US Presidential Election 2016

[zero000]

Thoughts everyone? The polls are showing a significant tightening over the past couple of weeks, particularly in light of Hilary's health concerns / out right lies.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Edited September 16, 2016 by zero000
spelling

[ThomThomDrum]

How someone can be so thick or disenfranchised to even consider Trump is beyond me, but its the way of the world it seems. Its democracy's biggest flaw that everyone gets an equal vote. 

Corrupt, lying, sexist, bigoted, bankrupt, billionaire (excuse the oxymoron) is the man of the people? 

[lost]

Jimmy Fallon getting alot of shit for "humanising a facist" last night.

[pink_triangle]

I think support amongst woman and non whites whites will take it for Hillary. In a way whoever wins may be in a good position, as nobody is expecting them to wave a wand and produce miracles as they did with Obama.

[Wooderson]

Hilary will win and the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

However, the campaign ran by Trump (and his inevitable ongoing presence in public life and the media) will have far reaching wholly negative effects for democracy in the US.

[eFestivals]

post-truther's delusions. The world is full of 'em right now.

 

[russycarps]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

post-truther's delusions. The world is full of 'em right now.

 

*looks north of hadrian's wall*

Yep.

 

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

post-truther's delusions. The world is full of 'em right now.

 

The amusing thing about all this post-truth politics nonsense is the clear implication that there must have been an era of truth politics.

I guess I missed that.

Edited September 22, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

The amusing thing about all this post-truth politics nonsense is the clear implication that there must have been an era of truth politics.

I guess I missed that.

Well, if we use Trump as the (very) base line.... are you trying to suggest all previous politicians have been delving into lies quite as much?

And when people like you let politicians off the hook for the demonstratable lies they have made - exactly as Trump supporters do - then there's not that much difference going on.

In case it's passing you by, politicians get held to account by holding each and every one of them to account, including the ones you might support. You failed when you never demanded from Salmond where his oil tax revenue projections came from - the big lie that would have taken Scotland to financial disaster even if the oil price had met Salmond's projections.

Edited September 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[bunique]

Fucking hell, can we ban all mention of Scottish politics on this thread?!

[CHRLY]

3 hours ago, bunique said:

Fucking hell, can we ban all mention of Scottish politics on this thread?!

Agreed.

I honestly think I'd vote 3rd party if I lived there. Both candidates are horrendous.

[LJS]

8 hours ago, bunique said:

Fucking hell, can we ban all mention of Scottish politics on this thread?!

 

4 hours ago, CHRLY said:

Agreed.

 

I agree. Although I am Scottish & rant on endlessly in the Scottish Indy thread, it becomes tiresome when Neil introduces the Scotland thing in every conceivable (& many inconceivable) threads. There is occasionally a crossover in the general news thread but in the US pres election thread? 

 

Neil, please moderate your own forum!!!

 

As is almost always the case in the USA its a case of the lesser of 2 evils. 

[CHRLY]

2 hours ago, LJS said:

As is almost always the case in the USA its a case of the lesser of 2 evils. 

I tend to agree, but the American govermental system works differently so it's not always so black and white. I think it would be incredibly hard for Trump to push any of his radical ideas through the house. 

I dispise Trump and could never vote for him, but the more I read about Hillary the less I like her. It's a dire situation.

[pink_triangle]

5 hours ago, CHRLY said:

I tend to agree, but the American govermental system works differently so it's not always so black and white. I think it would be incredibly hard for Trump to push any of his radical ideas through the house. 

I dispise Trump and could never vote for him, but the more I read about Hillary the less I like her. It's a dire situation.

Agree, I think if trump wins he will be far from the madman that some people predict.

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, bunique said:

Fucking hell, can we ban all mention of Scottish politics on this thread?!

only if we can have consistent arguments put forwards by the contributors.  Sanity and consistency are close cousins.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

As is almost always the case in the USA its a case of the lesser of 2 evils. 

that's all politics everywhere.

No one agrees with every policy platform of the party or candidate they might vote for, unless they're mindless.

Which leaves the least objectionable as the one you'll support - if consistency and intelligence drives you, rather than dogma.

Edited September 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

4 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Agree, I think if trump wins he will be far from the madman that some people predict.

i think thats optimisic. he will be in total control of the nuclear arsenal and drone programme.

 

also, he is a massive racist

[pink_triangle]

27 minutes ago, zahidf said:

i think thats optimisic. he will be in total control of the nuclear arsenal and drone programme.

