norm, simple liberties like free speech become another inconvenience.
You didn't think it was a light-hearted joke about why the campaign manager doesn't try to stop them from speaking in public, because it's harmful to Trump's campaign? No? Just jumped right to the ol' "Liberals hate free speech!" bullshit?

This board is starting to read more and more like the comments section under a YouTube video. "Everyone on the right is a nazi!" vs. "Everyone on the left is a mindless drone!" and all that shit.
 
Last edited:
You people are morons if you actually didn't catch the implied "on behalf of the campaign" in that.
Your wording is garbage. Why are you even allowed to speak?[DOUBLEPOST=1476228964,1476228516][/DOUBLEPOST]
You didn't think it was a light-hearted joke about why the campaign manager doesn't try to stop them from speaking in public, because it's harmful to Trump's campaign? No? Just jumped right to the ol' "Liberals hate free speech!" bullshit?
No because it is a shitty joke, and everyone tries so desperately to be witty and sarcastic that I gloss it over. Also does your strawman need some clothes? It's getting colder now.
 
Reactions
507 176 1
Your wording is garbage. Why are you even allowed to speak?[DOUBLEPOST=1476228964,1476228516][/DOUBLEPOST]

No because it is a shitty joke, and everyone tries so desperately to be witty and sarcastic that I gloss it over. Also does your strawman need some clothes? It's getting colder now.
I don't know who pissed in your Cheerios, but get the fuck over it.

And, strawman? What in the fuck are you even babbling about? I'm familiar with the strawman fallacy, but you sure as hell aren't. Look it up before you try to talk with the adults again.
 
Reactions
1,371 611 31
Your wording is garbage. Why are you even allowed to speak?[DOUBLEPOST=1476228964,1476228516][/DOUBLEPOST]

No because it is a shitty joke, and everyone tries so desperately to be witty and sarcastic that I gloss it over. Also does your strawman need some clothes? It's getting colder now.
What the fuck are you talking about?
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,571 1,194 23
Yeah, I think people are taking things not as they are intended. It happens. We're still all friends here. Except Gas. That jerk.
 
Top