[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The point is, we don't know if Russia is influencing the election, but we are absolutely sure that Assange is doing it (howbeit indirectly). For every email that is put out by Wikileaks, we are that much sure that Hillary is a corporate fraud.

Why are you repeating me? I just said we don't know that...and since we don't it makes it all the worse that a candidate or they're affiliated group is suggesting such. For the rest of your post, I don't think you'll find a lack of people on here saying the same. Many of us agree Hillary has made illegal moves, the FBI claimed to an extent she did but not enough to prosecute and now they're again going back because of more evidence. So yes obviously that alone should be a big warning light to those who are still undecided.

 

[Milouse]

the FBI claimed to an extent she did but not enough to prosecute and now they're again going back because of more evidence

Slight precision, we don't know if the FBI has read the emails yet.

 

[Biggles]

All I just read was a bunch of gibberish that acts like Putin is trying to pull a Hitler. Much like Ten, just another poster that believes Putin & Hillary aren't really at tension with one another. Hilarious that it's the same 3 peeps who like each others posts and misconstrue replies to all push the same narrative about Trump.

You're mad because you only have 2 peeps liking your posts? I'm sure someone will step in to help you out.

I guess it's a bunch of gibberish ... if you consider the annexation of the Crimea gibberish.

International realpolitik generally does manifest itself as tension between different countries with competing interests. It's pretty much inevitable. Ideally, those tensions can be resolved by careful diplomacy - like, for instance, the nuclear arms deal with Iran. But diplomacy doesn't seem to be Trump's strong suit.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I actually did answer it.

I'd hardly call that an answer. You dismissed the point as being based purely on his attitude, but his rhetoric displays a complete lack of understanding about the issues - case in point, the rambling word salad that he offered up when asked about cyber security in the first debate.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Slight precision, we don't know if the FBI has read the emails yet.

Clearly there is something they have to have read hence re-opening an investigation. Also why would the FBI detail their investigation...

This is part of the reason why people on both sides are a bit irate that the FBI is doing it in such a public manner so close to the election date.

Ooooooohh. Weiner's ex-wife was a Clinton aide. That explains it. I had been wondering how Weiner actually had any link to Clinton. CNN kept mentioning her name when they were talking about it yesterday but not saying why that was relevant.

They expected you to have watched their network nearly 24/7 since the get go of the Clinton fall out. You should have known like the rest of the world...would be what CNN says. Hence why they were one of the big "he didn't know Allepo!!!"

 

[McLaren]

I'd hardly call that an answer. You dismissed the point as being based purely on his attitude, but his rhetoric displays a complete lack of understanding about the issues - case in point, the rambling word salad that he offered up when asked about cyber security in the first debate.

Well perhaps next time, I'll instead delete his whole debate altogether and thrown in an excuse as that I simply have too many notifications to answer, despite actually responding. I'm sure that will sit better coming out of your playbook instead.

Your cute series of posts trying to bust my chops is over, since you're offering no actual discussion to partake.

 

[Milouse]

Clearly there is something they have to have read hence re-opening an investigation. Also why would the FBI detail their investigation...

I just saw that:

When FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, agents had not been able to review any of the material, because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.

from https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wr...re-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I just saw that:

from https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wr...re-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

Yes and Biden himself said the same thing as far as he knew. That doesn't mean Comey didn't see something worth re-opening the investigation. You don't just randomly reopen investigations unless you have reason because of new evidence, or believable proof from an informant. It's hard to believe that they had no insight at all on what these emails said, despite already investigating Anthony Weiner on said allegations and emails...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Your cute series of posts trying to bust my chops is over, since you're offering no actual discussion to partake.

Really? I just pointed out an example of how Trump's rhetoric highlights his lack of understanding, which you consciously chose to ignore while trying to claim the moral high ground.

 

[McLaren]

Really? I just pointed out an example of how Trump's rhetoric highlights his lack of understanding, which you consciously chose to ignore while trying to claim the moral high ground.

Hey, just following by your example when you consciously chose to ignore my post as well by only replying to the underlined. 👍

So we've gone from "I can't reply in 3 hours" to "I have too many notifications".

Your latest post after my reply was just 2 posts down from it, but I'm guessing you just "didn't see it." I'll help you out since you continued on your whole, "Assange is trying to influence the outcome" replying to LMSCorvetteGT2.

2) To continue to support Assange's asylum claim and condone his actions in publishing the e-mails, which would therefore make them a foreign government openly trying to influence the outcome of the election.

