A new US Republican thread 2016

[chuckdee]

US Presidential Election 2016
A Tale of Two Dumpster Fires

[002]

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/31/ ... ussia.html

Isn't this just some Hotel Marketing company? Seems pretty harmless and a weak last swing before Nov 8th...

Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/po ... .html?_r=0

[seebart]

US Presidential Election 2016:

emails on private servers, tax evasion, hotels, russia, and last not least groping women. What a show, we'll know more by the end of this week (hopefully).

Spoiler:

vote.jpg (64.78 KiB) Viewed 7333 times

Slightly offtopic; good article here:

Populist anger is ‘a gift wrapped in barbed wire’

http://www.politico.eu/article/populism ... reybrouck/

[fohat]

Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/po ... .html?_r=0

This surprises me, I had not seen it. I consider the New York Times to be a reputable source, even though a few hours later:

The New York Times, meanwhile, quietly altered their story on Monday night adding the caveat “conclusive or direct” to a sentence that previously read “law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”

Trump is in up to his eyeballs with the Russian mafia because they are about the only ones left who will loan him money. Even his own son admitted this under oath.

[webwit]

[002]

Haha -- since all this crazy shit came about with Abedin, Weiner and the FBI re-opening the case, Killary has taken a real nose-dive even in the polls that were friendly to her before. This is the LA Times one:

[vivalarevolución]

The LA Times poll is an outlier and absolute shit.

I think the media is creating more drama where there is none. Most voters made up their minds weeks ago, nobody I know is paying attention to this crap, and everybody cannot wait for this election to end. The small sliver of undecided voters will barely be influenced by recent events. Everybody has known about Clinton's email controversy for months at this point, and has made up their mind about whether it will influence their vote. People vote on emotions, not logic.

And the crazy thing about these emails is nobody even knows what they say. So if individuals are indeed allowing the latest email controversy to influence their vote, they are doing it based on complete speculation about the content of the emails.

[002]

Pretty much any poll can be written off as bullshit. You just have to cherry pick things you don't like about their method.

[webwit]

The LA Times poll is an outlier and absolute shit.

I think the media is creating more drama where there is none. Most voters made up their minds weeks ago, nobody I know is paying attention to this crap, and everybody cannot wait for this election to end.

Well, it's one thing to say a poll is crap, which may or may not be the case, but then you continue and say you favour anecdotal evidence, which is worse from a statistics point of view. Nobody you know, eh?

[vivalarevolución]

I am also a voter that makes decisions based on emotion and anecdotal evidence, so I will make my points and draw conclusions based on those principles.

[kbdfr]

People vote on emotions, not logic.

I am also a voter that makes decisions based on emotion and anecdotal evidence, so I will make my points and draw conclusions based on those principles.

Sounds logical.

Someone offers you for a knockdown price the mechanical keyboard you've been after for months (= positive emotion),
posts a few photos of the keyboard showing it is in wonderful condition (= anecdotal evidence),
so you send them the money (= decision).

Don't whine if you get scammed because you relied on random pics without bothering about proof of property (= facts).

[vivalarevolución]

Okay fine, I will qualify my statement. The LA Times poll is an outlier and kinda shit, not absolute shit. The reason being that the results have consistently favored Trump by a few percentage points while nearly all the other polls tell a different story. If you have not read about the LA Times poll, in short, it accounts for how people voted in 2012 and polls the same 3,000 people, over and over again. More details from America's favorite poll analyst Nate Silver (who accurately predicted 50 out of 50 states in the 2012 election):

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... oll-alone/

But even Nate Silver himself says you can cherry pick and find flaws in any poll you want. The LA Times poll receives so much attention, it's easy to criticize that particular poll.

Regarding recent poll trends, I simply find it hard to believe that voters have started strongly trending back towards Trump after weeks of consistently polling in Clinton's favor. My knowledge of presidential candidate selection at the individual level is that masses of voters don't all of a sudden change their mind in the last week or last minute. Does my bias towards Clinton affect my interpretation of these results? Yes, I would rather see her win than Trump, because, despite her past transgressions, she seems to have a history of learning from experience, being open to advisers, and working together with different parties to actually get things done, while Trump's ego and psychological disorders are so cumbersome it impedes his ability to think beyond himself.

