lwien
Well-Known Member
But if he's not capable of being in any position to breaking that cycle, what does it matter?
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
But if he's not capable of being in any position to breaking that cycle, what does it matter?
Farid
Well-Known Member
He's the number one candidate among active duty Military. He's polling around 10-15% right now, if the American people knew he was an option, and the media gave him coverage (beyond when he makes a gaffe, Aleppo was the first time many people heard of him, that was no coincidence) I bet that number would go up. There is probably a significant number of people who have no idea he is a choice, but when they get in the voting booth they will see 3 options (4 if they are in a State where Stein is on the ballot), and will vote for him. No he probably won't win, but to say it is impossible is to say democracy is dead.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I've voted third party many times in the hope that party garnered enough votes to be taken seriously in the next election. It has never worked.
The flushing away of vote was comically described by a Doonesbury thread long ago where Zonker was leaving the sound a a flush on the pull of the voting lever and, as he leaves the booth, flashed the Victory sign while calling out "Perot!".
Farid
Well-Known Member
Difference is this is the first election where the main 2 parties have effectively been destroyed. Next election is going to be historic considering the state of the two parties.
And you don't have a choice about clowns, this is politics. You take your choice in clowns (in before somebody tells me that Clinton or Trump isn't a clown... they're both covered in makeup and make asses out of themselves regularly.
I'll take the clown who doesn't know where Aleppo is any day before taking the pantsuit wearing clown who thinks replacing the Syrian government with an Al Qaeda affiliate is a good idea, or the orange clown with the tiny pecker.
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
We can only hope. As I've written earlier in this thread, while not a Libertarian, it is the party that most closely aligns with the majority of my beliefs so I am naturally drawn to them.
Honestly, while nowhere near as bad as either of the two main party candidates, Johnson is not curling my toes either.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
None of us have a crystal ball. It would depend on how the next four years goes.
We have two candidates to choose from - Trump and Clinton. It's a nightmare election for sure.
Bernie supporters would be better to align themselves with Hillary because that is closer to Bernie's stand on issues. His plan doesn't even compare at all to Johnson.
We have two candidates to choose from - Trump and Clinton. It's a nightmare election for sure.
Bernie supporters would be better to align themselves with Hillary because that is closer to Bernie's stand on issues. His plan doesn't even compare at all to Johnson.
lwien
Well-Known Member
The GOP is in a shambles. The Democrats are are not and in comparison, are very well united. Nothing wrong with the Dems. It's their flawed candidate that's the issue. The same thing can't be said for the GOP.
I can almost say with certainty that either of the two present candidates would be a single term candidate. My question is who will be the next Democratic candidate? For me, Michelle or someone as bright, nurturing and positive as she is is what this country needs. We have some healin' to do.
Farid
Well-Known Member
'Nothing wrong with the Dems' Really....?
Come on man, you have to be able to look in the mirror sometimes. The favoring of Clinton by the DNC wasn't just done by Clinton, the DNC was heavily involved. To put the blame on one candidate is ignoring the real issue here. Clinton's email scandal highlighted the corruption of this system, but anybody else could have done the same. You have a situation where tons of centrist Democrats are willing to vote for a far left Social Democrat (Sanders) despite their differences on issues, because they feel the mainstream Democratic party has become as corrupt and nepotistic as the Republican party.
And Michelle Obama as president would be awful... we don't need more family rule, this country isn't a monarchy. What's next, Chelsea Clinton? Bushs' Daughter? Americans are fed up with Clintons and Bushs running things. If we elected Michelle it would send the message to our childen that in order to be president you have to be related or close to those in power. It's this kind of nepotism that we accuse dictatorships of practicing (although we are willing to support the Saudi monarchy, so it's clear there is hypocrisy)
I used to think Republicans were stupid for being attached to their party, and supporting them even when they are in the wrong. This election has made it clear that Democrats are just as bad, if not worse with their blind trust of their representatives.
Last edited:
lwien
Well-Known Member
I said, "...in comparison". I never said that the Democratic party was not flawed.
