News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[Salvador]

That joke you wrote in your last post Vanadium , you might as well take away the (JOKE) signs , as it is closer to reality than to a joke.
So maybe the reality is becoming a joke ...

Yes indeed @russ_waters , well it's a bit sad for me that you didn't get my point but then again I was drinking my morning coffee and was a bit full of energy.
Anyway you are absolutely correct in pointing out that the once free liberals who argued against censorship of comedy and the use of rude words and freedom of speech and all other kinds of stuff are now so worried and even pissed off and angry that a comedian and his team and his writers choose to do a certain deal with Trump and approach him in a certain way , Jesus Christ , it's their full right to do so as a private company , they have their freedom of speech and their using it for good.

Oh but no , the whiny little liberal somewhere got offended just because the game isn't going the way, he himself appointed little ruler of the earth, wanted it.
Funny isn't it. The first sign that something is wrong with people is usually when they can't take a joke , the next part is when they deny reality, after that things go downhill so fast you better buckle a seat belt.

And I'm trying real hard to rant less , after all who am I , I myself am a sad little individual who loves his cat , recycles scrap metal and basically tries to clean up trash people left at the forest just to realize that even if I care there are another 10 000 that don't because their too stupid and ignorant , and this goes not only for trashing after yourself it goes for everything from politics to culture to family life.

Today I randomly watched a guy in youtube asking Californians what they think about Trump's sons killing endangered animals in Africa (which is a false statement to test one's level of knowledge) and everyone replied that it's bad and he shouldn't do that and some said it's ok , and then some didn't know what 9/11 stands for and from which country the hijackers were.And sure you could say oh this is staged for the video to make it funny etc but you know I think it's actually the reality , people are dumb as f***
Just to prove my point , I have a friend who thinks that the Earth is flat , well we aren't the best of friends (for a reason) it's hard to talk to him because he perceives many things differently.
I have other guys whom I know of who still think free energy is possible , and I could go on and on about the various encounters with lack of knowledge and outright stupidity I have come across.
I mean you don't need to be a nuclear physicist but atleast cmoon , know something about life.

So I came to a conclusion while drinking my coffee , sure this would never go through in a country like US , or in any other major democracy but instead of having a ban on immigrants which might be good , or instead of having all kinds of background checks , we would really benefit from a voting background check , in other words anyone is allowed to vote say from the age 16, but before your vote is cast you must fill out a check form which has questions that basically test whether you are intellectual and creative or whether you are a damn redneck or an absolutely worthless trash.
Just an idea while drinking my coffee, imagine that you would probably get some 20% less voters yet the vote itself would be more accurate and thought through , it would simply be better as the ones who are easy to manipulate with would be given no chance to decide important things for a big country let them better do their laundry or take out the trash.

 

[phinds]

Since we seem to be on a roll about political correctness run amok, here's one of my favorites:

 

[TurtleMeister]

So I came to a conclusion while drinking my coffee , sure this would never go through in a country like US , or in any other major democracy but instead of having a ban on immigrants which might be good , or instead of having all kinds of background checks , we would really benefit from a voting background check , in other words anyone is allowed to vote say from the age 16, but before your vote is cast you must fill out a check form which has questions that basically test whether you are intellectual and creative or whether you are a damn redneck or an absolutely worthless trash.
Just an idea while drinking my coffee, imagine that you would probably get some 20% less voters yet the vote itself would be more accurate and thought through , it would simply be better as the ones who are easy to manipulate with would be given no chance to decide important things for a big country let them better do their laundry or take out the trash.

That would give Clinton the White House because according to the media that 20% would be Trump supporters.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but before your vote is cast you must fill out a check form which has questions that basically test whether you are intellectual and creative or whether you are a damn redneck or an absolutely worthless trash.

Ah, yes. "The deplorables shouldn't get a vote" argument. We heard similar suggestions post-Brexit. Is it any wonder why the Depolrables are lining up against the politics that suggests they be disenfranchised?

 

[jim hardy]

imagine that you would probably get some 20% less voters yet the vote itself would be more accurate and thought through , it would simply be better as the ones who are easy to manipulate with would be given no chance to decide important things for a big country let them better do their laundry or take out the trash.

