Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, irishidiot said:

maybe if there wasn't any dirt to dig up, they wouldn't have any dirt to dig up.  Hillary created the dirt pile so now it's Trump & the Russians fault?   A little flawed, don't you think?

Come on man, you have to do better than this weak attempt at a diversionary red herring.

I never claimed it's the Russians fault - they are doing what they should be doing, and what we very well might do should the roles be reversed.

I DID claim is a disgrace for Trump to verbally encourage it - even without his shady ties to Russia and business interests over there that bring a legit and concerning amount of potential conflict to the forefront, even without that as further context what Trump did should be dismissed out of hand.

At least anyone remotely patriotic to the United States of America and not Trump or the Republican Party. 

 

So, what is flawed again? Because you got this all wrong. And, as I noted before, if any REAL dirt does arise from this of course we must take action... but to encourage a foreign power to do the digging is, as I said before, disgusting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm sure.  Trump has the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Daily Stormer, the Knights Party,  VDare, Occidental Dissent, the Traditionalist Worker Party, the League of the South, the American Freedom Party, and the National Policy Institute.

 

Clinton has a lot of politicians and bankers.  So there's that.

Exactly.  Seems pretty even.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

Well Hillary has the NAMBLA vote, the ex-felon votes, the communist vote, the terrorist sympathizer vote to name a few.  

I missed most of those endorsements.  Got any links?  I have them for every one of the endorsements I listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, David Dodds said:

Is this Hillary's Watergate?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/hillarys-watergate

Even if she wins, will she be dogged for years in investigations?

Not according to Carl Bernstein, who suggested that the comparison was ludicrous.  But I don't know what he'd know about Watergate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Well Hillary has the NAMBLA vote, the ex-felon votes, the communist vote, the terrorist sympathizer vote to name a few.  

Do you really want us to list which politicians from which Party have been caught with their pants down on this issue?

Hint: It won't look good for the Republican side of the coin. Or do the NAMBLA voters still vote Dem because they feel the hypocrites on the right will double down on their efforts to hide the fact that they are actually the pervs and predators themselves?

Seriously, like Dennis Hastardt down? (actually, with NAMBLA, yes, apparently, he is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this so called foreign power had dirt on Trump they would release it.  I don't mind anyone speaking or releasing the truth.  I suppose there could be exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The winner here is the poster who has been saying for the past few weeks "Watch the polls start getting close the last week and the media reporting the election is to close to call for ratings."

Edited by Mile High

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BeaverCleaver said:

Ask the Social Justice Warriors about that.

I don't know.  BLM can be quite violent in both action and rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:
 

- Huh. I've had NC as a definite Hillary W.

It's been a toss up.  It's one of 4-5 that Trump absolutely must win to have a shot that's in play for either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That's not entirely true.  As long as he declares that they have aided Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or related organizations, yes he can.  Wait, has he ever done that with Clinton?

Well I don't like NDAA either if that's what you're referring to but it was Obama who gave each forthcoming president such unchecked power.  I think it was Tobias of all people that defended Obama under the pretense of it being attached to a military budget.  I'm not a fan, but then again I think Clinton deserves to be thrown in prison.  The rebels, factions and numerous foreign countries she's sold weapons to all but guaranteed that anti-US organizations would end up with them.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

If this so called foreign power had dirt on Trump they would release it.  I don't mind anyone speaking or releasing the truth.  I suppose there could be exceptions.

For one, there could be many exceptions. Primarily, if the foreign power felt it to their benefit that Trump be President, they'd want to influence that outcome.  And "their" benefit could very well mean our relative loss of power and/or influence. 

 

Second, there has been a noticeably one sided array of leaks... you REALLY don't think there would be ANYthing noteworthy (cringeworthy, at the very very least) if someone dedicated time to find any possible item as they have with Hillary? All politics and the like aside, the guy is just about as least trustworthy a businessman as I've known and that's common knowledge in business circles around here.   He goes ON the record saying horrible and outlandish things, we saw the hot mic issue... if you don't think there's some juicy tabloid news items if not anything criminal, especially considering the ongoing litigation for Trump, then you just blind. Willingfully, blissfully, whatever. But I gotta bridge or two to sell you.