 

also, he is a massive racist

I think he says what he thinks will win votes. I have no doubt he would hire a black, Asian or Mexican if he thought they would make him money.

[philipsteak]

10 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think he says what he thinks will win votes. I have no doubt he would hire a black, Asian or Mexican if he thought they would make him money.

He might hire a black person, but according to a book or an article, cant remember which,  written by a former casino employee, he would probably then describe them as lazy, but that it wasn't their fault because all black people are inherently lazy. Either that or just make them all leave the room when he came in.

He was also sued by the government for not renting apartments to black people, or giving them different terms and conditions too white people

And then there were the full page ads calling for the executions of the Central Park Five who were later found innocent.

All well before he was chasing the racist vote, so yeah, I'd say he was pretty racist

[Wooderson]

There's only parity between these two candidates if you look upon a papercut as being as malign as cancer. Both are unpleasant of course - but there is simple no equivalence. Trump is a total fucking monster.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Wooderson said:

There's only parity between these two candidates if you look upon a papercut as being as malign as cancer. Both are unpleasant of course - but there is simple no equivalence. Trump is a total fucking monster.

whatever he is, each passing day suggests a little more that he's likely to win. Even plenty of Clinton's natural supporters are buying some of the Trump lines about her, and while they might not vote Trump they're becoming less certain to vote for Clinton.

I love following the nutters side of these contests. I'm onto my 4th one now, and the amount of identicality of methods - despite the different aims - is astounding. It truly is a post-truth world for these people.

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

whatever he is, each passing day suggests a little more that he's likely to win. Even plenty of Clinton's natural supporters are buying some of the Trump lines about her, and while they might not vote Trump they're becoming less certain to vote for Clinton.

I love following the nutters side of these contests. I'm onto my 4th one now, and the amount of identicality of methods - despite the different aims - is astounding. It truly is a post-truth world for these people.

the polls have an underlying stability to it. clinton is still more likely to win because she has a better ground game, she has never been behind in the poll averages nationally and more than 50% of voters think trump is racist and 65% dont think he has the temperment to be president

the polls have been up and down a bit but no massive swing towards trump

itll be closer than i would like but its clinton's too lose

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

the polls have an underlying stability to it. clinton is still more likely to win because she has a better ground game, she has never been behind in the poll averages nationally and more than 50% of voters think trump is racist and 65% dont think he has the temperment to be president

the polls have been up and down a bit but no massive swing towards trump

itll be closer than i would like but its clinton's too lose

while plenty think Trump is racist, a big chunk of them don't feel able to vote Clinton to stop Trump - that's where the issue lies. Plenty will vote for the other candidates which are off the radar in the UK (one of whom is a Green, so i've seen).

And yep, it's still Clinton's to lose, but if the current drift towards Trump continues it's his to win.

It seems like the debates will be the decider, and they're looking like they'll be a loser for Clinton. Trump will drip lie after lie after lie, and Clinton won't have a chance to refute the first one before Trump has moved onto the next. And while Clinton is trying to refute them, she'll come across as whining and moaning, and not something positive people feel they can support.

[zahidf]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

while plenty think Trump is racist, a big chunk of them don't feel able to vote Clinton to stop Trump - that's where the issue lies. Plenty will vote for the other candidates which are off the radar in the UK (one of whom is a Green, so i've seen).

And yep, it's still Clinton's to lose, but if the current drift towards Trump continues it's his to win.

It seems like the debates will be the decider, and they're looking like they'll be a loser for Clinton. Trump will drip lie after lie after lie, and Clinton won't have a chance to refute the first one before Trump has moved onto the next. And while Clinton is trying to refute them, she'll come across as whining and moaning, and not something positive people feel they can support.

maybe but stein has been losing support and traditionally third party supporters come back to the main parties after debates.

also in the last 8 elections, the person with the highest expectations gap won the popular vote, with only one not winning the election (al gore).  clinton has the highest expectation to win this time around

we will see how the debates go, but trump needs to look presidential and not fly off on one. He also has done worse on debates with just 2 people, as he has a lot of time to answer questions, and he doesnt have answers. im hoping the network live fact check him as well 

 

[zero000]

538 are polling the chances of a Trump victory at 41% :

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

He's currently polling ahead in Ohio, which has predicted the outcome in 28 of the last 30 elections. Things are getting close and these debates are going to play right into Trump's hands. He's incredibly comfortable in front of the camera, whilst Hilary comes across as stilted and forced.