[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hillary's entire campaign relies on people being so ill-informed they look to slap-stick T.V personalities for political advice! She can't run her campaign on facts or her record in state department.
How is that different than Trump? Cant exactly look to his record as proof of his competence either. And its a whole lot harder to find any definitive information on how he plans on doing anything other than building a wall. Which, given the most recent push back from Mexican politicians, will likely land us in a land ownership struggle with them.
 
I'm just over here wondering, who looks to a satire talk show for objectivity? Expecting Fallon, Colbert, or Steward to ask the "hard questions" is asinine. That's like asking Trump for a straightforward answer. Illogical. You can't even find bipartisan objectivity in mainstream media these days. Sadly you need to go to smaller ventures such as the Rubin Report. Everyone has a side, and everyone wants that side to look better than the other. And this is why you will find Trump doing Faux News interviews, but not so many CNN interviews, and vise versa for Killery.
If you want to know the real facts and what these people really stand for, chances are you yourself are going to have to wade the muddy waters and figure it out yourself, and there is a good chance you will come out of it more confused than when you jumped in.
Doh, you go to reddit and read the top comment to tell you how you should feel, everybody knows that.
 
How is that different than Trump? Cant exactly look to his record as proof of his competence either. And its a whole lot harder to find any definitive information on how he plans on doing anything other than building a wall. Which, given the most recent push back from Mexican politicians, will likely land us in a land ownership struggle with them.

It's not..And.. I didn't imply it was. Hillary and Donnie are peas of the same pod. But the fact that we know what Hillary will do as president doesn't compare with what Trump might do. While I am NOT a Trump supporter in any way, I can't support Hillary either.

Doh, you go to reddit and read the top comment to tell you how you should feel, everybody knows that.
Or Jon Stewart and Steven Cobert...
 
Last edited:
Because personal opinions are biased, so you can't judge someone's objectivity by asking them for personal opinion. This is the third time i have to say that, I feel like you're not replying to me, just stating your own personal agenda using my posts as an excuse.

The point is that Stewart isn't any more bias in those two interviews than he was on the Daily Show. Anyone that's watched a week of his show when he was the host could easily assume who he'd pick between the two. Even if he finds Clinton to be Dick Dastardly in nature. You saying he's less bias cause of a TV show is rational how? Or better yet why does he have to be less bias because of a TV show? And that's not to patronize you just a serious question, and why I've kept reaffirming.

Stewart was plenty tough on his democratic guests(although not all of them - there were some pretty horrible interviews. And although slightly unrelated Cosby is the best example of it. On his show Stewart always acted like Cosby is a god but when news of Cosby allegedly raping those women came out he straight up said "not surprised we all knew Cosby is a piece of ****").

Once again, you seem to step one way then the other, how does this counter my argument? You basically show Stewart covering his own ass, and saying "forget all that hype I gave Cosby while on here, screw that dirty lying rapist" (paraphrasing). Doesn't really show that he's isn't any more bias between the two media forms.

FOX still is by far the most watched network. I think it's just inevitably we're moving towards more liberal ideas as a society, that has been going on for thousands of years.

Eh you mean progressing? We're not moving toward any side, just that of logic, if Liberals want to claim this then fine, but they'd be hard pressed to prove it especially with potential leaders like Clinton.


You're putting your own ideas on me, jumping to conclusions, again. I thought i made it pretty clear that i enjoyed their dismantling of Bush administration because of their ability to attack not just Bush personally, which i think with people like Bush or Trump is impossible to avoid, but also attacked his policies.

Basically what I just said in that quote, not sure what you're trying to back away from at this point. I claimed a perspective of yours through your posts and you pretty much confirm it and yet take issue when I say I think you're liberal in nature, wishing for better material from more liberal leaning comedian personalities. I don't see anywhere in that flow of thought as to why that's a bad thing to you if true, if not true fine but you still have yet to claim that rather just saying let's not talk about it.


Where can I find them?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/george-stephanopoulos-takes-donald-trump-41006295

There is another from 60 minutes with him and his running mate. And it's so poorly prepared that it makes me look like a good student (cause I procrastinate on here rather than doing my work).