Yet, it's all been directed at the DNC, Hillary... excavation parties to dig #### up, repeatedly.  Unless we are going to be just dumb about this, you have to say it's at least a little odd.  Yes, I guess the Donald could have a pristine history and nothing whatsoever said or done by he nor his close circle / business entities would ever be worthy of leaking to the press/public.  

But, seriously man.  You know that's not the case. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Koya said:

I never claimed spying doesn't happen. I'm claiming you don't ####### encourage it to be done against your own country, against a presidential candidate at that, especially if you happen to also be a presidential candidate.

Is that logic so hard to understand? And I clearly stated we shouldn't ignore the information... but to encourage it verbally as Trump did is a disgrace and belittles the very institution he is running for.  

Do you not agree?

I'm fine with encouraging hackers to uncover fraud and corruption.  Less so with the Russian government being a part of it.

I don't think a presidential candidate should encourage either, but I really don't consider the statement a core issue.  I generally filter out the inflammatory rhetoric when evaluating candidates.  I try to focus more on what I think their policies would be.

My biggest beef with Trump is that he's way too thin-skinned.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Not according to Carl Bernstein, who suggested that the comparison was ludicrous.  But I don't know what he'd know about Watergate.

link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:
 

- Huh. I've had NC as a definite Hillary W.

Really?  Even with the voter suppression tactics? 

That said, just terrible polls from NC for Clinton today. Total disaster. There was also an Elon College poll that had her up one taken almost entirely before the Comey letter.  She's in real trouble there.

At this point it looks like a virtual coinflip. Things could swing back her way in a week if the Comey letter fades out, but at the moment I'd only give her the edge in enough states to get to 272.  If she drops any of them she loses.  She could get Nevada and bump up to 278, but that still doesn't insulate her from a loss in any of the Great Lakes states or Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonessed said:

I'm fine with encouraging hackers to uncover fraud and corruption.  Less so with the Russian government being a part of it.

I don't think a presidential candidate should encourage either, but I really don't consider the statement a core issue.  I generally filter out the inflammatory rhetoric when evaluating candidates.  I try to focus more on what I think their policies would be.

My biggest beef with Trump is that he's way too thin-skinned.

Appreciate the response. 

Trump's erraticness + thin-skin + prideful vengeance scares the bejeebuz out of me on so many levels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2016 at 0:53 PM, Baloney Sandwich said:

This is Donna's exchange with Megyn Kelly, 5 days after she resigned from CNN.  Will she resign as DNC Chair?

MEGYN KELLY: You're accused of receiving a debate question whether a CNN town hall where they partnered with TV One that you had this question on March 12th, that verbatim, verbatim was provided by Roland Martin to CNN the next day. How did you get that question, Donna?

DONNA BRAZILE: Well, Kelly, as I play straight up and with you, I did not receive any questions from CNN. 

KELLY: Where did you get it. 
...

 

- Yaknow, instead of asking Brazile any more questions I'd like to see someone in the Hillary campaign asked why they accepted the information even though they knew it was cheating.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hillary is toast.  losing 13 pts in 9 days is unbelievable, no matter all the talking points the media or certain posters in here have offered in order to deflect from the realization many have made that she's an out of control scumbag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Really?  Even with the voter suppression tactics? 

That said, just terrible polls from NC for Clinton today. Total disaster. There was also an Elon College poll that had her up one taken almost entirely before the Comey letter.  She's in real trouble there.

At this point it looks like a virtual coinflip. Things could swing back her way in a week if the Comey letter fades out, but at the moment I'd only give her the edge in enough states to get to 272.  If she drops any of them she loses.  She could get Nevada and bump up to 278, but that still doesn't insulate her from a loss in any of the Great Lakes states or Colorado.

Yeah I've been very confident about Hillary doing very well and I haven't been afraid to express it. Until now.

I think she's still coming in at ~300 but she's coming in hot. She needs to close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Really?  Even with the voter suppression tactics? 