I said Michelle or someone like her. In regards to the message that is being sent to our children, I disagree that the message would be one of "dynasty rules" but rather, in this case, empathy, kindness, understanding and intelligence rules.
Farid
Well-Known Member
@steama They might not be destroyed as in they will still exist. But they will certainly change after this election.
You have to acknowledge that the parties have changed in the past. Remember that the Republican party used to be the party of Lincoln, and the Democratic party used to be on the wrong side of certain civil rights issues.
You have to acknowledge that the parties have changed in the past. Remember that the Republican party used to be the party of Lincoln, and the Democratic party used to be on the wrong side of certain civil rights issues.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
No, to say it is impossible is to say if every time you sit down for an interview you say something totally ignorant or even stupid, or stick out your tongue while talking like an adolescent you are not going to be elected to the President of the United States.
If democracy is dying, and I agree it is sick, it is not because Gary Johnson won't be elected. If he COULD be, it would be another example of its sickness.
Farid
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your opinion, but I know it's coming from a place of unwavering support for Clinton so I will take it with a massive grain of salt.
im·pos·si·ble
imˈpäsəb(ə)l/
adjective
- not able to occur, exist, or be done.
The word you are looking for is improbable.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
What makes you think you'd know if they died?
There are rumors about Hillary in some circles already. Body doubles, anamatronics and the like. See also, "Dave".
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Careful about those chickens...
Here Comes the Landslide
by Martin Longman
October 19, 2016 12:34 PM
Among political prognosticators, there have been two main camps in this election. One camp argued that the country has become rigidly polarized to a point where any Republican or Democratic nominee starts out with 40% support and the battle is only over the 20% of voters who don’t align with either side. The other camp, represented by me, argued that there was nothing permanent about our relatively stable red/blue state split and that we’re reaching an inflection point where one side or the other would decisively “win the argument.”
I’ve often pointed out that Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and Vermont, and that it was possible for a Democrat to win in states like Arizona and Georgia and South Carolina. For more than two years, I’ve been identifying signs that this could well be a landslide election, and I predicted that it wouldn’t be a close election with even more confidence than I predicted that the Democrats would win.
As Nancy pointed out, the polls are now pointing in the direction of a Reagan-sized blowout. Among the signs to look for are evidence that red states are going to fall into Clinton’s arms, that Trump is cratering below the 40% floor, and that Clinton is polling above 50% in the four-way race with a healthy number of undecideds still out there.
Today we can see all three things.
There’s a Arizona Republic/Morrison/Cronkite News poll showing Clinton with a six point lead in the Grand Canyon State. There are (admittedly dubious) SurveyMonkey polls showing Clinton in the lead in Georgia and only two points down in Texas. That Texas number is supported by a University of Houston poll and a SurveyUSA poll showing Trump leading in the Lone Star State by three and four points, respectively. There are two recent polls of Alaska showing Trump leading within the margin of error. And, of course, it seems like everyone is talking about Utah, where Trump is still favored but could conceivably come in third place.
A non-partisan PRRI poll out this morning shows Clinton with a 51%-36% lead among likely voters (up from a 43%-43% tie in September). A Bloomberg poll shows Clinton with 47%-38% lead in the four-way race. As for swing states, Nate Silver currently has Clinton winning in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada, all of which have been in Trump’s column in the recent past. Silver’s current Electoral College forecast has Clinton winning 347-191, but that’s without giving Clinton Georgia, Utah or Alaska.
The race has also narrowed in states like Indiana, Missouri, and (perhaps) Montana. The last poll out of South Carolina, which was conducted between September 18th and 26th (before all the sexual assault allegations against Trump) showed him leading there by only four points.
It’s clear which candidate has the momentum. It’s also clear that Trump is responding badly by acting in a very erratic way. The gender gap is exploding to unprecedented levels. Trump’s lead in the Census Bureau-defined South has shrunk to 1.2% (Romney won it 7.1%).
In the primaries, Trump consistently performed poorly with late-deciding candidates.
That seems to be repeating itself now, and with a large pool of undecided voters and voters who are flirting with third party candidates, a late tilt in Clinton’s favor rather than a roughly even split would move the popular vote margin even higher and put some of these close-polling red states in serious jeopardy.