I don't really consider news independent, no, I just had higher opinion of Colbert and Oliver, as well as society as a whole.

I got that from your post...I've even said that you saw them in such light, and you've confirmed it to an extent. As I said it's nothing against their character it's just easy to make people laugh from slapstick than make so massive political joke that gets lost in context, which is what Hilary is. Though Trevor Noah has pulled it off quite well in the wake of the DNC bs.

Also you could have easily just squashed all of this when I queried your statement about where we live. I'd assume that I'm right about your perception being New York is primarily liberal and Arizona is primarily conservative. Though I'd quickly inform you for the last 2 elections I could vote I've not found either candidate good and this time as well, and I'm also not anywhere near conservative. As has been seen on this thread I'm libertarian or better yet align more so with ideologies of it.
 
The point is that Stewart isn't any more bias in those two interviews than he was on the Daily Show. Anyone that's watched a week of his show when he was the host could easily assume who he'd pick between the two. Even if he finds Clinton to be Dick Dastardly in nature. You saying he's less bias cause of a TV show is rational how? Or better yet why does he have to be less bias because of a TV show? And that's not to patronize you just a serious question, and why I've kept reaffirming.
Again it's an argument that you constructed. I consider Stewart to be someone who makes an effort to provide an impartial coverage. Whether that is correct is irrelevant here - interviews where he expresses his personal opinion have no weight on it.

Once again, you seem to step one way then the other, how does this counter my argument? You basically show Stewart covering his own ass, and saying "forget all that hype I gave Cosby while on here, screw that dirty lying rapist" (paraphrasing). Doesn't really show that he's isn't any more bias between the two media forms.

Why does this have to counter your argument? I am merely expressing my viewpoint and in some cases it might align with yours.

Eh you mean progressing? We're not moving toward any side, just that of logic, if Liberals want to claim this then fine, but they'd be hard pressed to prove it especially with potential leaders like Clinton.

I didnt mean liberal as in the party, i meant liberal in the literal sense of the word.

Basically what I just said in that quote, not sure what you're trying to back away from at this point. I claimed a perspective of yours through your posts and you pretty much confirm it and yet take issue when I say I think you're liberal in nature, wishing for better material from more liberal leaning comedian personalities. I don't see anywhere in that flow of thought as to why that's a bad thing to you if true, if not true fine but you still have yet to claim that rather just saying let's not talk about it.

No, you've constructed an opinion of me and arguing with your own construct instead of addressing my words. Somehow in this thread just because i said i respect/ed those liberal pundits and thought that they, within limits, aspired for an impartial coverage I became a liberal madman who thinks Stewart is a god with no flaws and I only ever got my news from him. You can respect your mother's political integrity but that doesn't mean you only get your information from her.

I think your complete misunderstanding of my Cosby quote shows that rather well. You're not interested in listening to what I have to say you merely want a chance to go "told you so."


I don't see anywhere in that flow of thought as to why that's a bad thing to you if true, if not true fine but you still have yet to claim that rather just saying let's not talk about it.

Because I specifically said I want a more serious and impartial discussion about policies from pundits which i respected. You saying that it entitles "making fun of trump for more than his hair" is your construct not mine. If you think that's what more serious discussion on policies means that's your problem not mine.

Also you could have easily just squashed all of this when I queried your statement about where we live. I'd assume that I'm right about your perception being New York is primarily liberal and Arizona is primarily conservative. Though I'd quickly inform you for the last 2 elections I could vote I've not found either candidate good and this time as well, and I'm also not anywhere near conservative. As has been seen on this thread I'm libertarian or better yet align more so with ideologies of it.
Squashed what? What are you talking about? It was a joke.
 
Last edited:
Again it's an argument that you constructed. I consider Stewart to be someone who makes an effort to provide an impartial coverage. Whether that is correct is irrelevant here - interviews where he expresses his personal opinion have no weight on it.

Constructed based on the narrative of you saying he was objective to begin with, and then saying after my first post to you that he was more objective than any interview. As if his personal bias wasn't on display when doing the show. Let me make it simple he thought both parties were stupid then and he still does, with the left just being that little bit less stupid than the right. And sure there is an argument to be made there.

