News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[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