Who you going to trust to decide ? Both parties would salivate at the thought of that kind of power.

i don't think you've thought that one through.

 

[Salvador]

Ok , maybe you folks took my argument too personally , here's my reasoning and again this is just an idea so let's not judge.
I know personally a lot of people who are very reckless when it comes to voting , like they don't care but oh sure when the voting day is here they still go and vote simply because... they can.But when I talk to them , sometimes randomly just when I meet someone there is no argument as to why he or she or whoever is better , no basic knowledge even of the candidates past , simply something alongside " Oh I like him better simply because I think he is better"

In my country many folks whom I consider a bit higher than the average , even they I have heard sometimes go like "Oh I'm going to vote for this man because he is rich and he could make us rich" And we were speaking about a local oligarch who has got his money from shady deals and probably also smart schemes of taxpayers money. And like it's all over the news and so on and some folks just go like "oh what a great business man he must be"
And it's really hard for me to sit at the dinner table and eat with them as they are friends of mine yet at the same time realizing that while they are ok in all other fields of their life they simply either don't have a clue or are ignorant towards voting.
Also many go by the phrase "what does it matter it's just a single vote" and when a few millions of these "what do my vote matters" come together they suddenly matter.A democracy can only work if the majority of the society has atleast some clue and are vigilant enough , I'm sure the founding fathers knew that.Democracy is especially "fragile" towards this very aspect that it is "in theory" the rule of the masses , and if the masses somehow are blind or have become blind enough or ignorant enough then the political process can be exploited by people who simply give the public what they want to hear.
It's a two way street , the candidates present themselves but the public must evaluate them and then decide which one is better , if the public somehow stops doing it's job or lacks behind in the ability to do so then democracy is in trouble.
Don't you think it's happening right now?

This is also the reason why democracy can't be simply applied like a sticker to countries and societies that have lived in a tyranny or dictatorship for long or societies whose values and way of life including religion is vastly different than the western Christian neo liberal thought.
Democracy is not an export also not an import it forms if the conditions are right , and it collapses if the variables somehow degrade over time.As for the US , some of you said , ok if you applied such voter checking, Hillary would win. Why ? Does that mean the average Trump supporter is a fool? No honestly tell me as I am not from the US and maybe I have gotten something mixed up here although I have a feeling what the answer might be.

In itself I think it speaks volumes of the US that you only have two candidates now running for office of which both are a dead end apocalypse for the other party voters.So much so that now even comedians are starting to fear whether they can invite one of them for an interview or not or will that spark an outcry larger than a tsunami.

 

[Bystander]

Don't you think it's happeninged (fait accompli) right now?

 

[jartsa]

I know personally a lot of people who are very reckless when it comes to voting , like they don't care but oh sure when the voting day is here they still go and vote simply because... they can.

So how about: Anyone that does not vote gets paid X dollars and also gets the right to vote on some election, some kind of "special election"?

Hmm some more choices for the non-voter: Either X dollars or Y% tax deduction for not voting. We must think about the rich too. But now this is getting too complicated ... so how about simply: If you vote in one election you can not vote in some other election. We wan the dumb votes to coalesce together, and the hopefully to go somewhere where they do not do too much harm.

 

[phinds]

To describe the depths of my dislike for Trump I would have to go WAY beyond the forum rules but all this talk about how bad his supporters are distresses me. While it is true that many of them are probably folks who are not likely to be thought of as astute critical thinkers that doesn't mean they are dumb and categorizing them as "deplorables" and many other pejorative adjectives is, I think, neither true nor helpful. Probably a small minority of his supporters ARE deplorable people, but the vast majority are very likely fine hard-working Americans who are beyond fed up with Wall Street bankers ruining the economy and walking away with millions rather than jail terms, a congress that gets little to nothing done, wages that have stagnated for 30 years (that last one does seem to be showing small signs of improvement), and just generally a "system" that does not seem to be on their side at all. I deplore their conclusion that Trump is any kind of answer to any of that, but demonizing of the opposition is one of the main reasons why we are where we are today. I don't mean demonizing Trump himself (I'm fine with that ) but his supporters.

