Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:03 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Here's some real stats about the mediocre status of the MN economy--not opinion pieces with obvious agendas:

http://2lffqo2moysixpyb349z0bj6.wpengin ... conomy.pdf


No, that's an opinion piece. (But hey at least this time you posted a link.) What about that obvious agenda again?

The Center has supported school vouchers[7] and opposed affirmative action, particularly in academia.[9] The organization has been credited with playing a major role in empowering conservatives in Minnesota.

The Center of the American Experiment is a Minnesota-based think tank that advocates for conservative and free-market principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of ... Experiment
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8717
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:24 pm

I loved how Fox and Friends ripped the Clinton campaign on their advertisement buy on The Weather Channel. Their logic? This is not the time for politics, especially with a storm bearing down. I guess we might as well tell all companies to stop advertising on major news networks (who are all focused on Matthew). How dare they, right?!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24083
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:50 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Aesma wrote:
What economic theory ? There are plenty of those. Even proponents of the same ones disagree on many aspects.

Usually for a theory to be proven, it has to work.


Forced income equality is a nice way of saying socialism. And we know that doesn't work due to economic theory and historical evidence. It goes against the very basis of human nature. And history has proven it never leads to prosperity. Sadly many "economists" let their political leanings cloud their thinking.


Why were there rich people when the top tax rate was 90%?

Also, one reason companies choose one state over another is the price of land and the amount of skilled and unskilled labor. They can use the tax code to pay nothing in taxes. Look at Trump. People in San Francisco are willing to pay $2500 a month for a hole in the wall one room apartment just to be close to their tech jobs which pay enough for them to afford a $2500 a month hole in the wall one room apartment. If those same people moved to where the rent was much lower, they would be unemployed. And companies would still cheat the tax code.
 
User avatar
lugie
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:43 pm

afcjets wrote:

Perhaps the end of the do nothing GOP will mean the US can FINALLY be run like California, Baltimore, and Chicago.


Comparing cities to a country of 320 million, awesome.

I also don't see what would be wrong with running the US like a deep blue state such as CA with a GDP roughly as big as India's. (2.203 trillion vs 2.288 trillion $)


But I agree, we should just focus on trying our best to put all 3 branches under the control of a party that has managed to keep states like AL, TN, AR, LA, MS, WV, you name it, dirt-poor for decades and even achieved to turn investments away from a well-developing and sprawling state like NC :roll:
 
User avatar
OA412
Moderator
Posts: 4937
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:36 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Endless entertainment the US election, on the other hand, it is really a shame that the US nation of 300m, can't put forward two candidates that are more intelligent and integer then these two.

I have to disagree with you here with respect to Clinton's intelligence. Trump is a buffoon, but Clinton is anything but. Say what you will about her and I'm certainly no fan, nor was I ever "with her," but she is an extremely intelligent and capable woman.
MSPNWA wrote:
Can't reply with facts, so you resort to personal attacks.

MSPNWA wrote:
"All I said" was ad hominem attack. That's strike one.

:lol: It's always funny seeing Trump fans get huffy and offended. You all want an end to PC culture, you got it, so do as your candidate does each time he says something racist, sexist, or generally bigoted, and get over it.
MSPNWA wrote:
Sadly many "economists" let their political leanings cloud their thinking.

And you don't? No one is buying that.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12694
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:12 pm

OA412 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Endless entertainment the US election, on the other hand, it is really a shame that the US nation of 300m, can't put forward two candidates that are more intelligent and integer then these two.

I have to disagree with you here with respect to Clinton's intelligence. Trump is a buffoon, but Clinton is anything but. Say what you will about her and I'm certainly no fan, nor was I ever "with her," but she is an extremely intelligent and capable woman.


I actually agree with you there, she is extremely intelligent and actually quite capabel, but also too much Wall Street and not very trustworthy. With her background and intelligents she should have blown mr. Trump out of the water, but alais. I should have said it different. But still maintain both parties could have done alot better ;-)
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:36 pm

Dutchy wrote:

I actually agree with you there, she is extremely intelligent and actually quite capabel, but also too much Wall Street and not very trustworthy. With her background and intelligents she should have blown mr. Trump out of the water, but alais. I should have said it different. But still maintain both parties could have done alot better ;-)


Few dispute her intelligence. It's what she does with that intelligence that turns people off. She is a criminal mastermind. Like Al Capone or Lucky Luciano, she is clearly involved in all sorts of unethical and illegal activity, but she is smart enough to avoid leaving enough clear evidence that would convince a jury beyond doubt. Having a friendly Justice department was certainly a help - it's becoming more and more clear that The FBI's investigations into her were strictly contained within boundaries set by the DOJ they were not allowed to cross. Had the head of DOJ not been a Democratic flunky, she'd be facing criminal charges without a doubt.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14853
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:49 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Aesma wrote:
What economic theory ? There are plenty of those. Even proponents of the same ones disagree on many aspects.