Corruption that reveals the Saudi family has reportedly funded 20% of Hillary's campaign to become President, despite the fact a foreign countries are prohibited from influencing elections by funding candidates?

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our "Foreign Nationals" brochure.

According to the Federal Election Commission, political candidates are not allowed to receive campaign donations from foreign nationals. Foreign nationals include: foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations, partnerships, persons with foreign citizenship, and non-permanent resident immigrants. Permanent residents, or "green card" holders, may donate to political candidates.

Seems pretty much the same by your logic. Maybe 1 step further will do it.

Scott Foval was immediately removed following this video, but it's clear as day; Foval admits in the video he is linked to the DNC & Hillary's campaign team. The video reveals that not only does his group pay people to actively disrupt Trump rallies, but coordinate and train them how to do so. People in the video gleefully admitting, "Yeah, that was us!" Foval admits that they even pay homeless people to do whatever they want in exchange for dinner & a shower. There is a point where Foval says they have a double blind so the campaign/DNC can deny they knew anything about it. At another, he says they have a tactic called Birdogging to disrupt rallies; an e-mail leaked shows a Hillary's campaign manager suggests it might be a tactic to employ to gain support from Hispanics.

Once again, you point out 1 side as unacceptable, but conveniently somehow miss that the opposing side is just as guilty. What's more is that your claims are nothing but assumption against Ecudaor/Assange that you deem as "influencing", whilst there's a lot more evidence linked to the Dems doing the same.

Assange's e-mails are bringing forth the wrong doings of our current government, but you seem more worried about what he's doing, rather than what he's revealing.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hey, just following by your example when you consciously chose to ignore my post as well by only replying to the underlined.

You can go tit-for-tat, or you can claim the moral high ground. You cannot have it boths ways. Since you've chosen tit-for-tat, you have no cause to be outraged when people point out that you haven't answered their questions.

 

[Dotini]

Thousands of deleted Hillary server emails found under warrant by the FBI on Huma Abedin's laptop were in a file labeled Life Insurance, according to reports. One way to understand this is that Abedin, fearful of being dumped or otherwise liquidated by HRC, stole the emails in an effort to protect herself. Smart lady, but now she's lost her life insurance. The present location of Abedin is unknown.

 

[Scaff]

Two requests please (and yes this is moderation):

1. Cut out the personal attacks and digs at each other.
2. If you make a claim then source it, too many claims are being made (on both sides) with zero sources provided and the end result is a conversation that descending into point 1.

Those who fail to meet these basic requests will find that moderation action may well result in you taking a holiday until the election is over.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's squeaky bum time for the Clinton campaign - somehow I think that Clinton will still win quite comfortably, but she is lucky that her opponent is so awful and that many people will refuse to vote for Trump just because he is so far beyond the pale... they may not vote for Clinton either, but that is a bigger problem for Trump than it is for Hillary.

Still, what does it say about the calibre of each candidate when they are both flailing around, unable to deliver a knock-out blow to each other when it should be easy... the fact that neither can take the moral high ground and trounce the other is a clear indication of just how bad they both are - but the fact that both Clinton and Trump won their nomination battles so easily is a damning indictment of US politics today.

 

[Dennisch]

Thousands of deleted Hillary server emails found under warrant by the FBI on Huma Abedin's laptop were in a file labeled Life Insurance, according to reports. One way to understand this is that Abedin, fearful of being dumped or otherwise liquidated by HRC, stole the emails in an effort to protect herself. Smart lady, but now she's lost her life insurance. The present location of Abedin is unknown.

Trump said it were 650000 emails, or the Motherload.

Abedin will probably commit suicide by a couple of bullets in the back of her head.

 

[PeterJB]

What happens if neither Trump nor Clinton win 26 states? Is there some kind of coalition system like we have in the UK?

 

[Dennisch]

What happens if neither Trump nor Clinton win 26 states? Is there some kind of coalition system like we have in the UK?

If neither candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the house of representatives gets to pick the president.

 

[PeterJB]

And since it's currently a republican majority that wold sure swing it in Trump's favour.

 

[ryzno]

What happens if neither Trump nor Clinton win 26 states? Is there some kind of coalition system like we have in the UK?

They don't need to win 26 states, they need the vote of at least 270 delegates. Which Hillary's campaign claims she already has. And as you saw with Bernie Sanders, you can win a state and lose the delegates. Here in Georgia, whoever wins by 50%+1 vote gets all the delegates. It's confusing and varies by state.

 

[Famine]

What happens if neither Trump nor Clinton win 26 states? Is there some kind of coalition system like we have in the UK?