As of now, Clinton seems stalled at about 51% (roughly Obama’s total four years ago) and Trump seems to have a floor in the high-thirties (about seven points below where McCain finished eight years ago). If Clinton wins the battle for late-deciders, her totals will rise into the low or even mid-fifties. It doesn’t seem possible that she can match Reagan’s 59% total in 1984 or Nixon’s 61% total in 1972, but exceeding the 53% that Poppy Bush got in 1988 and Obama received in 2008 definitely looks within her reach.
Tonight’s debate may play a roll in the final margins, as a poor performance by Trump could result in an accelerated collapse, while a surprisingly strong win for him might stop or even reverse his bleeding.
For now, though, it looks like I was right. This is not going to be another red state/blue state election. Trump has lost the argument.
Here Comes the Landslide
by Martin Longman
October 19, 2016 12:34 PM
Among political prognosticators, there have been two main camps in this election. One camp argued that the country has become rigidly polarized to a point where any Republican or Democratic nominee starts out with 40% support and the battle is only over the 20% of voters who don’t align with either side. The other camp, represented by me, argued that there was nothing permanent about our relatively stable red/blue state split and that we’re reaching an inflection point where one side or the other would decisively “win the argument.”
I’ve often pointed out that Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and Vermont, and that it was possible for a Democrat to win in states like Arizona and Georgia and South Carolina. For more than two years, I’ve been identifying signs that this could well be a landslide election, and I predicted that it wouldn’t be a close election with even more confidence than I predicted that the Democrats would win.
As Nancy pointed out, the polls are now pointing in the direction of a Reagan-sized blowout. Among the signs to look for are evidence that red states are going to fall into Clinton’s arms, that Trump is cratering below the 40% floor, and that Clinton is polling above 50% in the four-way race with a healthy number of undecideds still out there.
Today we can see all three things.
There’s a Arizona Republic/Morrison/Cronkite News poll showing Clinton with a six point lead in the Grand Canyon State. There are (admittedly dubious) SurveyMonkey polls showing Clinton in the lead in Georgia and only two points down in Texas. That Texas number is supported by a University of Houston poll and a SurveyUSA poll showing Trump leading in the Lone Star State by three and four points, respectively. There are two recent polls of Alaska showing Trump leading within the margin of error. And, of course, it seems like everyone is talking about Utah, where Trump is still favored but could conceivably come in third place.
A non-partisan PRRI poll out this morning shows Clinton with a 51%-36% lead among likely voters (up from a 43%-43% tie in September). A Bloomberg poll shows Clinton with 47%-38% lead in the four-way race. As for swing states, Nate Silver currently has Clinton winning in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada, all of which have been in Trump’s column in the recent past. Silver’s current Electoral College forecast has Clinton winning 347-191, but that’s without giving Clinton Georgia, Utah or Alaska.
The race has also narrowed in states like Indiana, Missouri, and (perhaps) Montana. The last poll out of South Carolina, which was conducted between September 18th and 26th (before all the sexual assault allegations against Trump) showed him leading there by only four points.
It’s clear which candidate has the momentum. It’s also clear that Trump is responding badly by acting in a very erratic way. The gender gap is exploding to unprecedented levels. Trump’s lead in the Census Bureau-defined South has shrunk to 1.2% (Romney won it 7.1%).
In the primaries, Trump consistently performed poorly with late-deciding candidates.
Voters on the fence have not been supporting Trump. Among the three in 10 Nevada GOP voters who made up their minds in the final week, Rubio won four in 10 of them, compared to about a quarter for Trump and Cruz each. Cruz has also seen more success than Trump with late-deciders, though slightly less than Rubio.
Similar patterns appear in other early voting states, with Trump winning just 14 percent of late-deciders in Iowa and 17 percent of late-deciders in South Carolina – both behind Rubio and Cruz in states where almost half of voters made final decisions in that time period.
Similar patterns appear in other early voting states, with Trump winning just 14 percent of late-deciders in Iowa and 17 percent of late-deciders in South Carolina – both behind Rubio and Cruz in states where almost half of voters made final decisions in that time period.