Usually for a theory to be proven, it has to work.


Forced income equality is a nice way of saying socialism. And we know that doesn't work due to economic theory and historical evidence. It goes against the very basis of human nature. And history has proven it never leads to prosperity. Sadly many "economists" let their political leanings cloud their thinking.


I'm more interested in your theory and your proof it works (back to Reagan times for example) than the theory you ascribe to others, I've not seen anyone proposing forced income equality.

Being French I know a thing or two about socialism, and have socialist candidates to choose from at all elections, unlike in the US. Sometimes, they even win. The more social democrat ones that is, the "truer" socialists that we also have, like those in the communist party, only win in some cities. We also have trotskyist candidates (yes, more than one) at each presidential election.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:50 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

I actually agree with you there, she is extremely intelligent and actually quite capabel, but also too much Wall Street and not very trustworthy. With her background and intelligents she should have blown mr. Trump out of the water, but alais. I should have said it different. But still maintain both parties could have done alot better ;-)


Few dispute her intelligence. It's what she does with that intelligence that turns people off. She is a criminal mastermind. Like Al Capone or Lucky Luciano, she is clearly involved in all sorts of unethical and illegal activity, but she is smart enough to avoid leaving enough clear evidence that would convince a jury beyond doubt. Having a friendly Justice department was certainly a help - it's becoming more and more clear that The FBI's investigations into her were strictly contained within boundaries set by the DOJ they were not allowed to cross. Had the head of DOJ not been a Democratic flunky, she'd be facing criminal charges without a doubt.


The right keeps saying she's a criminal? How? Where? She hasn't commited a crime. Benghazi? The email server to-do? Whitewater? Filegate? Travelgate? Where is all this proof that she's a criminal? There isn't any. It's simply the narrative the right has tried to build about the Clinton's in general for over 30 years now, and it has no teeth. Is she perfect? Far from it, just as the rest of us are far from it. But she has a solid and established record as a United States Senator and Secretary of State that shows that she is as prepared for this job as anyone in the nation.

And Trump? The shadiness of this guy is legendary. He's stiffed contractors, investors and workers. He has a history of civil rights violations. He has shady dealings with Russia and other nations where he seems to have a huge monetary interest. He won't release his taxes, and we have a good idea why, and that's because it would reveal that for all his bluster, he's just a con artist.

Hillary Clinton is no criminal, like you would like to believe, Chuck. She's not. But you keep bringing it up in the hopes that if you say it long and loud enough, you'll believe it's true.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:52 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
Few dispute her intelligence. It's what she does with that intelligence that turns people off. She is a criminal mastermind. Like Al Capone or Lucky Luciano, she is clearly involved in all sorts of unethical and illegal activity, but she is smart enough to avoid leaving enough clear evidence that would convince a jury beyond doubt. Having a friendly Justice department was certainly a help - it's becoming more and more clear that The FBI's investigations into her were strictly contained within boundaries set by the DOJ they were not allowed to cross. Had the head of DOJ not been a Democratic flunky, she'd be facing criminal charges without a doubt.


I wish you conservatives/Republicans would make up your mind. One day Hillary is on death's door, feeble, syphilitic, government lackey that's never created a single job in her lifetime, and completely clueless. The next day she's had hired killers take out 100 of her opposition, military hawk, lesbian, uber smart Bondesque villain, and more ruthlessly efficient than Putin. I mean, seriously! Make up your minds.
 
User avatar
lugie
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:11 pm

Meanwhile Trump manages to show his true self once more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/po ... &smtyp=cur

Donald J. Trump was caught on tape bragging in vulgar terms about making sexual advances toward a married woman, aggressively kissing and groping other women, and boasting that “when you’re a star they let you do it.”


He adds that he tried to have sex with the woman, and acknowledges knowing that she was married.