Personally, I'm going to hold my nose, fortify myself with antiemetics and vote for Hilary because she's the only viable alternative, but I do not impugn the motives of Trump's supporters en toto.

The American form of democracy has its flaws for sure, but it IS a democracy, not any kind of oligarchy even if it shows some signs of being one sometimes.

 

[Salvador]

Well you are correct phinds , Democrats don't like whenever someone attacks them , but when they attack it's somehow fine. Their attacking now almost everyone , Trump supporters , comedians that have the gut to do what they think, they teach foreign powers on what's better like Obama's Brexit speech which if not useless then only escalated the very thing he tried to argue against.
The list goes on.

The Democrats are like the poor man fighting against the rich guy , they started out poor and thought that they will do only good , then the man got rich and started being ignorant and now his filthy rich and he does the same thing the man who was filthy rich before him did.
Just as money corrupts , freedom corrupts too , also power , basically everything makes you bad if you loose control over it.Let me be a little advocate for Trump for a moment , I check out many news sites on daily basis and I can assure you or anyone else the game is rigged indeed , maybe not in a way Trump suggests but in a more general and sinister way indeed.
There are certain news outlets that are neutral but the majority simply go one side, I am going to mention Huffingtonpost again simply because it strikes me out as the best example as it's a rather radical liberal thing just as Russia Today is always showed in the opposite light as an example.
I haven't seen a single good headline about Trump on that site , not a single one , you got to be kidding me that's not possible , I'm sure I could find at least a few good things about Lucifer himself and they pretend like there's none at all about a man who isn't that different from the many other billionaires and rich folks who contribute to the democrats on a regular basis and influence their friendly media, do they really think Trump is like the only one who has made stuff in China , or tried to do a tax evasion thing.
For those whose memory serves them they could rewind the tape and remember how Mark Rich , the man who traded illegally with US adversaries and was among the most wanted men by the FBI got a pardon from Bill Clinton in his last days in office and whose wife gave contributions to the Clinton Foundation , how about that isn't that a slap in the face for the US? Oh but guess what, sites like Huffpost really don't want you to focus on those issues.Because focusing on such issues trains your critical thinking , a skill which is dangerous for a modern liberal.
On the other side I haven't seen a single bad headline about Hillary on that site , not one , I've tried , once I almost thought that it has happened but as I started to read the article I quickly understood that's it's just a trick to make them save whatever legitimacy they have left.

This goes even deeper , sure I don't have the evidence to back up my claims here because I don't sit all day copying out photos from news sites but even the photos they put on top of each headline , even those , Trump is always showed with some of his more crazy face mimics , either being angry or looking weird and stupid , always.
Hillary on the other hand is always shown smiling , sometimes with a serious face but one that sends down signs to your brain that she is confident.
Like cmoon isn't anyone seeing this? That is psychological manipulation at it's best , but it still falls short and can be seen because the Americans just don't know how to lie good enough they should learn from the Russians , this has always been their strong side.
Or maybe they don't even try because they do think that the public is "deplorable" enough and they will catch on their bait anyhow.And quite frankly that's the truth.

Now I'm going to get even more hated upon but I want to say that atleast 50% of the times the Dems have attacked Putin and criticized him for being bad and evil and a monster , it;s simply because their strategy was overtaken by the Russians and they lost and failed to Putin's strategy , which has many times proved itself simply smarter and better, yes Vladimir is twisted and maybe a bit evil as his former job required such way of thinking but that doesn't make him bad everytime, it definitely makes him a very competent man when it comes to negotiating and winning because everyone want's something for themselves and you can't play Mother Therese in international politics , sometimes surviving means attacking other interests.Anyhow , no one should get offended or find my remarks offensive , simply because I'm giving my opinion + quite simply the truth , so if someone has a problem with that then all I can say to him is a quote from Jack Nicholson in one of my favorite movies "You can't handle the truth!"

 

[phinds]

Anyhow , no one should get offended or find my remarks offensive , simply because I'm giving my opinion + quite simply the truth ...