That seems to be repeating itself now, and with a large pool of undecided voters and voters who are flirting with third party candidates, a late tilt in Clinton’s favor rather than a roughly even split would move the popular vote margin even higher and put some of these close-polling red states in serious jeopardy.
As of now, Clinton seems stalled at about 51% (roughly Obama’s total four years ago) and Trump seems to have a floor in the high-thirties (about seven points below where McCain finished eight years ago). If Clinton wins the battle for late-deciders, her totals will rise into the low or even mid-fifties. It doesn’t seem possible that she can match Reagan’s 59% total in 1984 or Nixon’s 61% total in 1972, but exceeding the 53% that Poppy Bush got in 1988 and Obama received in 2008 definitely looks within her reach.
Tonight’s debate may play a roll in the final margins, as a poor performance by Trump could result in an accelerated collapse, while a surprisingly strong win for him might stop or even reverse his bleeding.
For now, though, it looks like I was right. This is not going to be another red state/blue state election. Trump has lost the argument.
The word I would choose is: Senseless
Senseless
(ˈsɛnslɪs)
adj
1. lacking in sense; foolish: a senseless plan.
2. lacking in feeling; unconscious
3. lacking in perception; stupid
To use it in a sentence:
"It is senseless to consider Donald Trump as a legitimate presidential candidate because of his intellect, policies, and temperament."
Edit: Now I realize you were talking about Gary Johnson. I choose a different word! I choose: Mystifying
mys·ti·fy
(mĭs′tə-fī′)
tr.v. mys·ti·fied, mys·ti·fy·ing, mys·ti·fies
1. perplexing to a person by playing upon the person's credulity; bewilder purposely.
2. to involve in mystery or obscurity.
"The idea of Gary Johnson winning the 2016 Presidential Election is mystifying!"
And to make things fair my word for Hillary Clinton is: Desperate
Desperate
adjective des·per·ate \ˈdes-p(ə-)rət, -pərt\
1. reckless or dangerous because of despair, hopelessness, or urgency:
a desperate killer.
2. having an urgent need, desire, etc.: desperate for attention;
desperate to find a job.
3. leaving little or no hope; very serious or dangerous:
a desperate illness.
4.extremely bad; intolerable or shocking: clothes in desperate taste.
"If Hillary Clinton is the best candidate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election then we must be desperate."
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
WikiHillary for President
By Thomas L. Friedman •
nytimes.com • October 19, 2016
Thank God for WikiLeaks.
I confess, I was starting to wonder about what the real Hillary Clinton — the one you never get to see behind closed doors — really stood for. But now that, thanks to WikiLeaks, I’ve had a chance to peruse her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other banks, I am more convinced than ever she can be the president America needs today.
Seriously, those speeches are great! They show someone with a vision, a pragmatic approach to getting things done and a healthy instinct for balancing the need to strengthen our social safety nets with unleashing America’s business class to create the growth required to sustain social programs.
So thank you, Vladimir Putin, for revealing how Hillary really hopes to govern. I just wish more of that Hillary were campaigning right now and building a mandate for what she really believes.
WikiHillary? I’m with her.
Why? Let’s start with what WikiLeaks says she said at Brazil’s Banco Itaú event in May 2013: “I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade ... and we have to resist protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade.”
She also said, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
That’s music to my ears. A hemisphere where nations are trading with one another, and where more people can collaborate and interact for work, study, tourism and commerce, is a region that is likely to be growing more prosperous with fewer conflicts, especially if more of that growth is based on clean energy.
Compare our hemisphere, or the European Union, or the Asian trading nations with, say, the Middle East — where the flow of trade, tourism, knowledge and labor among nations has long been restricted — and the case for Hillary’s vision becomes obvious.
The way Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have made trade and globalization dirty words is ridiculous. Globalization and trade have helped to bring more people out of poverty in the last 50 years than at any other time in history.
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected? You bet we do. That’s called fixing a problem — not throwing out a whole system that we know from a long historical record contributes on balance to economic growth, competitiveness and more open societies.
