[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[BobK]

So, in other words, he wasn't impeached. We can do this all day.
I'm not defending him. You can say he was impeached, they ruled him to be impeached. But he finished his term. Impeachment failed...

Impeachment is like indictment. He was indicted, so was Johnson. The fact that in neither case did the Senate vote to remove him from office doesn't mean they weren't impeached. If he wasn't impeached the Senate would never have conducted a trial.

 

[Danoff]

If I change it to they never finished impeaching him will y'all be happy?

No, because they did. Impeachment does not mean removal from office. And just because you think it does doesn't mean that the rest of us are playing with words. It's a strange word with a very specific meaning. The House impeaches, the Senate removes from office. In the case of Clinton the House impeached (successfully, completely) and the Senate did not subsequently remove him from office. He was impeached.

 

[ryzno]

Touche. After reading a few different definitions.

Still a messed up system. Found guilty, but you can keep your job. Only in the government.

 

[McLaren]

The people voting for Trump should be ashamed of themselves. Never in my life have I seen such a racist and bigoted man.

The whole "Mexicans are rapists" thing springs to mind.

Is that why BlackLivesMatter has asked Hillary to apologize over the whole "super predators" comments when she talked about inner city gangs, which are mainly black youth?

You both fail to see your complaints swing both ways, in which both cases, the speeches can easily be taken out of context. But, of course, when asked for evidence, Prisoner just threw out the ol' "Mexicans are rapists" line, therefore it's true.

Here, @Chrunch Houston, is what was really said.

“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. […] When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you; they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.”

And it only makes common sense, it only makes common sense: they’re sending us not the right people, and it’s coming from more than Mexico, it’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably, probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know because we have no protection, and we have no competence. We don’t know what’s happening. And it’s gotta stop. And it’s gotta stop fast.”

The worst part of this more or less, assuming most of them have crime-related issues. But, it's not racist. It doesn't say all Mexicans anywhere. It's specifically targeted at illegal immigrants, not Mexicans in Mexico, not legal Mexicans in the US.

When Hillary was asked what enemy she was most proud of, she included Iranians. She's proud to be the enemy of 77 million Iranians? It appears that way in plain terms, but there's more meaning behind it. You could cherry pick these instances with Sanders as well.

 

[DDastardly00]

And so it begins.... the Democrats have the dirtiest ground game around, they will rig whatever they can get their pudgy little facist hands on. If past elections provide a window into the current one, then you can expect a lot of this is going on:

http://www.empowertexans.com/around...-in-texas-history-underway-in-tarrant-county/

 

[TenEightyOne]

And so it begins.... the Democrats have the dirtiest ground game around, they will rig whatever they can get their pudgy little facist hands on. If past elections provide a window into the current one, then you can expect a lot of this is going on:

http://www.empowertexans.com/around...-in-texas-history-underway-in-tarrant-county/

But it always returns a Republican vote, no? And 20,000 potential votes awry in a population of nearly two million is wrong but hardly on a huge scale.

That article seems to be guessing a bit;

Since the AG began their investigation into this matter, it’s possible additional evidence has been collected to suggest that more crimes have been committed by an even larger number of suspects beyond what Harris uncovered. But specific details surrounding the AG’s investigation have not yet been made public.

 

[huskeR32]

And so it begins.... the Democrats have the dirtiest ground game around, they will rig whatever they can get their pudgy little facist hands on. If past elections provide a window into the current one, then you can expect a lot of this is going on:

http://www.empowertexans.com/around...-in-texas-history-underway-in-tarrant-county/

Can you point me to any evidence at all that this alleged fraud was perpetrated specifically by Democrats? I read the article several times and didn't see anything to that effect.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If he said that thing on the same time he wanted to built a Mexico wall during his presidential speech 8 months ago (?), that would be valid. Digging around stuff he did 10 years ago is just really desperate, no matter how much i dislike Trump.

I just try to be objective. Which is why Trump Twitter account is useful to track on

Once again it's not desperate, that cop out statement would mean that things the Clinton's did 20 years ago wouldn't matter. Sexual allegations against Bill wouldn't matter, you can't pick and choose what matters and doesn't matter. Every bad piece of info on these people should be analyzed with the same yard stick, when you don't then you're actually the opposite of objective.

Also Trump doesn't help the case against him being a womanizer at best and a sexual predator at worst, when he claims that the person accusing him of verbal abuse against her, supposedly has a sex tape. Seems to just be a digging yourself a deeper hole, but that's what Trump does best.

Is that why BlackLivesMatter has asked Hillary to apologize over the whole "super predators" comments when she talked about inner city gangs, which are mainly black youth?

You both fail to see your complaints swing both ways, in which both cases, the speeches can easily be taken out of context. But, of course, when asked for evidence, Prisoner just threw out the ol' "Mexicans are rapists" line, therefore it's true.

Here, @Chrunch Houston, is what was really said.