It is not clear whom he was referring to, but Mr. Trump says in very graphic terms that he “moved on” the woman “very heavily,” taking her shopping for furniture as a way to spend time with her.

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Mr. Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything.”


And this coming from a man who's openly said he's planning to attack HRC about Bills affairs in the coming debate.
If this wasn't a serious matter and concerning a presidential candidate the irony would be incredibly funny.

Or to quote a facebook comment:
President Lincoln: "...that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
President Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you."
Potential President Trump: "Grab 'em by the p*ssy!"
Last edited by lugie on Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18742
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:11 pm

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/7/13205842/t ... ding-women

"Grab em by the pussy!" So glad the spineless evangelicals lined up behind this anointed righteous one. I hope they have a long, loooooong intertwined relationship ahead of them.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:15 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/7/13205842/trump-secret-recording-women

"Grab em by the pussy!" So glad the spineless evangelicals lined up behind this anointed righteous one. I hope they have a long, loooooong intertwined relationship ahead of them.


Keep in mind this was from a 60+ year old Trump. Not when he was 20, or 25, or even 30...but 60+. Would you want to hear your grandpa talking about grabbing random women by the pussy??? Much less your great grandpa, and POTUS??? Yuck.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18742
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:42 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/7/13205842/trump-secret-recording-women

"Grab em by the pussy!" So glad the spineless evangelicals lined up behind this anointed righteous one. I hope they have a long, loooooong intertwined relationship ahead of them.


Keep in mind this was from a 60+ year old Trump. Not when he was 20, or 25, or even 30...but 60+. Would you want to hear your grandpa talking about grabbing random women by the pussy??? Much less your great grandpa, and POTUS??? Yuck.

Julian Assange is going to need a much, much bigger surprise
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:02 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Julian Assange is going to need a much, much bigger surprise


Given ole Julian choked earlier this week, I doubt it. He shot his wad using the hacked DNC emails back in July. That said, the NYT themselves have said they will be releasing more and more tax return papers from Trump in the coming weeks. Now THAT, should be interesting.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24083
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:13 am

Hillis wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

I actually agree with you there, she is extremely intelligent and actually quite capabel, but also too much Wall Street and not very trustworthy. With her background and intelligents she should have blown mr. Trump out of the water, but alais. I should have said it different. But still maintain both parties could have done alot better ;-)


Few dispute her intelligence. It's what she does with that intelligence that turns people off. She is a criminal mastermind. Like Al Capone or Lucky Luciano, she is clearly involved in all sorts of unethical and illegal activity, but she is smart enough to avoid leaving enough clear evidence that would convince a jury beyond doubt. Having a friendly Justice department was certainly a help - it's becoming more and more clear that The FBI's investigations into her were strictly contained within boundaries set by the DOJ they were not allowed to cross. Had the head of DOJ not been a Democratic flunky, she'd be facing criminal charges without a doubt.


The right keeps saying she's a criminal? How? Where? She hasn't commited a crime. Benghazi? The email server to-do? Whitewater? Filegate? Travelgate? Where is all this proof that she's a criminal? There isn't any. It's simply the narrative the right has tried to build about the Clinton's in general for over 30 years now, and it has no teeth. Is she perfect? Far from it, just as the rest of us are far from it. But she has a solid and established record as a United States Senator and Secretary of State that shows that she is as prepared for this job as anyone in the nation.

And Trump? The shadiness of this guy is legendary. He's stiffed contractors, investors and workers. He has a history of civil rights violations. He has shady dealings with Russia and other nations where he seems to have a huge monetary interest. He won't release his taxes, and we have a good idea why, and that's because it would reveal that for all his bluster, he's just a con artist.

Hillary Clinton is no criminal, like you would like to believe, Chuck. She's not. But you keep bringing it up in the hopes that if you say it long and loud enough, you'll believe it's true.


Therein lies the problem: so many people have repeated over and over again that she is a criminal that people actually believe it. How does that saying go? Repeat something enough times?

Another thing that really gets me about the "Christian" right is how they go on and on about the sanctity of marriage and how marriage is one man and one woman but blindly follow the man who has four children by three wives (punishable by death, according to the Bible which they think is a higher law than the Constitution). I understand why they do not care about him objectifying women as the Bible says women should be treated as property, but to shout out that marriage is sacred and holy and all that but melt into a giant puddle because Trump "speaks his mind" is just insane.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24083
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:15 am

Samantha Bee had a great piece on the Trumpettes crying about how the election is rigged.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sam ... aafe0c029c
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:24 am

The new (Friday evening) release of a Trump Tape might actually be the end of Damaged Donald's candidacy. Word has already hit the paper (NY Times I believe) that senior Republican's are meting over the weekend to work out how to go forward if "Trump is no longer a candidate". They can't gibe him the "You're Fired" line, but pressure to leave the race is going to go through the roof. Even Speaker Ryan has announced that Trump will not appear with him tomorrow.