In a speech to a Morgan Stanley group on April 18, 2013, WikiHillary praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan, which included reforming the tax code to increase investment and entrepreneurship and raising certain taxes and trimming some spending and entitlements to make them more sustainable.
The ultimate shape of that grand bargain could take many forms, she said, but Hillary stressed behind closed doors: “Simpson-Bowles … put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula.”
She is right. We’ll never get out of this economic rut, and protect future generations, unless the business and social sectors, Democrats and Republicans, all give and get something — and that’s exactly where WikiHillary was coming from.
In an October 2013 speech for Goldman Sachs, Clinton seemed to suggest the need to review the regulations imposed on banks by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 2010. Her idea was not to get rid of all of the rules but rather to make sure they were not imposing needless burdens that limited lending to small businesses and start-ups.
As Clinton put it, “More thought has to be given to the process and transactions and regulations so that we don’t kill or maim what works, but we concentrate on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power that exists here.” Again, exactly right.
You can also find WikiHillary, or her aides, musing about a “carbon tax” and whether or not to come out in favor of it, as Sanders did. She chose not to now, probably to avoid being saddled by Republicans with calling for a new tax in the general election campaign, but I am confident she’d make pricing carbon part of her climate policy.
When I read WikiHillary, I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician who will be inclined to work with both the business community and Republicans to keep America tilted toward trade expansion, entrepreneurship and global integration, while redoubling efforts to cushion workers from the downsides of these policies.
I’m just sorry that campaign Hillary felt she could not speak like WikiHillary to build a proper mandate for President Hillary. She would have gained respect for daring to speak the truth to her own constituency — and demonstrating leadership — not lost votes.
Nonetheless, thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most. So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times.
By Thomas L. Friedman •
nytimes.com • October 19, 2016
Thank God for WikiLeaks.
I confess, I was starting to wonder about what the real Hillary Clinton — the one you never get to see behind closed doors — really stood for. But now that, thanks to WikiLeaks, I’ve had a chance to peruse her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other banks, I am more convinced than ever she can be the president America needs today.
Seriously, those speeches are great! They show someone with a vision, a pragmatic approach to getting things done and a healthy instinct for balancing the need to strengthen our social safety nets with unleashing America’s business class to create the growth required to sustain social programs.
So thank you, Vladimir Putin, for revealing how Hillary really hopes to govern. I just wish more of that Hillary were campaigning right now and building a mandate for what she really believes.
WikiHillary? I’m with her.
Why? Let’s start with what WikiLeaks says she said at Brazil’s Banco Itaú event in May 2013: “I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade ... and we have to resist protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade.”
She also said, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
That’s music to my ears. A hemisphere where nations are trading with one another, and where more people can collaborate and interact for work, study, tourism and commerce, is a region that is likely to be growing more prosperous with fewer conflicts, especially if more of that growth is based on clean energy.
Compare our hemisphere, or the European Union, or the Asian trading nations with, say, the Middle East — where the flow of trade, tourism, knowledge and labor among nations has long been restricted — and the case for Hillary’s vision becomes obvious.
The way Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have made trade and globalization dirty words is ridiculous. Globalization and trade have helped to bring more people out of poverty in the last 50 years than at any other time in history.
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected? You bet we do. That’s called fixing a problem — not throwing out a whole system that we know from a long historical record contributes on balance to economic growth, competitiveness and more open societies.
In a speech to a Morgan Stanley group on April 18, 2013, WikiHillary praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan, which included reforming the tax code to increase investment and entrepreneurship and raising certain taxes and trimming some spending and entitlements to make them more sustainable.
The ultimate shape of that grand bargain could take many forms, she said, but Hillary stressed behind closed doors: “Simpson-Bowles … put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula.”
She is right. We’ll never get out of this economic rut, and protect future generations, unless the business and social sectors, Democrats and Republicans, all give and get something — and that’s exactly where WikiHillary was coming from.
In an October 2013 speech for Goldman Sachs, Clinton seemed to suggest the need to review the regulations imposed on banks by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was passed in 2010. Her idea was not to get rid of all of the rules but rather to make sure they were not imposing needless burdens that limited lending to small businesses and start-ups.
