What's new
By:

Trump with slight lead nine weeks out (CNN Poll)

In all seriousness. You guys are all awesome to each your own. I have gotten new perspective on things that I was previously stubborn on before. It's nice to hear the other side of arguments when you genuinely want to learn. I'm actually a really cool guy in person and would love to meet you guys (yes, even you Siro). I always feel like I can talk to you and come here for advice if I ever need it in the future.

Love,
WC


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Did anyone in this thread actually have anything but insults to offer?

rah rah rah. yah yah yah.

Jonah says the poll is an outlier, I think it's likely showing a trend. We'll see if further polls show a trend.

I also think it's possible that polls citing a claim of reflecting "likely voters" based on past polling and election results or other available data will prove to have a bias understating Trump's voters. He is drawing new people out to vote.

I didn't read this thread, except for a snatch or two as I skimmed over the pages, seeing a lot of low-grade insults and nothing very informed or factual.

If ya'll figure you're so smart, I'd expect something more than comments of that sort.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
We're very fortunate that people like Siro choose to come to America, even though he can't seem to grasp the many problems with Hillary. In my opinion he's way too smart not to eventually understand why her actions should have long ago disqualified her from the presidency.
Click to expand...

But, somebody has to be President. And it's going to be either Trump or Hillary, qualified or not. And some of us have simply concluded that Hillary is the safer choice. Safe with respect to the fact that Trump, even if he himself is not a white nationalist, has cornered the support of the extremists on the right. And Trump, not Hillary, has used rhetoric that is divisive. At a time when it is probably in the best interests of all Americans that we elect someone who will not emphasize divisiveness. Will not create scapegoats for people to take out their fears and anger on. It's not a question of they are both not qualified when one of them is going to win regardless. Who strikes me as the more dangerous choice is the question I ask, and Trump is the answer to that question.

The fly in my ointment is that so much hate has been generated, for years, against Hillary, that it's all but guaranteed the divisiveness we suffer from now will likely grow worse under her, at this point. Which sucks, we can't win....

I view Trump as so dangerous that in my opinion, if Hillary keeps him out of the Oval Office, she will have done her job. That's all I'm really asking of her. It's all I may ever ask of her in fact. One of them has to win. I'm not at all sure Hillary is as bad as you claim, but she's one of only two who are going to win....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...sedly-the-corrupt-one/?utm_term=.b137f70d0977

"That’s important, because we may have reached a point where the frames around the candidates are locked in: Trump is supposedly the crazy/bigoted one, and Clinton is supposedly the corrupt one. Once we decide that those are the appropriate lenses through which the two candidates are to be viewed, it shapes the decisions the media make every day about which stories are important to pursue."
 
Last edited:
babe said:
. . . Jonah says the poll is an outlier, I think it's likely showing a trend. We'll see if further polls show a trend.

I also think it's possible that polls citing a claim of reflecting "likely voters" based on past polling and election results or other available data will prove to have a bias understating Trump's voters. He is drawing new people out to vote. . .
Click to expand...
As of today, the poll is still an outlier as it shows Trump with the lead, but the trend over the past few weeks does show the race tightening. Whether this trend continues unabated and Trump takes the lead in a majority of polls is speculation. My guess is the race will continue to tighten but Clinton will remain the favorite unless something dramatic happens.

The debates will be crucial for both candidates and offer the next real chance to change the dynamic of the campaign. The first debate is not until September 26.

However, it hasn’t been very well publicized, but Clinton and Trump will share a stage tonight for one hour in what’s being called the Commander-in-Chief Forum. Clinton and Trump will take questions from moderator Matt Lauer as well as audience members on national security and veterans issues. The audience will be comprised of veterans as well as active service members.

The event will air live on CNBC at 6 pm Mountain Time and then on NBC on tape delay at 7 pm.
 
Jonah said:
As of today, the poll is still an outlier as it shows Trump with the lead, but the trend over the past few weeks does show the race tightening. Whether this trend continues unabated and Trump takes the lead in a majority of polls is speculation. My guess is the race will continue to tighten but Clinton will remain the favorite unless something dramatic happens.

The debates will be crucial for both candidates and offer the next real chance to change the dynamic of the campaign. The first debate is not until September 26.

However, it hasn’t been very well publicized, but Clinton and Trump will share a stage tonight for one hour in what’s being called the Commander-in-Chief Forum. Clinton and Trump will take questions from moderator Matt Lauer as well as audience members on national security and veterans issues. The audience will be comprised of veterans as well as active service members.

The event will air live on CNBC at 6 pm Mountain Time and then on NBC on tape delay at 7 pm.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that they will not be on the stage at the same time, so will not actually "share" a stage, but a key event nonetheless....
 
