[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.
Dotini
As the winner of many kart races and fencing bouts, I enjoy sporting with people who are under pressure. Something like a cat toying with a mouse, with a certain quality of schadenfreude.;)

I'm sitting on over a million dollars of property in and around Seattle, but alas no bunker. I do have a saltwater beach cabin, boathouse and bulkhead, and could live off the beach if need be. But frankly, I enjoy living in one of the most liberal cities on Earth. I enjoy wine, but lack an extensive wine cellar. I expect no immediate apocalypses, if you go by my lack of preparations.:cool:
Click to expand...

When the revolution comes (the one you've been confidently predicting), you'll be the first to go.

To be fair though ... a million bucks barely buys you an outhouse in Vancouver (or as we like to say: an "oothouse").
 
mister dog
This whole 'we're educated so we know better and if you vote right wing you're basically an uneducated xenophobe idiot', is a presumption i see a lot with liberals in Europe too. Illusions of owning the moral high ground is what it is. Like the left wing won't have the exact same amount of idiots supporting their cause. :lol:

It reeks of them secretly wishing they could alter democracy, so the plebs could be prevented from having influence on the decision making process. Democracy is fine as long as you don't vote for the wrong party, "because then we need to get violent and hateful against these hate mongers!"
Click to expand...
To throw unfair discredit is not what the "educated" do, it is just what YOU just did. By summarizing the source of disagreements to a moral stance, you conveniently but falsely leveling the arguments, to a point where the arguments weight nothing and are not even listened anymore. This rampant rhetoric is sadly one of the fondation of populism.
A dead man want to talk to you:
asimov.jpg
 
prisonermonkeys
Except to the NRA.
Click to expand...
Not a member, but historically speaking, one leads to the other. Just take a look at all of the massacres that took place in the 20th century and you will find gun control a common thread.

That aside, I do agree with the concept of keeping guns out of criminal hands, but the problem is that gun control generally doesn't do that expressed purpose.
 
Milouse
To throw unfair discredit is not what the "educated" do, it is just what YOU just did. By summarizing the source of disagreements to a moral stance, you conveniently but falsely leveling the arguments, to a point where the arguments weight nothing and are not even listened anymore. This rampant rhetoric is sadly one of the fondation of populism.
A dead man want to talk to you:
asimov.jpg
Click to expand...
I can't speak for Mr. Dog, but I believe you missed the point. That's his interpretation of the chart posted by R1600. The inference is pretty clear and and it's been a common theme throughout this election. The dummies are voting for Trump and all the really smart people who know what they are doing are voting for Hillary. CNN, MSNBC, Huffington and all the left wing media have run numerous headlines touting the "education divide" or the plight of the "white working class voter". Of course they don't come out and say it blatantly, they leave that to the more fringe elements of the media, but they are always there to remind you just who is voting for whom and whom one might be lumped in with depending on how you cast your vote.
 
@Johnnypenso , your answer is clear and complete, so thank you. But my post was focused on this part of Mr Dog post "Illusions of owning the moral high ground", which is a way to not address and answer the legitimate questions raised about populists and their distance with facts, not only morality.
 
OP UPDATE: The post will be transformed into an election central coverage station. I will need a volunteer or two to help me keep up with the calls on election night. Those interested, please PM me so that we can keep this thread free from clutter.

Milouse
@Johnnypenso , your answer is clear and complete, so thank you. But my post was focused on this part of Mr Dog post "Illusions of owning the moral high ground", which is a way to not address and answer the legitimate questions raised about populists and their distance with facts, not only morality.
Click to expand...
The point that @mister dog is making is that it is indeed intellectual dishonesty if it is ever implied that the highly educated are voting one way and everyone else is voting the other. Polls may be reflective on a trend, but the fact is that polls are not reflective on a final result of an election. Take the 1980 election for example.
 
Apprently going by Emails uncovered by Wikileaks, Chelsea Clinton was unaware of the shady tactics of her parents and was trying to dig into why all these consultants where in the Foundation payroll, these same consultants are emailing the Clintons to get Chelsea off their back and remind them how much ''For profit'' business they are bringing in for them.
 