As Clinton put it, “More thought has to be given to the process and transactions and regulations so that we don’t kill or maim what works, but we concentrate on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power that exists here.” Again, exactly right.
You can also find WikiHillary, or her aides, musing about a “carbon tax” and whether or not to come out in favor of it, as Sanders did. She chose not to now, probably to avoid being saddled by Republicans with calling for a new tax in the general election campaign, but I am confident she’d make pricing carbon part of her climate policy.
When I read WikiHillary, I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician who will be inclined to work with both the business community and Republicans to keep America tilted toward trade expansion, entrepreneurship and global integration, while redoubling efforts to cushion workers from the downsides of these policies.
I’m just sorry that campaign Hillary felt she could not speak like WikiHillary to build a proper mandate for President Hillary. She would have gained respect for daring to speak the truth to her own constituency — and demonstrating leadership — not lost votes.
Nonetheless, thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most. So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Some days I'm too busy to keep up with this thread and catching up makes my head hurt. We can debate the what-ifs and how-comes all we want but this election is down to Trump and HRC now.....period.
Can't wait till tonight's debate. If Hillary stays the course or improves a little, and that is her platform, she can lock this thing down tonight.
Can't wait till tonight's debate. If Hillary stays the course or improves a little, and that is her platform, she can lock this thing down tonight.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Maybe, maybe not. Much as I hate to say it, the fat lady has not yet sung.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct19
Today’s Rasmussen Reports White House Watch telephone and online survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump each picking up 42% support among Likely U.S. Voters. Seven percent (7%) still prefer Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, while one percent (1%) opt for Green Party nominee Jill Stein. But three percent (3%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Note, especially, the difference between "Who would you vote for?" and "Who do you think will win?" to see the effect of how we get our information.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-disastrous-week-of-campaigning-a7368196.html
Despite a calamitous week of campaigning, betting markets on the US election are almost a mirror image of those on Britain’s EU referendum at this stage. And they could be pointing to a victory for Donald Trump.
grokit
well-worn member
The only clown in this race is drumpf; johnson has issues but touched? He ran a state, and did it well.
As third parties go I'm more on the green side, so yeah libertarian is not a natural fit for me either.
Up next is jeb(!)'s son, the 50% hispanic george p. bush, a rising gop superstar from dallas
Jeb Bush's son pushes GOP to support Trump
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
And the hits keep comin...
Witnesses help bolster Trump accuser’s claims
10/19/16 09:26 AM
By Steve Benen
Donald Trump’s supporters have pushed a variety of arguments in response to women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct, with the candidate himself suggesting at least one of his accusers wasn’t attractive enough to molest. But one of the more common lines is predictable: anyone can raise allegations, but without evidence, the claims are suspect.
At face value, it’s hardly a ridiculous argument. Trump is a major-party presidential candidate with many critics, and when someone raises allegations of serious wrongdoing, it’s fair to evaluate the claims, consider the accuser’s credibility, review Trump’s record, and look for some kind of corroboration.
In this case, it’s a dynamic that may work against the Republican nominee, who has denied any wrongdoing. Not only did Trump admit on tape to doing what these women have accused him of doing, but in some cases, the women’s allegations have been bolstered by witnesses who say they were told about the incidents at the time.
People magazine’s Natasha Stoynoff, for example, has said Trump attacked her in 2005 in Florida after a photo shoot. The GOP candidate denied the claims and complained about Stoynoff’s appearance. Yesterday, People pushed back, defending Stoynoff and publishing a piece quoting “six colleagues and close friends who corroborate” her account.
One of the purported witnesses remembers receiving a call from Stoynoff the day after the alleged incident, and during the conversation she “detailed everything about the attack.”
People, it’s worth noting for context, has one of the widest circulations of any magazine in the United States. The fact that this report will be reaching the magazine’s readers so soon before Election Day probably isn’t good news for the Republican candidate.