No, you are not. You ARE giving your opinion, but you are giving YOUR truth, NOT "quite simply the truth" . To expect others to agree w/ it just because it is your opinion is not going to work. I don't expect anyone to take my opinion as objective truth and neither should you. That's the kind of thinking that created the partisanship that now plagues us.

 

[Salvador]

Well the opinion is when you say how you feel or think about a certain fact , like for example what I think of Trump is an opinion but when i say Trump has this and that or hasn't released his tax returns that is not an opinion those are the facts and they are real and so are true.I don't see why I can't call that the truth or reality.

Much like what I said about the media showing this and that , that part is not my opinion that part is what's going on and anyone can see it but not anyone understands it.Much like Mark Rich's pardon is the truth , a fact.
So as long as I'm not pretending to be the Messiah and offering you salvation I think I haven;t said anything wrong.
I understand you phinds , you just got confused over what I said but I hope you see how I intend it to be and agree it's fine.I don't strive for others to accept my opinion as "the truth" , I don't gain anything from it , atleast not in my current position.Al I'm doing is I'm saying that 2+2=4 in a world were it's accepted to =5 and for some 3 and for some it could equal all the numbers in maths as they don't care. I;m just saying 2+2=4 which is the truth and then I'm elaborating on that truth and that then is my opinion which you are welcomed to deny , rebel against or agree with , anyways it;'s fine with me.
It's not like I have an election to win this fall...

 

[TurtleMeister]

As for the US , some of you said , ok if you applied such voter checking, Hillary would win. Why ? Does that mean the average Trump supporter is a fool? No honestly tell me as I am not from the US and maybe I have gotten something mixed up here although I have a feeling what the answer might be.

I don't think the average Trump supporter is a fool. The key phrase in my post was "according to the media".

 

[phinds]

I understand you phinds , you just got confused over what I said but I hope you see how I intend it to be and agree it's fine.

I would agree that you stated one or two facts (e.g. Clinton's pardon of Rich) but most of what you said in the post I was responding to is your opinion not any kind of objective fact. For example, I agree there is media bias but you overstate the case and seem to be presenting your opinion as fact. Yes, I know YOU think it's a fact, but not everyone will agree.

 

[Evo]

Phinds is correct. Let's remember, stating opinion as fact is not allowed unless the sources for each statement are provided, so let's not go there. Second, mixing opinion with true statements requires the same sources. So, clearly state opinions as opinions, do not mix with "facts", all facts must be backed with appropriate sources.

 

[Salvador]

OK, phinds and Evo , I sure understand your point. Sure media bias ir harder to prove than Bill's written pardon for Rich or any other documented piece of paper.
Opinion:
Not to brag about it here but the media bias case is actually an interesting one , just for curiosity I suggest you folks take some time whenever you have it and simply read the news but not the headlines not even the articles as we all already pretty much know what they are about but read the message between the lines , the photos attached , the overall outline of the article , that's what I do usually , I have gotten so used to it I don't even notice what exactly is that I'm seeing.

As I've said in my earlier post , I don't have any real physical evidence of this and it is hard to have any evidence of this because the news too is much like my posts - some facts and a lot of opinion , So such a mix is really hard to prove or disprove.But you wouldn't say that it's not there and not real.

Fox news for example , they too ride cleverly mixed opinion above many facts , I may agree on many cases with that opinion and so may many others so they don't even have the slightest clue that it might be just an opinion for them it's the truth.
All I wanted to say is that this is the very reason why media is the 4th power apart from the government and why it's been used so heavily by politicians all over the globe.There's this thin line between a fact like "Obama is the president of US " and " Obama is the best president of the US ever"

Although whatever because it's a two way street as much as the media give bias the people who hear that bias want it themselves as each of us want to see the world differently , so the people give feedback and the news just build up on it.Much like the forever ongoing war on drugs , as long as someone will want that distorted vision of reality there will be someone supplying it.

 

[Salvador]

Oh , by the way , even if Trump hasn't supplied his tax returns , isn't the IRS and other government agencies checking them already for possible bad influences and things that are dangerous for a nominee , so technically if there would be some real links that shown Trump's connections in the money form with Russia and Moscow, wouldn't the SS or IRS or anyone already on alert by now ?
Just wondering.
Because apart from any wrongdoing and crime that might appear on those returns what else is there to hide if not the fact that his income may be lower than the likes to shout.