Johnnypenso
I can't speak for Mr. Dog, but I believe you missed the point. That's his interpretation of the chart posted by R1600. The inference is pretty clear and and it's been a common theme throughout this election. The dummies are voting for Trump and all the really smart people who know what they are doing are voting for Hillary. CNN, MSNBC, Huffington and all the left wing media have run numerous headlines touting the "education divide" or the plight of the "white working class voter". Of course they don't come out and say it blatantly, they leave that to the more fringe elements of the media, but they are always there to remind you just who is voting for whom and whom one might be lumped in with depending on how you cast your vote.
Click to expand...
Actually you did speak for me there :cheers:And like I said this same rhetoric is used in Europe all too often. Suggestively by liberal politicians and literally by left wingers in any old comment section on the interwebz (where people tend to show their true nature).
 
mustafur
Apprently going by Emails uncovered by Wikileaks, Chelsea Clinton was unaware of the shady tactics of her parents and was trying to dig into why all these consultants where in the Foundation payroll, these same consultants are emailing the Clintons to get Chelsea off their back and remind them how much ''For profit'' business they are bringing in for them.
Click to expand...

That's a smoking gun if I ever saw one. Wow.
 
Scaff
To be balanced, they are not exactly backwards in calling out both candidates.

Click to expand...

To be honest, that was simply the campaign paying back Trump the loan that he gave his own campaign. Still shady, but that is what it is.
 
Sanji Himura
To be honest, that was simply the campaign paying back Trump the loan that he gave his own campaign. Still shady, but that is what it is.
Click to expand...
And each side will use what it thinks is a reasonable reason to justify the actions of its 'pick'.
 
mustafur
Apprently going by Emails uncovered by Wikileaks, Chelsea Clinton was unaware of the shady tactics of her parents and was trying to dig into why all these consultants where in the Foundation payroll, these same consultants are emailing the Clintons to get Chelsea off their back and remind them how much ''For profit'' business they are bringing in for them.
Click to expand...


Johnnypenso
That's a smoking gun if I ever saw one. Wow.
Click to expand...

Yes, a smoking gun of proof the Clinton Foundation is a giant money generating and laundering scheme. Tycoons and tyrants, dictators and kings, global (and national) banks and corporations pose as donors rivaling each other each to give the most money to the Clintons so they can receive the most influence, lucrative contracts, legislation and legal decisions in return - all disguised as charity. This is probably the largest system of corruption and political cronyism in the world today, and it threatens the very soul and existence of the United States should the Clintons reascend to the White House.

Apparently there are no fewer than five FBI district offices investigating the Clinton Foundation - New York, Washington DC, Little Rock, Miami, and Los Angeles. At the moment these investigations are parallel to the Weiner pedophilia investigation in New York and to the Clinton email server security and espionage case in Washington, DC.

Where do you think they are getting their most probative and devastating evidence? How about Wikileaks?

And how do you think Assange and Wikileaks is getting all those vast tranches of emails?

Has anyone noticed that Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch do not seem to be coming to the aid and defense of the embattled Hillary Clinton? It seems the Obamas are not showing up at her rallies, and Lynch has melted into the bushes. Obama's press secretary has come out and praised the integrity of FBI Director Comey.

Remember a few posts above where the WSJ published a vast article detailing the conflicts going on within and between government agencies?

Perhaps the time has come to weave all these threads together into a pattern that reveals the shocking place we have come to? Are you ready?
 
Last edited:
I know it's late in the campaign but why would Clinton keep Donna Brazile on board at this point, with all the evidence swirling around concerning her leaking questions to Hillary before the debates? Does Donna have some leverage on Hillary preventing her from letting her go? It's quite odd really.

Hillary bold face lying about being in NY on 9/11/01:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...n-nyc-on-911/article/2606229?custom_click=rss
 
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
Do you take that to mean that she was literally in New York on the day? I didn't... and she often references being in DC on the day and travelling to NY the following morning.
Click to expand...
"I was in New York City on 9/11 as one of the two Senators"

Feel free to interpret that any way you like. Perhaps she meant to say "not" and just forgot.:odd:
 
Hillary Clinton really needs to take a lesson about lying: the recipe is not to make a lie and hope to not get caught, it is to make a blatant lie knowing you'll get away with it anyway, because:
1. You said the lie loudly, but to the right audience.
2. Optionally, you added a few superlatives to be sure that your audience's brain incorrectly routes that as an information.
2. You'll say 10 others lies during the rest of the day, so who will remember that one? Only the last lie will matter, in the end.