That said, just terrible polls from NC for Clinton today. Total disaster. There was also an Elon College poll that had her up one taken almost entirely before the Comey letter.  She's in real trouble there.

At this point it looks like a virtual coinflip. Things could swing back her way in a week if the Comey letter fades out, but at the moment I'd only give her the edge in enough states to get to 272.  If she drops any of them she loses.  She could get Nevada and bump up to 278, but that still doesn't insulate her from a loss in any of the Great Lakes states or Colorado.

Are you suggesting a rigged election ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Koya said:

For one, there could be many exceptions. Primarily, if the foreign power felt it to their benefit that Trump be President, they'd want to influence that outcome.  And "their" benefit could very well mean our relative loss of power and/or influence. 

 

Second, there has been a noticeably one sided array of leaks... you REALLY don't think there would be ANYthing noteworthy (cringeworthy, at the very very least) if someone dedicated time to find any possible item as they have with Hillary? All politics and the like aside, the guy is just about as least trustworthy a businessman as I've known and that's common knowledge in business circles around here.   He goes ON the record saying horrible and outlandish things, we saw the hot mic issue... if you don't think there's some juicy tabloid news items if not anything criminal, especially considering the ongoing litigation for Trump, then you just blind. Willingfully, blissfully, whatever. But I gotta bridge or two to sell you.

Yet, it's all been directed at the DNC, Hillary... excavation parties to dig #### up, repeatedly.  Unless we are going to be just dumb about this, you have to say it's at least a little odd.  Yes, I guess the Donald could have a pristine history and nothing whatsoever said or done by he nor his close circle / business entities would ever be worthy of leaking to the press/public.  

But, seriously man.  You know that's not the case. 

 

Everyone is trying to hack everyone else.  

Podesta got phished because Hillary's IT people were idiots and approved the email.  Millions of people get phished every day.  A small percentage of morons fall for it.

The DNC had notoriously weak security that their own consultants kept telling them to fix.  What's the point of hiring people to look at your security and then ignoring their recommendations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

The president has the power, either on his own or by exerting pressure on those who serve at his discretion, to do everything but render a verdict in a criminal case. It's a ridiculous amount of leverage. As I pointed out, Nixon's misuse of law enforcement was one of the Articles of Impeachment.  If you don't understand the danger of a presidential candidate promising to lock up his political opponent and leading chants of the same, I don't know what to tell you.

Your media argument is deeply flawed. No, Donna Brazile and Corey Lewandowski and all the other CNN partisan hacks are not giving us a vital check on government power at all times.  They deserve ridicule.  But the NY Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and many others have done impressive work and are incredibly important to our democracy.  Are you seriously implying that the press isn't a vital check on government power?  Where do you think people got all the information they're using to make their arguments in political threads here, including many of the arguments they make as evidence of Clinton's corruption?  This is a bizarre line of reasoning, which others have articulated (including @Sinn Fein just now) highlights this particular problem with Trumpism. 

She should be in jail.  Trump threatening to lock her up is actually one of the good qualities about him.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Yeah I've been very confident about Hillary doing very well and I haven't been afraid to express it. Until now.

I think she's still coming in at ~300 but she's coming in hot. She needs to close.

This thing would be a landslide for Republicans had they put up just about any other candidate.  Even Cruz would be smoking Hillary right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonessed said:

This thing would be a landslide for Republicans had they put up just about any other candidate.  Even Cruz would be smoking Hillary right now.

Mitt Romney would get 320 electoral votes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Really?  Even with the voter suppression tactics? 

That said, just terrible polls from NC for Clinton today. Total disaster. There was also an Elon College poll that had her up one taken almost entirely before the Comey letter.  She's in real trouble there.

At this point it looks like a virtual coinflip. Things could swing back her way in a week if the Comey letter fades out, but at the moment I'd only give her the edge in enough states to get to 272.  If she drops any of them she loses.  She could get Nevada and bump up to 278, but that still doesn't insulate her from a loss in any of the Great Lakes states or Colorado.