The worst part of this more or less, assuming most of them have crime-related issues. But, it's not racist. It doesn't say all Mexicans anywhere. It's specifically targeted at illegal immigrants, not Mexicans in Mexico, not legal Mexicans in the US.

When Hillary was asked what enemy she was most proud of, she included Iranians. She's proud to be the enemy of 77 million Iranians? It appears that way in plain terms, but there's more meaning behind it. You could cherry pick these instances with Sanders as well.

This was all the more apparent when he defended Clinton for bringing up the woman she brought to bury Trump, and then Trump did the same thing. He was fine calling it a political tool, when Donald did it and hated it but Clinton double standard doesn't hold. Just like other stuff that he (PM) does with questionable status, this isn't going to go far. I'd believe he was a troll if I hadn't been reading what he posts on two separate sites for a some years now.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is that why BlackLivesMatter has asked Hillary to apologize over the whole "super predators" comments when she talked about inner city gangs, which are mainly black youth?

The question was specifically about Trump. I answered in kind. For you to then bring up Clinton is a case of moving the goalposts after the fact.

 

[DDastardly00]

Can you point me to any evidence at all that this alleged fraud was perpetrated specifically by Democrats? I read the article several times and didn't see anything to that effect.

No specific evidence is available for public viewing since the investigation is still underway, I can guarantee there are no republican vote harvesters walking around Minority neighborhoods harvesting votes though. We'll know more when the investigation concludes, this is ongoing.

 

[huskeR32]

No specific evidence is available

Ya don't say...

I can guarantee there are no republican vote harvesters walking around Minority neighborhoods harvesting votes though.

You're probably right about that. They've gerrymandered this country enough to make that a pointless endeavor.

 

[samurai8juice]

What on earth are you going on about?

The situation really isn't like the Weimar republic in the 1920's, because economic circumstances in the US today aren't remotely as bad as they were in Germany at that time. It's Trump & the alt-right media that have promoted the idea of a wildly dystopian present, but it's an image that doesn't bear much resemblance to reality.

Yeah it's not at all like the Weimar Republic, but hypothetically speaking, if the USD doesn't have reserve currency status with the ability to shoot money out of confetti cannons, than how we would be?

Arguably 2009-2016 was an economic recovery built on sand; massive spending, a massive deficit, and the same people on Wall Street playing the same unregulated game they were playing 8 years ago, who didn't learn their lesson after putting the entire world into economic ruin and uncertainty.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No specific evidence is available for public viewing since the investigation is still underway,

Yes there is. There definitely is. That's the sum of the facts as currently published and the allegations, also as currently published.

We'll know more when the investigation concludes, this is ongoing.

Yup.

I can guarantee there are no republican vote harvesters walking around Minority neighborhoods harvesting votes though

Source required. I say you can't.

Yeah it's not at all like the Weimar Republic, but hypothetically speaking, if the USD doesn't have reserve currency status with the ability to shoot money out of confetti cannons, than how we would be?

Not the Weimar Republic, that's for sure.

Arguably 2009-2016 was an economic recovery built on sand; massive spending, a massive deficit, and the same people on Wall Street playing the same unregulated game they were playing 8 years ago, who didn't learn their lesson after putting the entire world into economic ruin and uncertainty.

And yet Trump, he who is Wall Street Lobbying personified, is still visible in the polls.

 

[DDastardly00]

Ya don't say...

Under investigation means exactly that, you'll have to wait for it to conclude like every one else.

 

[huskeR32]

Under investigation means exactly that, you'll have to wait for it to conclude like every one else.

But while the rest of us are waiting, you're going to just toss stuff like this around?

And so it begins.... the Democrats have the dirtiest ground game around, they will rig whatever they can get their pudgy little facist hands on

Okay then.

 

[Danoff]

The FBI was bribed to downgrade the classification of Clinton's emails. Didn't take the bribe.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...o-declassify-hillary-email-documents-say.html

 

[DDastardly00]

But while the rest of us are waiting, you're going to just toss stuff like this around?



Okay then.

Sure I am, by the time the evidence is presented the cake will be fully baked anyway, meaning you'll have your corrupt elitist leader in the White House, congrats on selling your soul.

 

[huskeR32]

Sure I am, by the time the evidence is presented the cake will be fully baked anyway, meaning you'll have you corrupt elitist leader in the White House, congrats on selling your soul.

 

[McLaren]

The question was specifically about Trump. I answered in kind. For you to then bring up Clinton is a case of moving the goalposts after the fact.

You mean much like you deleting the rest of my post that demonstrates both sides being taken out context?

Nevermind the fact you didn't actually answer the question because you were wrong to begin with; he never said that. But, you would know that if you weren't incapable of picking what you wanted to respond to. No wonder you believe Trump thinks Mexicans are rapists.

This was all the more apparent when he defended Clinton for bringing up the woman she brought to bury Trump, and then Trump did the same thing. He was fine calling it a political tool, when Donald did it and hated it but Clinton double standard doesn't hold. Just like other stuff that he (PM) does with questionable status, this isn't going to go far. I'd believe he was a troll if I hadn't been reading what he posts on two separate sites for a some years now.