 

[kyphysics]

Why isn't this pay for play stuff illegal?

 

[kyphysics]

Or, is it that you have to show quid pro quo, which is kind of a built in bullet-proof, get-out-of-jail free card?

In that case, anyone can just say, well donor X never asked me for anything specific and I just happened to give donor x some government position, because he or she seemed like a good candidate (despite probably way more qualified people).

 

[Dotini]

Why isn't this pay for play stuff illegal?

IMO, two reasons:
1) It only gives the appearance of impropriety, and is not definitive proof of wrongdoing.
2) Both parties have been doing it for decades, so if it is wrongdoing, both have been implicated and neither wants the practice to end. It is a perfected and accepted form of corruption in the USA.

 

[mheslep]

Or, is it that you have to show quid pro quo, which is kind of a built in bullet-proof, get-out-of-jail free card?

In that case, anyone can just say, well donor X never asked me for anything specific and I just happened to give donor x some government position, because he or she seemed like a good candidate (despite probably way more qualified people).

There's plenty of evidence for both 'quid' and 'quo' while Clinton was Sec of State, but the 'pro' is harder to establish. Apparently what's required is either a recording of the act, as with the Gov of Illinois, Blagojevich, or an insider who comes forward.

 

[gleem]

We have the best government that money can buy. - Mark Twain

Political patronage is probably as old as man himself.

For those not familiar with Twain, Mark Twain was the pen name of Samuel Clemens an American writer and humorist (1835 - 1910).

 

[phinds]

Oh , by the way , even if Trump hasn't supplied his tax returns , isn't the IRS and other government agencies checking them already for possible bad influences and things that are dangerous for a nominee ...]

Absolutely not and I can't imagine why you would think so. That not only is not the IRS's job, it would cause them a world of hurt if they were to do it. It's probably even illegal, depending on how far you think they would go.

 

[mheslep]

That not only is not the IRS's job, ...

Right, not the job of US version of the IRS. The Russian version on the other hand ...

 

[kyphysics]

There's plenty of evidence for both 'quid' and 'quo' while Clinton was Sec of State, but the 'pro' is harder to establish. Apparently what's required is either a recording of the act, as with the Gov of Illinois, Blagojevich, or an insider who comes forward.

Good luck getting a recording.

 

[kyphysics]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nton-is-putting-out-all-people-hear-is-email/


Whatever message Hillary Clinton is putting out, all people hear is ’email’

email, email email...email, email, email

 

[kyphysics]

 

[kyphysics]

There's been a lot of debate about the extent to which Trump has been controlling the media's attention over the course of this race. This survey data doesn't definitively resolve that debate one way or the other. But it suggests that Clinton's quiet month of campaigning didn't do much to upend what people were hearing about her candidacy. If the polling trend continues, she's in trouble. Whether or not she needs the "email" trend to stop in order to keep her poll numbers from sliding further is an unanswered question.

 

[mheslep]

...

Bear?

 

[Salvador]

Well I thought that the US agencies are doing some background on presidential nominees. After all an immigrant even gets some background check why not the person who has the most influential position of the country.

I see @mheslep you have a tendency to say stuff about Russia and at times I find that funny and amusing at others not so much , ok let's give this a try.
How about "In Soviet Russia" nobody needs a background check whether making his candidacy for some office or any job because he has had a constant background check since he was born and everything that even God almighty doesn't know about him is know to the (insert your favorite intelligence agency acronym here)
Sure I'm overstating my case here but that's what you like in the west anyway. :)As for Hillary , I think the only way an insider would come forward is if that insider somehow got evangelized , suddenly understood the true meaning of life and repented all of his sins and then wished to be a true servant to the Lord , I by no means am making a mockery of Christianity here rather , just emphasizing how impossible it is for someone who has gotten a benefit by paying with his most often dirty money to suddenly change his mind about everything. There is a saying one hand washes the other.