Why does this have to counter your argument? I am merely expressing my viewpoint and in some cases it might align with yours.

Because of the context you were posting it in to a point that was opposite of yours. If you actually agreed, just say so. Cuts down on the clutter.

I didnt mean liberal as in the party, i meant liberal in the literal sense of the word.

There is a liberal party? I mean this is news to me, cause I too am using it as a sense of persons political views not party, if I wanted to specify party I'd do so and have done so during this discussion.

No, you've constructed an opinion of me and arguing with your own construct instead of addressing my words. Somehow in this thread just because i said i respect/ed those liberal pundits and thought that they, within limits, aspired for an impartial coverage I became a liberal madman who thinks Stewart is a god with no flaws and I only ever got my news from him. You can respect your mother's political integrity but that doesn't mean you only get your information from her.

Wow I mean if I actually said all that then I could see why you'd be upset, no where did I say or imply that. Simply I saw you just wishing to see the glory days of when a liberal pundit knew how to tear into a republican dope with finesse. Once again you're just backing away from the simple question after I made my claim, and doing so once again with hyperbole about how I'm going about all this. I've only used the material you've given me to make said claim, I'm not adding anything. If the analysis had no merit I don't believe we'd be still discussing this.

I don't get the last line...I'm dumb so can you break it down?

I think your complete misunderstanding of my Cosby quote shows that rather well. You're not interested in listening to what I have to say you merely want a chance to go "told you so."

No, your Cosby quote once again states that Jon Stewart saw the guy as something great, then when news broke about it pretended that it wasn't the case and said screw that guy. Rather than saying "hey I liked the guy but this isn't acceptable and I can't vouch for him anymore". Instead he pretends to all along have known the guy was crap. When people are actual crap to him, and go on his show, he'd call them out as you said. So what made Cosby special, other than Stewart's bias? If you agree with this then it basically voids us having this discussion at all because yes it would show he's no more bias on his show then a personal interview.



Squashed what? What are you talking about? It was a joke.

A riveting one at that.
 
Because of the context you were posting it in to a point that was opposite of yours. If you actually agreed, just say so. Cuts down on the clutter.
I literally made a counterpoint and then said "ALTHOUGH" and made a clarifying remark. I'm sorry buddy it doesn't get any clearer than that.

I think you feel your TV media heroes could do more to stress how stupid Trump is than the same run on joke about his hair for the past two decades.

This is what you said. When i said that i woulda wanted more objectivity this was your response. In the first post you made. You might have whatever opinion you want to hold about Stewart or Oliver or Colbert but what grounds do you have to say that objectivity in my opinion means stressing how stupid Trump is. Sorry buddy, again, I've had enough of you making up things about me and then asking me why i dont wanna argue about them. Because YOU made them up. I've never seen a worst case of constructing a strawman. You literally trying to tell me what my opinions are. You're arguing with yourself so carry on.
 
Last edited:
I literally made a counterpoint and then said "ALTHOUGH" and made a clarifying remark. I'm sorry buddy it doesn't get any more clear than that.

Okay buddy. I mean you said there were some horrible interviews with the although, you never made a parallel between that statement and your point about Cosby. Which is why I said you "SEEM TO" be saying one thing and then meaning another, but the seem to highlights that I could be interpreting it wrong since contrary to your belief I am trying to give respect to your phrasing.

This is what you said. When i said that i woulda wanted more objectivity this was your response. In the first post you made. You might have whatever opinion you want to hold about Stewart or Oliver or Colbert but what grounds do you have to say that objectivity in my opinion means stressing how stupid Trump is. Sorry buddy, again, I've had enough of you making up things about me and then asking me why i dont wanna argue about them. Because YOU made them up. I've never seen a worst case of constructing a strawman. You literally trying to tell me what my opinions are. You're arguing with yourself so carry on.