 
Dotini
Where do you think they are getting their most probative and devastating evidence? How about Wikileaks?

And how do you think Assange and Wikileaks is getting all those vast tranches of emails?

Has anyone noticed that Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch do not seem to be coming to the aid and defense of the embattled Hillary Clinton? It seems the Obamas are not showing up at her rallies, and Lynch has melted into the bushes. Obama's press secretary has come out and praised the integrity of FBI Director Comey.

Remember a few posts above where the WSJ published a vast article detailing the conflicts going on within and between government agencies?

Perhaps the time has come to weave all these threads together into a pattern that reveals the shocking place we have come to? Are you ready?
Click to expand...

I think Assange is getting these emails from the US intelligence community, specifically factions within the FBI, CIA, DNI, military intelligence and other federal organizations. I think the NYPD investigation of Jeff Epstein and the Lolita Express child sex slave ring now can be connected with probative evidence directly linking HRC and WJC to pedophilia.

Furthermore, it is now easily conceivable that Obama has been advised to stand down while elements of the intelligence community maneuver in the background to prevent the Clinton cartel from fully consolidating their power at the top of the US government. Indictments are in the pipeline. Whether before or after the election, the Cllntons will be taken down.
 
TenEightyOne
Or just an English speaker;



It's like being "in" a club, you don't have to be there.
Click to expand...
New York City doesn't have any senators. New York State has two, however, and she was indeed a state senator. Using "in" to mean "a citizen of" or "a representative of" is usage that I for one have never come across before. "In" a club, sure. "In a city" to mean a representative of the state the city is in, no.
 
DK
More details emerge on how Trump could have dodged taxes - TL;DR, he used a loophole to avoid declaring cancelled debts, which would have been counted as taxable income.
Click to expand...

I saw this the other day - and Trump immediately turned it back on Clinton saying something along the lines of 'if it's so bad, why have the Democrats not closed the loophole?'...

-

I'm seriously considering booking the morning off next Wednesday and working later so I can stay up and watch the US election coverage - that said, the results will only be known about morning/lunch time in the UK anyway, so it should be possible to watch it online at work to an extent.

I think there will be trouble if Clinton wins - I think there will be shock if Trump wins, followed by laughter, followed by nuclear war.
 
Touring Mars
I'm seriously considering booking the morning off next Wednesday and working later so I can stay up and watch the US election coverage - that said, the results will only be known about morning/lunch time in the UK anyway, so it should be possible to watch it online at work to an extent.
Click to expand...
Your preparations may be wasted. Literally hundreds of lawyers are already working for both sides preparing the appeals, protests, objections, lawsuits and everything else to cloud the legitimacy of the election whoever wins. This battle will go on and on.
 
Dotini
Your preparations may be wasted. Literally hundreds of lawyers are already working for both sides preparing the appeals, protests, objections, lawsuits and everything else to cloud the legitimacy of the election whoever wins. This battle will go on and on.
Click to expand...
It's almost as bad as the battle for 3rd place at the Mexican GP...
 
Farrakhan just compared Hillary to Hitler, referenced the book, Gamechange, in which Bill Clinton belittled then Senator Barrack Obama by saying this to Kennedy and I quote:

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee," the former president told the liberal lion from Massachusetts."

"The book says Kennedy was deeply offended and recounted the conversation to friends with fury."


Then he goes on to criticize Hillary Clinton for receiving the Margaret Sanger Award in 2009 from Planned Parenthood"


“It was Mrs. Sanger who advocated population control of black and poor people,” Farrakhan said.

“In a 1939 letter, Sanger wrote about getting the black preachers to help with her efforts. She said, ‘we don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.’ … And when Mrs. Clinton received the award, [she said] I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage. Her tenacity. Her vision.’ Now they have to admit that the war on drugs was a war on black people.”



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ama-coffee-years-game-change-article-1.197492


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ares-hillary-clinton-to-hitler-in-sermon.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back