 

[Evo]

Salvador, you don't seem to know much about Trump., so I'll post some of what is going on. As far as I know there are no criminal charges at this time, but interesting reading since I don't remember seeing much of this in the thread, sorry if I've missed it. I know there has been mention of people being swindled by his "Trump University" and construction deals, but this puts some dollar amounts to them.

Donald Trump used US$258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire's for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

Those cases, which together used US$258,000 (NZ$352,000) from Trump's charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against "self-dealing" - which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems

and

According to the Associated Press, Felix Sater once served as a senior adviser to Trump's real estate business, despite having a criminal background:

Donald Trump tapped a man to be a senior business adviser to his real-estate empire even after the man’s past involvement in a major mafia-linked stock fraud scheme had become publicly known.

Portions of Trump’s relationship with Felix Sater, a convicted felon and government informant, have been previously known. Trump worked with the company where Sater was an executive, Bayrock Group LLC, after it rented office space from the Trump Organization as early as 2003. Sater’s criminal history was effectively unknown to the public at the time, because a judge kept the relevant court records secret and Sater altered his name. When Sater’s criminal past and mafia links came to light in 2007, Trump distanced himself from Sater.

But less than three years later, Trump renewed his ties with Sater. Sater presented business cards describing himself as a senior adviser to Donald Trump, and he had an office on the same floor as Trump’s own office in New York’s Trump Tower.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-and-children-face-250-million-tax-evasion-charges/

Washington (AFP) - Companies belonging to Donald Trump have at least $650 million in debt, more than twice the amount shown in public filings made by his presidential campaign, the New York Times reported Saturday.

The paper employed a property information firm to search publicly available data on more than 30 US properties connected to the Republican candidate, including offices and golf courses.

In addition to the $650 million liabilities, "a substantial portion of his wealth is tied up in three passive partnerships that owe an additional $2 billion to a string of lenders," the Times said about debt that could significantly affect Trump's wealth.

His lenders include one of the largest banks in China -- which the Republican candidate accuses of being a US economic foe -- and the investment bank Goldman Sachs, which he says influences his Democratic White House rival Hillary Clinton.

As president, the Times said, Trump would be able to make decisions that would have a major influence on his business empire and net worth.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-companies-owe-650-million-ny-times-154100624.html

Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

 

[russ_watters]

I see @mheslep you have a tendency to say stuff about Russia and at times I find that funny and amusing at others not so much , ok let's give this a try.
How about "In Soviet Russia" nobody needs a background check whether making his candidacy for some office or any job because he has had a constant background check since he was born and everything that even God almighty doesn't know about him is know to the (insert your favorite intelligence agency acronym here)...

In Soviet Russia, social media follows you!

 

[Salvador]

this is one of those good ones russ, almost like 'social media" is a man with a black suit following someone.

Thanks Evo, although I think I know the overall picture about Trump , I haven't dived into super much detail about him but much about folks like Trump can be seen from the way he speaks and acts unlike Hillary which has perfected her body language and talking over the years in politics.

I think one of the reasons (probably?) why Trump has had shady business deals is that it's the real estate sector , I don't know how it's in the US but around the world it's one of those business sectors that has a lot of shady things going on , sometimes criminal activity and definitely schemes of all kinds as many rival interests compete for a single best land piece etc.So I assume atleast part of his problems has to do with that, the second part might be his love for money which is obvious.
Although given how he lied about meeting Vladimir Putin and likes to speak about many other worlds most influential people , I'd say he loves power more than money and power brings money as it's somewhat tied to it so his presidential shot is probably the height of his life.

I do agree with Trump and the Republicans on some issues like immigration etc but so many times as I've watched the debates just for amusement I thought to myself , ok Trump you said it loudly but I so wanted to be in his place at some points and simply say it better , I mean there are many genuine topics he has touched on up until this point but some of them he has made either a laughing stock or a hate topic simply because of the way he has said that.

Just one example , when he talked about Mexico , I do believe there is a big difference in poverty and crime between Mexico and the US and that has a lot to do with how the Mexicans live and think an d do their business and many of them indeed are criminals and people who shouldn't be allowed into the US , heck not into any country whatsoever for that matter , but that can be explained differently , sure his speech about "Their bringing crime , drugs and their rapists" was fun to listen to but I can also understand how some decent Mexicans got offended by that.
Well I don't know what else to say, huh one hell of a presidential election you are having there I guess.