Simple you only enjoyed or at least mentioned it as the key point and then onward through the course of this discussion, how they dismantled Bush admin. Yet those same people of now, are doing a horrid or childish job in regards to Trump. I say stupid cause I think Trump is in fact a pr genius with stupid goals as a political leader, and stupid notions about getting to said political goals.

I didn't make anything up, I find it quite strange that you're going to cop out claim I'm making something up and instead of just saying "no I'm not liberal sorry if you got that vibe" or whatever, you take it as some great insult to your character. Once again I'm not the one that made the claim of being unsatisfied with the current pundits you mentioned being so obviously subjective in comparison to to ten years ago with Bush, when they were more on point with their critiques.

All I've claimed is you've come across a bit liberal in context, once again if that's not you say so, if it is then why is that a bad thing when I claim why I see you enjoyed that frame of time to now?
 
I'm sorry buddy...

Okay buddy. ..

83e.jpg
 
Looking at this poll at the time of this post I can't help but feel this is exactly how the race will pan out. I don't believe the percentages will look like this on election day but inevitably we are left with another Clinton in office.
 
Watching The Donald Trump Rally in Michigan, I enjoy this election very very much, eating snacks and drinking beer, it so much better entertaining(entertainment? dunno which word fits best :P) then anything else on the net/tv, ever. But we all know that who ever wins will not matter, it still will not change anything... But reacted about his speech about deporting those immigrants. My stance is, if you do it maybe you should also depart every non Native American too. But there is no place for you here :P
 
Last edited:
The phrase "choose your battles" springs to mind:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...on-former-beauty-queen-alicia-machado/7894912

What, exactly, did Trump think he would get from attacking Machado? It was only ever going to dig him deeper into a hole that he couldn't get out of. And of all the ways that he could have done it, taking to Twitter at three in the morning was probably the worst way imaginable.
 
The phrase "choose your battles" springs to mind:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...on-former-beauty-queen-alicia-machado/7894912

What, exactly, did Trump think he would get from attacking Machado? It was only ever going to dig him deeper into a hole that he couldn't get out of. And of all the ways that he could have done it, taking to Twitter at three in the morning was probably the worst way imaginable.

One he wasn't thinking, cause he's hoping to be the new trend of president where social media is the work horse. He runs about with no filter, and those who agreed to help him seem to be okay with him acting stupid at 3 am.

Two this is another move on Clinton campaign behalf before this all started to under ride Trump. So hopefully Trump group starts doing the same or it's going to be an easy fight for Clinton soon.

It's disappointing cause they have equal baggage but only one of them is utilizing it better in this moment, I don't doubt there is some claim to this on her behalf, but you do have to wonder if she was supposedly so well manipulated by Trump, how can it be ignored that she is now being manipulated in the present by the Clinton camp for political gain. If her story is true, Clinton isn't using it to show she'll improve this area of politics.
 
those who agreed to help him seem to be okay with him acting stupid at 3 am
And what about those who want to vote for him? If he is this easily baited on Twitter, how on earth can he be presidential? He was never going to gain anything from the attack on Machado.

If her story is true, Clinton isn't using it to show she'll improve this area of politics.
If she has used it to disprove Trump's claim of having the right temperament to be president, then I would say that it's an improvement.
 
And what about those who want to vote for him? If he is this easily baited on Twitter, how on earth can he be presidential? He was never going to gain anything from the attack on Machado.

You already know what I think about those who want to vote for him. Also why are you still approaching any of this was some sense of rational thinking? Liking save yourself the thought I was going to say something similar about being presidential but I didn't cause I don't think any of them knows what that means.


If she has used it to disprove Trump's claim of having the right temperament to be president, then I would say that it's an improvement.

I wouldn't cause if you're still on this notion that Hillary is some how better because of uncertainty in a Trump presidency in many areas like this...then it's faulty logic. Because we know how she'll act and it's not very favorable to the plight of the lady she is using as political fodder for her personal gains. If in fact she did have actual care in helping minorities then I'd expect to see this in her track record, but that's not so.
 