And when I ask myself "who is more intellectually qualified, Trump or Clinton?", Good Lord, not even close. The true author of "The Art of the Deal" came out of obscurity this summer just to warn people that, after all but living with the man for months, he could attest to the fact that Trump had the attention span of a two year old, has never read a book in his adult life, etc. One more reason for myself to view Trump as the more dangerous option. Think he would overcome that by appointing highly intelligent, informed advisors? Well, when has he done that as yet? He has stated he is his own advisor. Trying his hardest to be elected on a platform of divisiveness, he would also likely be our most ill informed President as well.....
 
Red said:
But, somebody has to be President. And it's going to be either Trump or Hillary, qualified or not. And some of us have simply concluded that Hillary is the safer choice. Safe with respect to the fact that Trump, even if he himself is not a white nationalist, has cornered the support of the extremists on the right. And Trump, not Hillary, has used rhetoric that is divisive. At a time when it is probably in the best interests of all Americans that we elect someone who will not emphasize divisiveness. Will not create scapegoats for people to take out their fears and anger on. It's not a question of they are both not qualified when one of them is going to win regardless. Who strikes me as the more dangerous choice is the question I ask, and Trump is the answer to that question.

The fly in my ointment is that so much hate has been generated, for years, against Hillary, that it's all but guaranteed the divisiveness we suffer from now will likely grow worse under her, at this point. Which sucks, we can't win....

I view Trump as so dangerous that in my opinion, if Hillary keeps him out of the Oval Office, she will have done her job. That's all I'm really asking of her. It's all I may ever ask of her in fact. One of them has to win. I'm not at all sure Hillary is as bad as you claim, but she's one of only two who are going to win....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...sedly-the-corrupt-one/?utm_term=.b137f70d0977

"That’s important, because we may have reached a point where the frames around the candidates are locked in: Trump is supposedly the crazy/bigoted one, and Clinton is supposedly the corrupt one. Once we decide that those are the appropriate lenses through which the two candidates are to be viewed, it shapes the decisions the media make every day about which stories are important to pursue."
Click to expand...
I respect you, but I disagree with what you are saying on several points. Most importantly I disagree that we should give one terrible candidate a pass because we think another terrible candidate is worse, and that is what a lot of Trump haters are doing. They despise him so badly that they are literally making up things to hate him for, while they are simultaneously diminishing Hillary's massive warts. A favorite strategy of the Trump haters is to claim that Hillary is simply an ordinary candidate who has faced an unreasonable amount of conspiracy theories and negative scrutiny.

In order to believe that people must completely ignore the fact that this negative scrutiny is fueled by her negative actions. They have to turn off the logical part of their brain and tell themselves that she has gotten away with this stuff so far, therefore it must be okay. They have to pretend that massive and obvious corruption simply does not exist. If not for the political power of the Clinton name I find it impossible to believe that anybody would consider her a viable option. She has put her personal interests ahead of our nation again and again. She lies to us repeatedly and unapologetically. Her only hope for victory is to go so negative on Trump that a majority of voters see him (like you obviously do) as a certain step toward Armageddon.

As I've said before, I'm voting for Johnson. He is undoubtedly a long shot, but he's the best of the three and it's not even close.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I respect you, but I disagree with what you are saying on several points. Most importantly I disagree that we should give one terrible candidate a pass because we think another terrible candidate is worse, and that is what a lot of Trump haters are doing. They despise him so badly that they are literally making up things to hate him for, while they are simultaneously diminishing Hillary's massive warts. A favorite strategy of the Trump haters is to claim that Hillary is simply an ordinary candidate who has faced an unreasonable amount of conspiracy theories and negative scrutiny.

In order to believe that people must completely ignore the fact that this negative scrutiny is fueled by her negative actions. They have to turn off the logical part of their brain and tell themselves that she has gotten away with this stuff so far, therefore it must be okay. They have to pretend that massive and obvious corruption simply does not exist. If not for the political power of the Clinton name I find it impossible to believe that anybody would consider her a viable option. She has put her personal interests ahead of our nation again and again. She lies to us repeatedly and unapologetically. Her only hope for victory is to go so negative on Trump that a majority of voters see him (like you obviously do) as a certain step toward Armageddon.

As I've said before, I'm voting for Johnson. He is undoubtedly a long shot, but he's the best of the three and it's not even close.
Click to expand...