The Presidential Election isn't like a General Election. They are literally electing a President only (though there are other elections at the same time), so a coalition isn't possible.

Each state, depending on its size and population, gets a number of 'electoral college' votes for the Presidential Election (Delaware has 3, California has 55). Traditionally if a candidate gets a majority of the popular vote in that state, they get all of the electoral college votes in the Presidential Election - though it's not necessarily always the case, it rarely happens any other way.

The President is the person who gets 50% of the Electoral College votes, +1 (currently 270), without needing to win either the total popular vote or the popular vote in the most states.

 

[Sanji Himura]

They don't need to win 26 states, they need the vote of at least 270 delegates. Which Hillary's campaign claims she already has. And as you saw with Bernie Sanders, you can win a state and lose the delegates. Here in Georgia, whoever wins by 50%+1 vote gets all the delegates. It's confusing and varies by state.

It is winner take all except in Nebraska and Maine. They use what is called the Congressional District method which rewards their electoral college votes by congressional district. Whoever won the statewide vote would get the two additional electoral college votes that are allocated for their representation in the Senate. Maine has used this method since 1972 and Nebraska has been using it since 1996.

Is it constitutional? Yes. In Article 2, section 1 clause 2, the constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." (emphasis added) The legislature, in this case, refers to the state legislature. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in the 1892 case McPherson v. Blacker that, to paraphrase the ruling, the state's method in how the electoral college votes are distributed is "supreme." This case was affirmed in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Does that mean that a candidate who won the popular vote in the state can sue if he/she lost the majority of the electoral college votes? Yes and no. Gerrymandering hasn't been addressed by the Supreme Court as a whole, but that still doesn't change the fact that the state is the supreme adjudicator in how electoral college votes are distributed, as mentioned in the previously cited Supreme Court decisions.

Sorry for the long butt explanation but I needed to cover if this system was constitutional in this post.

 

[Touring Mars]

Abedin will probably commit suicide by a couple of bullets in the back of her head.

..from a passing car.

 

[Dotini]

... a damning indictment of US politics today.

Oh so totally agreed. Our system, in a word, is corrupt. Unaddressed, this has led to an angry populist uprising. Sword and sledgehammer fixing what quill and scalpel did not. Our current dilemma is to kneel and anoint a known avatar of corruption, or roll the dice and install an alpha male outsider and potential strongman. Hoist on our own petard. Let us pray. Kneel.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

If neither candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the house of representatives gets to pick the president.

And since it's currently a republican majority that wold sure swing it in Trump's favour.

To piggyback on this: is it theoretically possible that if neither Clinton/Trump got 270, and Evan McMullin wins Utah, that a Republican controlled house would go for him over Trump (as a more "acceptable" Republican president)?

 

[Sanji Himura]

To piggyback on this: is it theoretically possible that if neither Clinton/Trump got 270, and Evan McMullin wins Utah, that a Republican controlled house would go for him over Trump (as a more "acceptable" Republican president)?

Yes. The house can absolutely choose from anybody running, him winning Utah is irrelevant for McMullin to become president. The house can choose from the top five electoral college vote getters. He would be ranked third if he wins Utah.

I should also note that it isn't 435 votes at stake if it reaches the House. It's 50 since each state is granted a single vote.

 

[Dotini]

Yes. The house can absolutely choose from anybody running, him winning Utah is irrelevant for McMullin to become president. The house can choose from the top five electoral college vote getters. He would be ranked third if he wins Utah.

Perhaps if enough people wrote in Michelle Obama, she'd make the top 5?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Perhaps if enough people wrote in Michelle Obama, she'd make the top 5?

Depends on the state. Only 7 states allow you to vote for just anybody.

 

[Dotini]

Depends on the state. Only 7 states allow you to vote for just anybody.

Do it anyway. Let the lawyers, electoral college and supreme court decide. The law can be challenged and changed later, retroactively through a constitutional convention, if need be.

 

[BobK]

In Article 2, section 1 clause 2, the constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." (emphasis added) The legislature, in this case, refers to the state legislature. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in the 1892 case McPherson v. Blacker that, to paraphrase the ruling, the state's method in how the electoral college votes are distributed is "supreme." This case was affirmed in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Something that shouldn't be overlooked here is there is no requirement whatsoever that the electors should be chosen as a result of any popular election whatsoever. In other words, the state Legislature could simply appoint such electors as it chooses, or empower the state governor to do so with their consent.

 

[Dotini]

The journalist of this WSJ article informs us of the internal FBI feud as well was the FBI/DOJ feud over the current HRC investigation.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-...to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957