That's why these polls can be so difficult with different lags... the timing for the Comey stuff couldn't be worse for her strategically.  I mean, we want to talk conspiracy stories and shadiness, that doesn't make you at least raise an eyebrow? (and from what little I know about him, not suggesting that at all, and assume he may be pressured along the way for certain things, ####### up all over the place and generally making a mess of things.. but on the up and up.  But it begs the question at least)

With all this fear stoking on the right about rigged elections and how it's going to be stolen, I'm trying to imagine an America that wakes up and Trump is actually the President Elect... will that be enough to energize the lazy left and pull the Jill Stein extreme along with some of the more moderate Republicans? Just say, holy ####... all of a sudden we really have to worry about laws and such that we hadn't thought could ever really be changed? Let's go all out and say this happens in a context where Trumps poll watchers at least appear to have played some factor in intimidating voters.  Already you have large populations (without much political voice mind you) where they feel voting has been taken away from them.  Does suddenly a minority-lefty libs - lefty libertarians - even moderate republicans left on social issues all band together and say #### IT? 

Could totally see a Brexit buyers remorse almost immediately.  And gonna then be some VERY unhappy people.  Like crazy unhappy, as unhappy as the Trump nuts are when they talk about armed conflict if Trump loses... but no one is talking about how the unhappy left (and it might be a big new "left" and a bigger unhappy) might react if this thing goes south for Hillary, so quickly and suddenly - and in Trump, drastically.

Could you imagine?

God I hope that doesn't happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sublimeone said:

link?

I got nothing from Bernstein, but John Dean disagrees with the comparison, and he REALLY should know.

"Second, Mr. Trump’s insistence that “Emailgate” is worse than Watergate serves to divert attention from the fact that, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is remarkably Nixonian, perhaps even more so than Nixon himself.

I say that because while Nixon’s dark and nasty side, largely hidden from public view, got him in trouble, he was also a man of intelligence, with a strong understanding of government, a deep knowledge of the world and a heartfelt vision for lasting peace. If Mr. Trump has such positive qualities, he has kept that side of him well hidden, while giving free rein to his dark and nasty worldview."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/opinion/no-emailgate-is-not-worse-than-watergate.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Everyone is trying to hack everyone else.  

Podesta got phished because Hillary's IT people were idiots and approved the email.  Millions of people get phished every day.  A small percentage of morons fall for it.

The DNC had notoriously weak security that their own consultants kept telling them to fix.  What's the point of hiring people to look at your security and then ignoring their recommendations?

All fair points... it's just a little fishy is all.  That fair to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if we are to accept that when Podesta said we have to dump sooner than later he meant release the emails, exactly what emails is he referencing?  I guess I'm okay with accepting that dump means provide but I don't know what emails he is referring to because we were told all work related emails had been turned over.  Is it an acknowledgment that were aware they held onto emails that should have been turned over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/on-a-scale-of-1-to-10-how-much-should-democrats-panic/

Good chat here, Silver and the 538 team raise some concerning points if you're in camp Hillary:

-Silver says Trump's chances in MI/WI are underrated. There's been a lack of good polling from there, but the data they have suggests that her lead is fairly small. Black turnout is the x-factor.

-CO has tightened, hence her new ad blitz there.

-The Clinton "firewall" states aren't as solid as people may think. Some are 2-4 points, not 6-8.

-Another one point drop nationally and the race enters the "margin of Brexit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonessed said:

This thing would be a landslide for Republicans had they put up just about any other candidate.  Even Cruz would be smoking Hillary right now.

Could you imagine a Dem that didn't have baggage and had SOME appeal in the south... like a Tim Kaine that you actually noticed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Koya said:

Do you really want us to list which politicians from which Party have been caught with their pants down on this issue?

Hint: It won't look good for the Republican side of the coin. Or do the NAMBLA voters still vote Dem because they feel the hypocrites on the right will double down on their efforts to hide the fact that they are actually the pervs and predators themselves?