I believe I understood what Trump represented very early on. The first week in all likelihood. I did not say you, or anyone else, has to vote for or give a pass to one candidate, because the other was worse. I speak for my opinions and choices, not your's. I do not think the things being said about Trump are made up and/or exaggerations. If I felt that both were equally bad choices, and that the results of the election would not matter at all to me because I simply could not decide who was the worse choice, I could chose to abstain, and say "why should I care, either one will be a disaster and both are completely unqualified". But, if instead, I perceive one to be an actual danger to the Republic itself, that changes everything for me. Playing on people's anger and fears, creating scapegoats, and posing as the strongman who will solve all problems, like crime in Chicago stopping within a week of his election, are the techniques of a demagogue, and I do not feel such individuals are healthy alternatives when choosing a leader. Now, I never said I saw him as a step toward Armageddon. In fact, in the Never Trump thread, I indicated that, for all I could do actually seeing into the future, Hillary might be a step toward Armageddon. And I think, if she is elected, she will be attacked unrelentingly, and our nation will continue on this near civil war we are engaged in. That does not strike me as something I am looking forward to, but, I have reasons for feeling Trump is a more dangerous option, and I don't believe for one second that I am way off in my portrayal of him. I did not say you, or anyone else, must see the correctness of my position. BTW, very surprised to see Johnson up to 15% here in RI, as liberal a bastion as there is in these United States.
 
As far as I am concerned, all of us here, in all of the election 2016 threads, have argued from a position of what is in the best interest of the United States. Each and every one of us has honorable intentions in that regard. Regardless of being light years apart in some cases. This thread may have been more testy then others where this subject is concerned, but try reading the comments at the end of any political oriented article if one wants to see a lot more venom then can be found here.

I believe either certain outcome, and that would be Trump or Clinton, will produce turmoil in our nation. I don't want to see that, but, I do feel strongly enough about my own position, that, should Trump win, and prove himself the type of man as President that he has been as candidate, then I will join the Resistance.
 
Red said:
My understanding is that they will not be on the stage at the same time, so will not actually "share" a stage, but a key event nonetheless....
Click to expand...
Interesting. I envisioned an Obama/Romney style forum where both candidates sit on stage and then stand to address a question from the moderator or a member of the audience, maybe even have the chance to question one another. One candidate answering a series of questions, then exiting to give the stage over to their opponent, seems artificial, not really a forum at all, but two separate events held one after the other. This version will likely be much less interesting and informative than the Obama/Romney forum back in 2012.
 
Just want to state what I understand to be true.

Hillary Clinton is not the first Secretary of State who used a private email server.

Hillary Clinton followed the advice of staff at the State Department in setting up her private email server.

Hillary Clinton is the only Secretary of State who has been investigated for having a private email server.

I'm not 100% sure of that info, but it is what I understand to be true and why the criticism of her for that falls on my deaf ears.
 
Just want to state what I understand to be true.

Hillary Clinton received a subpoena from Congress for her emails.

After receiving the subpoena, Hillary Clinton directed her staff to permanently remove all traces of some of the emails.

Hillary Clinton's staff used hammers to smash mobile devices and BleachBit to permanently erase electronic records.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that if I destroyed evidence after being subpoenaed by Congress I would land myself in some extremely deep ****. The only reason I can imagine anyone ever doing such a thing is because they believed that the consequences of people discovering what they were really doing would be much worse.
 
Gameface said:
Just want to state what I understand to be true.

Hillary Clinton is not the first Secretary of State who used a private email server.

Hillary Clinton followed the advice of staff at the State Department in setting up her private email server.

Hillary Clinton is the only Secretary of State who has been investigated for having a private email server.

I'm not 100% sure of that info, but it is what I understand to be true and why the criticism of her for that falls on my deaf ears.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify this series of logical facts:

Game is not the only person who ever made beer.

Game is not the only person who ever drank beer.

Laws against making or drinking beer are stupid, nobody should ever go to jail for that.

All kinds of politicians do crooked, deceitful and stupid stuff.

Laws enacted to empower the public to know what politicians have done are good laws.

A lot of politicians break good laws.

All politicians who break good laws should be exposed if possible, and voted out of office.
 
And the IRS targeting debacle.
And how about looting the ****ing White House?
And Filegate (illegally obtaining FBI files on enemies).

Travelgate
Whitewater

This isn't a ****ing competition as to who's worse.
But having deaf ears doesn't mean the sound of sandal isn't ringing like an air horn.
 
Dr. Jones said:
And the IRS targeting debacle.
And how about looting the ****ing White House?
And Filegate (illegally obtaining FBI files on enemies).

Travelgate
Whitewater

This isn't a ****ing competition as to who's worse.
But having deaf ears doesn't mean the sound of sandal isn't ringing like an air horn.
Click to expand...
Great post, but I have a question. Does this sound like an air horn to you?
nubuk-oryx-mens-source-sandal-new-style.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top