Witnesses help bolster Trump accuser’s claims
10/19/16 09:26 AM
By Steve Benen
Donald Trump’s supporters have pushed a variety of arguments in response to women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct, with the candidate himself suggesting at least one of his accusers wasn’t attractive enough to molest. But one of the more common lines is predictable: anyone can raise allegations, but without evidence, the claims are suspect.
At face value, it’s hardly a ridiculous argument. Trump is a major-party presidential candidate with many critics, and when someone raises allegations of serious wrongdoing, it’s fair to evaluate the claims, consider the accuser’s credibility, review Trump’s record, and look for some kind of corroboration.
In this case, it’s a dynamic that may work against the Republican nominee, who has denied any wrongdoing. Not only did Trump admit on tape to doing what these women have accused him of doing, but in some cases, the women’s allegations have been bolstered by witnesses who say they were told about the incidents at the time.
People magazine’s Natasha Stoynoff, for example, has said Trump attacked her in 2005 in Florida after a photo shoot. The GOP candidate denied the claims and complained about Stoynoff’s appearance. Yesterday, People pushed back, defending Stoynoff and publishing a piece quoting “six colleagues and close friends who corroborate” her account.
PEOPLE Editor in Chief Jess Cagle says in a statement about Stoynoff’s piece, “In this week’s issue of PEOPLE (which hits newsstands in New York on Wednesday), we feature a story that includes named sources who can corroborate Natasha Stoynoff’s account….”
Five other witnesses also back up Stoynoff’s account of her encounter with Trump.
Five other witnesses also back up Stoynoff’s account of her encounter with Trump.
One of the purported witnesses remembers receiving a call from Stoynoff the day after the alleged incident, and during the conversation she “detailed everything about the attack.”
People, it’s worth noting for context, has one of the widest circulations of any magazine in the United States. The fact that this report will be reaching the magazine’s readers so soon before Election Day probably isn’t good news for the Republican candidate.
grokit
well-worn member
If johnson decides to (go completely insane and) endorse drumpf, this race would be over
grokit
well-worn member
Forget The White House, This Is What Trump Really Wants
Donald Trump may be trying to lose the election – claiming instead a bigger prize.
Current polling looks bleak for Republican nominee Donald Trump. “In a four-way match-up, Clinton enjoys 46 percent support this week among likely voters, while Trump drops a single percentage point to 40 percent support,” according to the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll. “In a two-way race, Clinton leads by 8 points with majority support of 51 percent to Trump’s 43 percent among likely voters,” and, as NBC News adds: “Her margin over the GOP nominee has grown steadily since her successful first debate performance.”
Polling data aggregator Real Clear Politics reports similar results with Clinton enjoying a national polling lead of 6.9 percent and Nate Silver, the statistician and polling expert with a long history of accurate predictions, reported on Monday that “Clinton’s big lead means a steadier forecast” moving forward.
“Trump himself is to blame most of all for his faltering bid,” global media brand Good reports. “It’s hard to compensate for such a litany of grotesque remarks and actions—but Trump hasn’t even embraced campaign basics like disciplined messaging or a proper ground game.”
Now, more details have emerged that could explain these baffling moves. Rather than just an unhinged boor handling defeat badly, Trump might be positioning himself for a different kind of victory. For a guy who was tired enough of his real estate business to mount a run for president, there’s a more suitable prize out there than 1600 Pennsylvania Ave—a media company catering to the massive minority of angry Americans who find delight in Trump’s elite lifestyle and populist rhetoric.
Vanity Fair was the first to report the possibility that Trump’s endgame was the creation of a “mini-media conglomerate,” in an article published this June.
Reporting that Trump has “masterfully—and horrifyingly—demonstrated an aptitude for manipulating the news cycle, gaining billions of dollars worth of free airtime, and dominating coverage on every screen,”Vanity Fair concluded that “Trump is indeed considering creating his own media business, built on the audience that has supported him thus far in his bid to become the next president of the United States.”
According to several people briefed on the discussions, the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the “audience” currently supporting him. He has also discussed the possibility of launching a “mini-media conglomerate” outside of his existing TV-production business, Trump Productions LLC. He has, according to one of these people, enlisted the consultation of his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who owns the The New York Observer.
...