The answer to this is clear, then.



Hamilton's fault.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You mean much like you deleting the rest of my post that demonstrates both sides being taken out context?

No, I just quoted the part that I read. When it became clear that you were moving the goalposts, I stopped reading.

 

[McLaren]

No, I just quoted the part that I read. When it became clear that you were moving the goalposts, I stopped reading.

It's hilarious how you don't see the irony in that. You claim I'm moving goal posts whilst you completely take Trump's speech out of context to achieve the notion he thinks all Mexicans are rapists.

Stop and actually read my post. I brought up Clinton's case and immediately made note that her speech like Trump's, could be taken out of context. They both made what could appear racist remarks, but weren't if you actually listen/read the entire exchange.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

.



Hamilton's fault.

Damn you did it, bravo this is correct.

The FBI was bribed to downgrade the classification of Clinton's emails. Didn't take the bribe.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...o-declassify-hillary-email-documents-say.html

You can't post that here, clearly false

 

[DDastardly00]

Alan Schulkin Commissioner of Board Elections on Voter Fraud. Refute it, go ahead I dare you to.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

(Yeah bit juvenile, but I chuckled....... )

 

[Sanji Himura]

This was in response to a recent poll that someone did that showed that Americans cared about Donald's comments. Here are the Goggle search trends that prove otherwise. (Data will default to the last 7 days, but you can expand it to the last 30 days and it will tell you largely the same thing. It was largely dead across all terms until you reach the 2nd of October.) Naughty, Naughty, MSM.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=now 7-d&q=wikileaks,trump pussy,trump women,trump allegations

 

[TenEightyOne]

This was in response to a recent poll that someone did that showed that Americans cared about Donald's comments. Here are the Goggle search trends that prove otherwise. (Data will default to the last 7 days, but you can expand it to the last 30 days and it will tell you largely the same thing. It was largely dead across all terms until you reach the 2nd of October.)

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=now 7-d&q=wikileaks,trump pussy,trump women,trump allegations

That doesn't show 'largely dead' at all the graph is shown with the highest peak (Wikileaks, driven by Podesta searches) at 100%. What's surprising about that?

There's a huge surge in interest as the Trump Bush tape becomes known. Make of that what you will... but I don't see that your claim is backed up in that data.

Naughty, Naughty, MSM.

Really? Does Trump suffer with arthritis now?

In other news, and in a pre-Presidential joke that just keeps on giving, "Trump was led by Bush". No surprises there.

 

[Sanji Himura]

That doesn't show 'largely dead' at all the graph is shown with the highest peak (Wikileaks, driven by Podesta searches) at 100%. What's surprising about that?

I was referring to the time prior to Oct. 2, meaning that all of the data prior to that date is irrelevant because Wikileaks wasn't in the news cycle. That is when the Wikileaks term started its uptick, climbing to 100 on the 4th when the Podesta emails were starting to be released.

There's a huge surge in interest as the Trump Bush tape becomes known. Make of that what you will... but I don't see that your claim is backed up in that data.

So close, and yet so far. The point is that while the Trump tapes did create a surge in interest, it didn't generate enough to overshadow Wikileaks in the search trends. Then again, it may be because that I have crap internet, and can't see WHERE the search trends in a particular region, so I can only limit what I say to worldwide terms.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump continues to insist that the election is being rigged by the media:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-18/donald-trump-warns-of-rigged-us-election/7941412

Perhaps he would be well served to shut up for five minutes. He gains the most ground when he's quietest (or talking the one issue that he's strongest on, trade). He doesn't seem to understand that if he wants to change the narrative, he has to let the story talk hold in the public consciousness. The revelations of the FBI being pressured to drop the investigation into Clinton have the potential to be explosive, but here he is blustering about with unsubstantiated accusations of widespread voter fraud and coming into conflict with the likes of Paul Ryan again.

Is it really such a mystery as to why pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stories aren't taking hold?

 

[FoRiZon]

Is it really such a mystery as to why pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stories aren't taking hold?

Clinton's controversy took more explanation than Trump did. His sensationalist publicity gave him popularity because no publicity is a negative publicity.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Perhaps he would be well served to shut up for five minutes. He gains the most ground when he's quietest (or talking the one issue that he's strongest on, trade). He doesn't seem to understand that if he wants to change the narrative, he has to let the story talk hold in the public consciousness. The revelations of the FBI being pressured to drop the investigation into Clinton have the potential to be explosive,...

Amen!

...but here he is blustering about with unsubstantiated accusations of widespread voter fraud and coming into conflict with the likes of Paul Ryan again.

He is not talking about voter fraud. He is talking about the news media.

In fact, it is the news media that is trying to create the narrative that Trump is talking about local election officials (such dangerous rhetoric) when he is clearly calling them out.

Watch as Newt Gingrich tries to explain Trump's position, and the the interviewer keeps trying push the conversation towards voter fraud.