Seriously, like Dennis Hastardt down? (actually, with NAMBLA, yes, apparently, he is)

Has nothing to do with it.  The liberal push for sexual freedom and non discrimination views are smack in wheelhouse of NAMBLA's goals.  There is no doubt who most of their members would support to advance these goals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

Has nothing to do with it.  The liberal push for sexual freedom and non discrimination views are smack in wheelhouse of NAMBLA's goals.  There is no doubt who most of their members would support to advance these goals.  

I'm not sure we're on the same page regarding liberal sexual freedom and non discrimination views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

Has nothing to do with it.  The liberal push for sexual freedom and non discrimination views are smack in wheelhouse of NAMBLA's goals.  There is no doubt who most of their members would support to advance these goals.  

Funny, we are talking consent - which undercuts any "rights" NAMBLA may be fighting for as you suggest - yet you have a hacked image of a couple, celeb or otherwise, taken without theirs.  

Rich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Koya said:

Donald Trump himself stood in front of an audience and cameras and ENCOURAGED Russia to uncover more dirt on Hillary.  Needless to say, since that occurred weeks ago, his puppets (no puppet) have parroted the sentiment many times over. 

Why is the source relevant to anything?  Personally, I'd much prefer it if our own government was capable of and willing to ferret out this level of unethical behavior, but since it's not, I'm perfectly happy for Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, Russia, CNN, or agents from Mars to do so.  I want our politicians to be ethical and honest, and I want to know about it when they aren't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Koya said:

That's why these polls can be so difficult with different lags... the timing for the Comey stuff couldn't be worse for her strategically.  I mean, we want to talk conspiracy stories and shadiness, that doesn't make you at least raise an eyebrow? (and from what little I know about him, not suggesting that at all, and assume he may be pressured along the way for certain things, ####### up all over the place and generally making a mess of things.. but on the up and up.  But it begs the question at least)

With all this fear stoking on the right about rigged elections and how it's going to be stolen, I'm trying to imagine an America that wakes up and Trump is actually the President Elect... will that be enough to energize the lazy left and pull the Jill Stein extreme along with some of the more moderate Republicans? Just say, holy ####... all of a sudden we really have to worry about laws and such that we hadn't thought could ever really be changed? Let's go all out and say this happens in a context where Trumps poll watchers at least appear to have played some factor in intimidating voters.  Already you have large populations (without much political voice mind you) where they feel voting has been taken away from them.  Does suddenly a minority-lefty libs - lefty libertarians - even moderate republicans left on social issues all band together and say #### IT? 

Could totally see a Brexit buyers remorse almost immediately.  And gonna then be some VERY unhappy people.  Like crazy unhappy, as unhappy as the Trump nuts are when they talk about armed conflict if Trump loses... but no one is talking about how the unhappy left (and it might be a big new "left" and a bigger unhappy) might react if this thing goes south for Hillary, so quickly and suddenly - and in Trump, drastically.

Could you imagine?

God I hope that doesn't happen.  

Safe to assume you're posting comfortably from your doomsday bunker today until next Wednesday? My god man get a dog. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ericttspikes said:

I got nothing from Bernstein, but John Dean disagrees with the comparison, and he REALLY should know.

"Second, Mr. Trump’s insistence that “Emailgate” is worse than Watergate serves to divert attention from the fact that, in my opinion, Mr. Trump is remarkably Nixonian, perhaps even more so than Nixon himself.

I say that because while Nixon’s dark and nasty side, largely hidden from public view, got him in trouble, he was also a man of intelligence, with a strong understanding of government, a deep knowledge of the world and a heartfelt vision for lasting peace. If Mr. Trump has such positive qualities, he has kept that side of him well hidden, while giving free rein to his dark and nasty worldview."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/opinion/no-emailgate-is-not-worse-than-watergate.html

Quote

 

Donald J. Trump wasted no time in seizing on the unprecedented letter that the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, sent to Congress on Friday, regarding the bureau’s investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails. “This is bigger than Watergate,” Mr. Trump’s team tweeted just a few hours after the letter was made public.

Really the best to John Dean, but whenever people start a discussion about something Trump said it's going to be screwed up.