Overall, I just want this shit to end. It's fucking exhausting and I am tired of hearing about Trump and Clinton. Both of them are shitball choices to be president and most likely will exacerbate current problems rather than solve them.

[002]

Nate Silver also gave Trump a higher chance of winning the election than he did the Chicago Cubs for winning the World Series

Cherry picking

[vivalarevolución]

Nate Silver also gave Trump a higher chance of winning the election than he did the Chicago Cubs for winning the World Series

Cherry picking

At what stage in the season were these odds given? The Cubs started the year competing against 29 teams, and then 9 other teams in the playoffs.

Trump basically is competing against one other person. His odds always are going to be better.

And you will need to troll harder, come on.

[webwit]

despite her past transgressions, she seems to have a history of learning from experience, being open to advisers, and working together with different parties to actually get things done

Oh ffs. I can understand that if one has a choice between her and Orange Hitler, one grudgingly makes a choice, but come on, you are going to vote Grandma Nixon, and it ain't any prettier than that and as you'd like it to be in la la land where she's an imaginary nice being as portrayed.

[002]

At what stage in the season were these odds given? The Cubs started the year competing against 29 teams, and then 9 other teams in the playoffs.

Well if we go back even further, Mr Nate Cardboard gave Trump a 2 percent chance of even winning the Republican nomination.

[jacobolus]

“Grandma Nixon” is an ignorant and intellectually lazy (more like completely disingenuous, but let’s be generous) characterization.

Have you ever read *anything* about Nixon?

You could maybe sell “Grandma Ford but with a much more progressive domestic policy”, or “Grandma George HW Bush but with less lingering Reagan administration horseshit”, or “Grandma Eisenhower but with less military experience”. Those are still a stretch, but frankly don’t sound bad at all in comparison with Trump.

[webwit]

Orange Hitler is as well. Partisan, much?

Would you categorize bombing weddings under Hitler like, Nixon like, or just plainly original Clinton charm?

In my imaginary world, I'd like them both to lose to Johnson or Stein, and after that, they team up were Clinton fanatically defends Trump in his rape lawsuits, both laughing demonically.

[jacobolus]

Nixon got elected by secretly derailing the Vietnam War peace process (the original “October surprise”, and an act of treason), and then went on to carpet bomb Laos and Cambodia just for funsies, along with a wheelbarrowful of other war crimes.

I’m opposed to drone strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and I find the US military’s cavalier attitude toward mistakes and collateral damage to be shameful, but the scope is nowhere near comparable.

Johnson is a fantastically unprepared candidate who has no interest in being president and would have no idea what to do if he won (like Trump, but without the severe narcissistic personality disorder). I’m not exactly sure why he’s running, maybe to push for changes to drug laws? Stein was once a shrill and clueless but harmless environmental activist, but now she has been coopted by right wing whackjobs, and has gotten increasingly unhinged in the past few months. I have voted for the Green Party in past presidential elections as a protest vote, but Stein can fuck right off.

* * *

“Orange Hitler” is also a dumb summary. Trump approaches Hitlerian levels of narcissism and spite and vindictiveness, but he’s a whole lot stupider and less capable of working with other people than Hitler was, and the social/political context is nowhere near similar.

If Trump wins we could have a nuclear war, economic meltdown, unavoidable environmental catastrophe, and a break-down of the American government and society. But gas chambers and 1930s-Germany-style military conquest are a thing of the past.

[002]

[webwit]

Johnson is a fantastically unprepared candidate who has no interest in being president and would have no idea what to do if he won

Johnson: "What is Aleppo?"

I'd vote this guy. Less people would die. Indeed, what is Aleppo. What is Juba? We aren't there.

Nixon got elected by secretly derailing the Vietnam War peace process (the original “October surprise”, and an act of treason), and then went on to carpet bomb Laos and Cambodia just for funsies, along with a wheelbarrowful of other war crimes.

Hmm, he doesn't sound like a nice guy at all, what a scoundrel! I tell you, that almost takes him on a level with that German guy, what a nuisance he was.

I’m opposed to drone strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and I find the US military’s cavalier attitude toward mistakes and collateral damage to be shameful, but the scope is nowhere near comparable.

You're voting in favour of it. You have before.

Trump, Hitler, Nuclear war

Drama queen. He's a Berlusconi type of narcissist. If he would be president, his low point would probably be to get caught with a hooker or in some shady business deal. P.S. I like how you seriously went to compare Clinton to Nixon and Trump to Hitler. Well done.