I wouldn't cause if you're still on this notion that Hillary is some how better because of uncertainty in a Trump presidency in many areas like this...then it's faulty logic.
Trump was the one to claim that he had the right temperament to be president. If Clinton bringing up Machado was a cynical ploy, then job done - politics is a cynical business in the first place. How can Trump claim to have the right temperament when he is so easily baited into a Twitter fight on a subject that is a week old and which he was never going to win? How does that bode for a Trump presidency trying to deal with Russia, China and Iran?
 
Trump was the one to claim that he had the right temperament to be president. If Clinton bringing up Machado was a cynical ploy, then job done - politics is a cynical business in the first place. How can Trump claim to have the right temperament when he is so easily baited into a Twitter fight on a subject that is a week old and which he was never going to win? How does that bode for a Trump presidency trying to deal with Russia, China and Iran?

I already said job well done on the political comeuppances to Trump's ego. Russia seems to love Trump, Iran who knows neither have really talked on length about it, and China let's not go down that path, too many youtube videos of him just saying CHYINA! We know he doesn't have the right temperament, he has no viable claim for this any more than she does about being honest.

On a side note to this...

I don't really give any care to the bs behind the scenes of this, which is where I'm trying to take this conversation and where it should be if one actually cares about the invested future of that nation I live in. I don't care what politics is, what I care about and venture many others that are actually voting and have some minimal weight in this is that if cynical ploys are all that matter neither deserve this, ever. You've taken my point as a fight in the corner of Hilary, and just like when Church defends Trump I have to scratch my head over it. Why do either of these idiots deserve your defense, like really I'd appreciate at least one of you going at length on why.

Cause when I see you or him or anyone else post a single thing that clearly doesn't show the other sides idiocy, it's all to obvious where your tendencies lay. And you could have people like Dhalism who come in drop a line then get bitter when asked but the point stands. The subject matter here is quite serious to some of us, even if those vying for office don't see it as such themselves. Yes, it's fun to watch the world burn politically and I've claimed it myself, but some time you take a step back and realize...I might be screwed.
 
I already said job well done on the political comeuppances to Trump's ego. Russia seems to love Trump, Iran who knows neither have really talked on length about it, and China let's not go down that path, too many youtube videos of him just saying CHYINA! We know he doesn't have the right temperament, he has no viable claim for this any more than she does about being honest.
</Quote>
I may be wrong here... But I think you two may be arguing the same point.
<Quote>
Cause when I see you or him or anyone else post a single thing that clearly doesn't show the other sides idiocy, it's all to obvious where your tendencies lay. And you could have people like Dhalism who come in drop a line then get bitter when asked but the point stands. The subject matter here is quite serious to some of us, even if those vying for office don't see it as such themselves. Yes, it's fun to watch the world burn politically and I've claimed it myself, but some time you take a step back and realize...I might be screwed.
If I am writing a post about one or the other, why is there a requirement to acknowledge the other? And why would you assume that just because a person doesn't include one or the other, they are on their side? There is a saying about making assumptions.
 
If I am writing a post about one or the other, why is there a requirement to acknowledge the other? And why would you assume that just because a person doesn't include one or the other, they are on their side? There is a saying about making assumptions.

Well other than the fact there is evidence that allows me to, so as far as being clever with the assumptions part it wasn't. Why it's a requirement to me is people tend to be arbiters of the information they post here and other places in regards to this topic, and if one is going to do such they should do so with equal measure. If it weren't for posting trends, and a poll up above that shows who each and everyone picked to give some credience to why they're having said posting trends. Then I wouldn't be so apt to make a call that they didn't simply pick Clinton cause the hue of Trumps skin is too close that of an oompa loompa or that they picked Trump cause Clinton reminds them of their mother in law.

There are people even in the other category that show what side they'd pick if the candidate were better, for example certain Bernie supporters on here. And so forth. One can easily pick apart things and come to conclusions words aren't so limited and concrete so why it's an issue is what I rather address. Why is me feeling that a person who continually posts and questions one candidate in some regards to actually caring about the politics of my country, an issue when I bring it up and then ask why they do such and what does it matter to them personally?
 
The soo called progressive she labelled her self in the Primarys is also catered for the Centre left, Centre Right Crowd as well.

She loves playing the moderate card when she can get away with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back