Every single time on any serious issue Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, everything he says is a translation via the telephone game, it comes out garbled from the original.

I will say that when Watergate comparisons are made it's not because the 'crimes' are worse or comparable. The comp is in the idea that the FBI was involved. Watergate happened because Mark Felt did not like the way that the FBI director was a Nixon man and wasn't doing anything about the corruption charges while the DOJ sat on the investigation. Felt went to the WaPo as a result, the information went public and Nixon was brought down that way.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

The president has the power, either on his own or by exerting pressure on those who serve at his discretion, to do everything but render a verdict in a criminal case. It's a ridiculous amount of leverage. As I pointed out, Nixon's misuse of law enforcement was one of the Articles of Impeachment.  If you don't understand the danger of a presidential candidate promising to lock up his political opponent and leading chants of the same, I don't know what to tell you.

Your media argument is deeply flawed. No, Donna Brazile and Corey Lewandowski and all the other CNN partisan hacks are not giving us a vital check on government power at all times.  They deserve ridicule.  But the NY Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and many others have done impressive work and are incredibly important to our democracy.  Are you seriously implying that the press isn't a vital check on government power?  Where do you think people got all the information they're using to make their arguments in political threads here, including many of the arguments they make as evidence of Clinton's corruption?  This is a bizarre line of reasoning, which others have articulated (including @Sinn Fein just now) highlights this particular problem with Trumpism. 

I see what you're saying and I don't agree with the executive having such unimaginable power either.  But it's pretty dishonest to pass Clinton off as merely a political opponent.  You act like she's Edward Snowden or something.  She's been a scumbag for a very long time and her chickens are coming home to roost because of it.  You or I would be spending life in prison for the same things she did and I think you know that.

I agree about the press being important, but most mainstream journalism doesn't do its job.  The most troubling thing about this election season is how subservient most major media outlets have been with the administration they were supposedly reporting on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Koya said:

All fair points... it's just a little fishy is all.  That fair to say?

Yes.  It's very convenient for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bud29 said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/on-a-scale-of-1-to-10-how-much-should-democrats-panic/

Good chat here, Silver and the 538 team raise some concerning points if you're in camp Hillary:

-Silver says Trump's chances in MI/WI are underrated. There's been a lack of good polling from there, but the data they have suggests that her lead is fairly small. Black turnout is the x-factor.

-CO has tightened, hence her new ad blitz there.

-The Clinton "firewall" states aren't as solid as people may think. Some are 2-4 points, not 6-8.

-Another one point drop nationally and the race enters the "margin of Brexit."

That is just some horse#### to get people to come to the site.   538 has Clinton with a 75% chance to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Koya said:

To be clear, Trumps despicable theatrics did not, in my opinion, put us at new risk.

Now, will his ties with Russia / Russian business interests put us at risk or, at best, put him in a conflict? Possibly.

And is it reprehensible that someone running for President would encourage such action, and in doing so, contribute to the further decay of our democratic institutions? I'd say we are watching that happen before our eyes.

It just still surprises me how many people are willing to ignore dozens of instances such as this over the past year alone from Trump.  Maybe not surprise anymore.  It does scare me though, honestly.  I've literally never been "scared" of our nation's future.  This last year and last 6 months especially, has changed that.  Which sucks. 

Don't disagree with any of this until the being surprised part.  People in this country have been turning a blind eye to things that contribute to our democratic decay for a very long time. It's going to escalate quickly going forward if we don't wake up and start requiring/demanding better out of our government.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Billy Bats said:

Safe to assume you're posting comfortably from your doomsday bunker today until next Wednesday? My god man get a dog. 

Ha.  When it comes down to it a Trump presidency and Republican Congress would likely have significant benefits for me, at least in relationship to the general population.  Just started a company, heavy Real Estate focus, cap gains, all that.  The anti-semitism Trump is stoking is scary as ####, but doesn't serve him to humor that group once president and while I believe he's a narcissistic #######, I don't believe Trump's especially anti-semitic himself... at least not any more than he hates all people not like him.  Well, and certainly not as bad as the blacks or the hispanics.  But I digress. 