 

[Bystander]

y, huh one hell of a presidential election you are having there I guess.

"A-men."

 

[Astronuc]

Well I don't know what else to say, huh one hell of a presidential election you are having there I guess.

Pew poll: Most voters 'frustrated,' 'disgusted' with 2016 election
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bd95bb24-8d3b-358a-980b-bd993dade888/pew-poll%3A-most-voters.html

Young voters to Clinton: We can’t stand you
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/66224305-7c75-38d5-a8e0-e21b1ed76d61/young-voters-to-clinton%3A-we.html

I see headlines that either Clinton or Trump has a lead in the polls.

This election certainly doesn't inspire confidence for the next four years, especially if deficits continue and debt continues upward.

 

[Salvador]

I doubt either Hillary or Trump will do much about the debt situation because quite frankly what is there for them to do , it's not like the debt got where it is in one day , its the result of decades of policy and government from wars to all kinds of spending , they can only to my mind try to make it less by trying to spend less and make the growth larger.

Basically it's what you do when you are out of money , you find a job and stop spending on stuff you might not even need.Surely it's far more complicated for a large country which has all kinds of agreements to help alliances like NATO and climate accords and social welfare stuff.

 

[Evo]

A look at the polls

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzog...clinton-no-surges-or-free-falls/#35ebc4c52f75

 

[Salvador]

Given that all other things have stayed the same , I'd say her recent drop is due to that fainting event at the 9/11 ceremony , my guess would be such.
There is this sense of strength that we humans have and we like to see that especially in our leaders and also others , those of whom we think good.This is not just a "conservative thing" it's a psychological bipartisan thing. I think Hillary sort of stabbed herself in the back with trying to do all those things while being sick at the same time , she would have been better off poll wise if she simply said "Ok folks I have some minor cold that I want to treat and then I'll be back in business"
Instead she decided to run full steam and this resulted in pneumonia which is what usually happens if you don't cure the symptoms of cold and coughing.

After all she is a woman in her late 60's and I know some strong men who have gotten pneumonia from refusing to stay home feeling quite ok in the first place.

Maybe she herself is sort of fearing the Trump supporters and their claim that she has low energy and without admitting that is trying to show herself as a strong leader and one of the ways to do so is to stay healthy along the campaign or atleast show the impression of that even while being sick.

Anyway there is this human phenomena of the need to see strength , historically when a king or a ruler has gotten very sick all those who feared him before then suddenly start to plot against him and take his position.
Also people don't usually cry after some leader when he gets sick they simply turn to the next strongest option , that's politics no sweet emotions there.

 

[Dotini]

Trump's recent performances - likening him to an actor in a drama - plus Hillary's on-stage swooning malaise have allowed Trump to pull ahead in some battleground states. Others could easily follow depending on the outcome of the upcoming debate. This debate might be watched by something like a hundred million people - what an audience!

Donald Trump narrowly leads Hillary Clinton in the battleground states of Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fox-news-poll-trump-tops-220000474.html

 

[Salvador]

Given Trump's value as an entertainer maybe they should consider selling tickets to those debates.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Jeffrey H. Anderson has an interesting, largely mathematical discussion of the race here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/electoral-mapmaking/article/2004500. (The Weekly Standard does tilt right, but math is math)

His contention is that Secretary Clinton has 5 must-win states: PA, MI, WI, MN and VA and Mr. Trump has 3: OH, FL and NC. At the present time, both candidates are ahead in their must-win states.

What follows is my opinion, building on Andreson's analysis: Using the latest polling, Secretary Clinton would get 272 electoral votes and Mr. Trump 266. But what if the polls are wrong? Suppose they are wrong by the same amount that the Brexit polls were wrong. There are both similarlities and differences. The most obvious difference is that the sample population is completely different. In my view, the biggest similarity is that people on one side are considered "deplorables" by the other,

That turns over NH, MI, WI and CO, for a Trump victory: 304-234.