[chuckdee]

[vivalarevolución]

At what stage in the season were these odds given? The Cubs started the year competing against 29 teams, and then 9 other teams in the playoffs.

Well if we go back even further, Mr Nate Cardboard gave Trump a 2 percent chance of even winning the Republican nomination.

And the Republican primary contest had about the same number of candidates as Major League Baseball had teams competing for the championship at the beginning of the year. Makes sense.

despite her past transgressions, she seems to have a history of learning from experience, being open to advisers, and working together with different parties to actually get things done

Oh ffs. I can understand that if one has a choice between her and Orange Hitler, one grudgingly makes a choice, but come on, you are going to vote Grandma Nixon, and it ain't any prettier than that and as you'd like it to be in la la land where she's an imaginary nice being as portrayed.

I wish that I lived in a la la land, I would probably be a happier person.

I reach my conclusions based on a person's past behavior and actions, character displayed, and what I observe through mediums available to me. Don't really care how a person is portrayed by the media, which clearly favors Clinton this time around. She can play nice well, yes. But I consider Clinton to be a classically corrupt, power hungry, elitist, and military-industrial-complex obsessed candidate. A classier individual would have left politics after her Secretary of State scandals, and moved on to something else.

And yet, I find that all better than what Trump's personality is capable of producing, because the only limitation to what he finds acceptable is if it bruises his ego. Insult entire races and genders of people, threaten to kill families of terrorists? That's fine. Saturday Night Live does an unfavorable skit on him? Boohoo, cancel the show. Get some thicker skin, you pansy. And he's more dangerous than Berlusconi because he has the world's largest military at his disposal.

On the other hand, groups are openly advocating for violent rebellion if Hillary wins. And she does not indicate any cessation in the military-industrial complex. Breakdown of American government and society and bombing of other nations still seems like a possibility regardless of who wins. WTF.

The number one reason that people don't like Clinton (yes, I am going here) is because she is a woman, and she does not act in the way that most people expect females to act. If she did half of the stuff that Trump has done (children to three different partners, extramarital affairs, groped dozens of men, constantly insulted entire categories of people, engaged in needless and distracting Twitter wars with random individuals, openly bragged about her sexual vivacity...the list of double standards is nearly endless). Most of the things she has done, they have been done many times over and even worse by high level male members of the US government and other politicians. This time around, we just have more proof.

America loses, either way. It truly is a shit sandwich for the USA right now, but I don't have to worry about voting for either because my state is 99.9% guaranteed to go for Trump and I feel completely fine voting for whomever I please. 3 of the 4 major candidates wouldn't have a clue what they are doing at the wheel, and the one that seems like they would have half a clue just seems like one of the deplorables that she rails against. Ugh.

Fuck it, I'm writing in Bernie, as least his ethics seem admirable and he truly cares about people beyond himself, which would heavily influence his decision making as the president.

[002]

About as much sense as supporting someone under criminal investigation?

[vivalarevolución]

About as much sense as supporting someone under criminal investigation?

This is a stretch, we were discussing odds of winning. But I'll bite.

Both candidates currently are under criminal investigation. Which one are you referring to? And I'm not sure if I ever had said I support Clinton and I surely will not vote for her. Given the absolute choice between Clinton and Trump, I take Clinton. But I have more choices than that, and I will exercise them.

[seebart]

Given the absolute choice between Clinton and Trump, I take Clinton. But I have more choices than that, and I will exercise them.

Same here, it's called "Schadensbegrenzung" in german.

Spoiler:

Damage control

Not that I am participating in this vote just to be clear.

[adhoc]

About as much sense as supporting someone under criminal investigation?

Please don't talk like this about Mrs. Hillary Clinton. We might get yet another body bag after a "fatal accident".

[002]

Woops, my bad -- thank you for *correcting the record*. I am too young to get suicided

[seebart]

None of us non-US folks will get suicided, these bozos on the other hand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nears.html

[adhoc]

Woops, my bad -- thank you for *correcting the record*. I am too young to get suicided

Implying HRC cares about age when it comes to abusing people...did you read some of the latest e-mails? 7-11 year olds abused for "entertainment" at their parties.

But yeah, fuck drumpf, he's orange lol and his last name is drumpf lmao what a loser amirite guize haifive