My wife would go apoplectic. Completely.  I mean, peeps on this board think I'm so left (and a Hillary supporter at that)... #### man.  That girl is straight up poor part of Chicago bleeding heart.  Leading a suburban republican lifestyle mind you... she literally is incapable of seeing the inherent hypocrisy.  But she hates me because I'm so republican on the issues and just don't get it.  She also has an inability to critically think. It's what she believes, and that's it. Shocker for a woman, I know.  

My dad's brain would explode.  If he weren't my father, I'd have lost him from Facebook years ago.  He's the mad lefty ranter.  Meme and clickbait of the leftist proportions sharer. As in he reads an Onion article (no kidding, has happened on more than one occasion) and posts that about how crazy Trump and the republicans are. As if you need to make that up, but again I digress. 

 

Locally, the former mayor of my town is going to likely win his Congressional seat, overtaking Steve Israel, with whom I had/have a good relationship (nothing special, but he will take my call, and has been very good for our region for sure, will be missed regardless of your politics around here). So that's mixed but I certainly know the new guy pretty well.  New York is all kinds of ####ed up because of scandals coming to roost, literally at all levels of government... could see a local/state shift to Dem because the Trump backlash is BIGLY around these parts. 

Me though, I'll for real be worried about our nation's future.  At heart, I love freedom. My freedom. Your freedom.   

Having studied freedom and political theory throughout college and the like, and learning about history throughout my life, I know how hard it is to ever gain your freedom.  To re-gain, can not likely be done within one, even two or three generations.  

Freedom is very hard to (re)gain.   But it's incredibly easy to let slip away.  

And honestly, I'll be thinking long and hard about that, and about what maybe I can do to help prevent it from happening... would just hope I'd not be too late.  FWIW, that's no hyperbole, just straight up what I'd be feeling. 

 

 

 

ETA: And I do have two cats - apt so no room for a dog to run around.  Without my cats, in this election, Id have long gone insane. Sometimes, after being forced to deal with Rachel Maddow for an hour by my wife, I just need to grab some p

 

Edited by Koya
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Why is the source relevant to anything?  Personally, I'd much prefer it if our own government was capable of and willing to ferret out this level of unethical behavior, but since it's not, I'm perfectly happy for Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, Russia, CNN, or agents from Mars to do so.  I want our politicians to be ethical and honest, and I want to know about it when they aren't.

It is amazing how so many have done a complete 180 since the glory days of the 1960's and early 70's...Daniel Ellsberg was a hero for leaking info about government BS back in the day...but that was before those who wanted to fight the man became the man...all that matters now to many people is which team you are on and how your team can maintain power and destroy the other guy...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Really?  Even with the voter suppression tactics? 

That said, just terrible polls from NC for Clinton today. Total disaster. There was also an Elon College poll that had her up one taken almost entirely before the Comey letter.  She's in real trouble there.

At this point it looks like a virtual coinflip. Things could swing back her way in a week if the Comey letter fades out, but at the moment I'd only give her the edge in enough states to get to 272.  If she drops any of them she loses.  She could get Nevada and bump up to 278, but that still doesn't insulate her from a loss in any of the Great Lakes states or Colorado.

Don't see it. The Hillary vote is hidden. Not many want to vote for either but trumps base is more vocal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

That is just some horse#### to get people to come to the site.   538 has Clinton with a 75% chance to win.

Not anymore it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see Hillary down in the polls huge in nc so I could write in Bernie or go third party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

That is just some horse#### to get people to come to the site.   538 has Clinton with a 75% chance to win.

Polls-plus model has her losing OH, FL, and NC. Still has her winning 279-259 in the electoral college, but at that point, all it takes is low black turnout in MI for us to be looking at president Trump. That's not a comfortable margin at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BassNBrew said:

Would love to see Hillary down in the polls huge in nc so I could write in Bernie or go third party

There's no way you'll have a real sense of clarity by voting time... but if somehow you do, at least help the Libertarians get to 5% :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.