Suppose the effect is only half as large as in the UK: now only CO and NH turn. In this scenario, Trump still wins, 278 to 260.

Suppose the effect is only a quarter as large as in the UK: now only NH turns. In this scenario, it's a tie. That means the election goes to House of Representatives, where it is voted on by State. Presently, the GP holds 33 states, the Democrats hold 14, and NH, ME and NJ are tied.

I think the election is closer than most pundits say.

 

[mheslep]

This election certainly doesn't inspire confidence for the next four years, especially if deficits continue and debt continues upward.

Peggy Noonan, from her hypothetical conversations with strangers:

...I say if Hillary Clinton is elected there will be at least one special prosecutor, maybe two, within 18 months, because her character will not be reborn on crossing the threshold of the White House; the well-worn grooves of her essential nature will kick in. If Mr. Trump is elected there will be a constitutional crisis within 18 months because he doesn’t really know what a president does, doesn’t respect traditional boundaries, doesn’t reflect on implications and effects.

 

[Salvador]

I like your analysis Vanadium.

 

[Evo]

Clinton now ahead in the polls!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

Clinton now ahead in the polls!

Is this news? I thought she's always been ahead (looking at the averages).

 

[Evo]

Is this news? I thought she's always been ahead (looking at the averages).

Recently she was tied or Trump was ahead in a couple of polls. We'll see where she is after the debates.

 

[mheslep]

From the trend lines, the news seems to be that Clinton, in the last few days, has slightly broken Trump's trend of gaining for the last many weeks.

 

[kyphysics]

Jeffrey H. Anderson has an interesting, largely mathematical discussion of the race here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/electoral-mapmaking/article/2004500. (The Weekly Standard does tilt right, but math is math)

His contention is that Secretary Clinton has 5 must-win states: PA, MI, WI, MN and VA and Mr. Trump has 3: OH, FL and NC. At the present time, both candidates are ahead in their must-win states.

What follows is my opinion, building on Andreson's analysis: Using the latest polling, Secretary Clinton would get 272 electoral votes and Mr. Trump 266. But what if the polls are wrong? Suppose they are wrong by the same amount that the Brexit polls were wrong. There are both similarlities and differences. The most obvious difference is that the sample population is completely different. In my view, the biggest similarity is that people on one side are considered "deplorables" by the other,

That turns over NH, MI, WI and CO, for a Trump victory: 304-234.

Suppose the effect is only half as large as in the UK: now only CO and NH turn. In this scenario, Trump still wins, 278 to 260.

Suppose the effect is only a quarter as large as in the UK: now only NH turns. In this scenario, it's a tie. That means the election goes to House of Representatives, where it is voted on by State. Presently, the GP holds 33 states, the Democrats hold 14, and NH, ME and NJ are tied.

I think the election is closer than most pundits say.

PA is virtually a tie now.

Could actually swing Trump's way.

That was interesting analysis, btw. I really want to see the polls POST-debates.

 

[Salvador]

Given either Trump or Hillary , I really want to see the US POST-election...
I have a feeling the news will have much more material.

 

[Astronuc]

From the last post in the first Clinton-Trump debate
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/1st-presidential-debate-2016-thread.886833/page-3#post-5578289

Some polls indicate Clinton won, and some indicate Trump won.

CNN said Hillary won the debate. Why do so many polls seem to say otherwise?
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/m/ffaab72e-0258-3b16-a4d2-a6af78afd255/ss_cnn-said-hillary-won-the.html
http://mashable.com/2016/09/27/online-polls-tell-different-story-debate.amp

The Mashable article claims, "The poll, which Drudge linked to and which was shared by some #TrumpWon supporters on Twitter, actually came from a fake ABC News site with the address "abcnewsgo.co," not the outlet's real site, "abcnews.go.com." I think though that Drudge Report has its own poll, but I would expect Trump to do well in a Drudge poll.

Clinton Won The Debate, Which Means She’s Likely To Gain In The Polls
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...which-means-shes-likely-to-gain-in-the-polls/

CNBC reports on European reactions: 'Harsh but no knockout blow': Europe's media react to Clinton-Trump duel
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/harsh-no-knockout-blow-europes-063722359.html