Edit:

If Trump stanys in the race then the Debate on Sunday is one you want to record for historic reasons. All hell will break loose!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12694
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:27 am

Hillis wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

I actually agree with you there, she is extremely intelligent and actually quite capabel, but also too much Wall Street and not very trustworthy. With her background and intelligents she should have blown mr. Trump out of the water, but alais. I should have said it different. But still maintain both parties could have done alot better ;-)


Few dispute her intelligence. It's what she does with that intelligence that turns people off. She is a criminal mastermind. Like Al Capone or Lucky Luciano, she is clearly involved in all sorts of unethical and illegal activity, but she is smart enough to avoid leaving enough clear evidence that would convince a jury beyond doubt. Having a friendly Justice department was certainly a help - it's becoming more and more clear that The FBI's investigations into her were strictly contained within boundaries set by the DOJ they were not allowed to cross. Had the head of DOJ not been a Democratic flunky, she'd be facing criminal charges without a doubt.


The right keeps saying she's a criminal? How? Where? She hasn't commited a crime. Benghazi? The email server to-do? Whitewater? Filegate? Travelgate? Where is all this proof that she's a criminal? There isn't any. It's simply the narrative the right has tried to build about the Clinton's in general for over 30 years now, and it has no teeth. Is she perfect? Far from it, just as the rest of us are far from it. But she has a solid and established record as a United States Senator and Secretary of State that shows that she is as prepared for this job as anyone in the nation.

And Trump? The shadiness of this guy is legendary. He's stiffed contractors, investors and workers. He has a history of civil rights violations. He has shady dealings with Russia and other nations where he seems to have a huge monetary interest. He won't release his taxes, and we have a good idea why, and that's because it would reveal that for all his bluster, he's just a con artist.

Hillary Clinton is no criminal, like you would like to believe, Chuck. She's not. But you keep bringing it up in the hopes that if you say it long and loud enough, you'll believe it's true.


On the scandells ;-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:29 am

PacificBeach88 wrote:
No, that's an opinion piece. (But hey at least this time you posted a link.) What about that obvious agenda again?


Lol. Since it's clear that you're just going to troll me instead of having an intelligent conversation, this debate is over.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:32 am

It's been looking more and more since the first debate that Hillary is in control. This could turn a comfortable Clinton victory into a route. The rabid Trump base won't care, but there's enough independents, especially woman, who will read all this vulgarity from Trump and abandon any thought of him winning.

Plus you'll see even a bigger Democratic push to take states like Georgia, Arizona, and perhaps even an Indiana, where Trump is barely ahead right now. I expect Trump to simply implode in the 2nd debate, after this debacle.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:45 am

Hillis wrote:
It's been looking more and more since the first debate that Hillary is in control. This could turn a comfortable Clinton victory into a route. The rabid Trump base won't care, but there's enough independents, especially woman, who will read all this vulgarity from Trump and abandon any thought of him winning.

Plus you'll see even a bigger Democratic push to take states like Georgia, Arizona, and perhaps even an Indiana, where Trump is barely ahead right now. I expect Trump to simply implode in the 2nd debate, after this debacle.


Nate Silver has moved Iowa back to Hillary...and they've had it fro Trump for a good month or so
 
cpd
Posts: 6828
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:57 am

I think Trump is finished now. I cannot see how he can realistically continue. The latest scandal would have any other politician, PM, Premier or President resigning. They would have no choice but to go.

Even if he does fight on, the damage is too great.

I feel bad for his advisers and campaign staff. They must be wondering what will happen next. It'd be a tough job for them to sort out this mess.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:01 am

cpd wrote:
I think Trump is finished now. I cannot see how he can realistically continue. The latest scandal would have any other politician, PM, Premier or President resigning. They would have no choice but to go.

Even if he does fight on, the damage is too great.

I feel bad for his advisers and campaign staff. They must be wondering what will happen next. It'd be a tough job for them to sort out this mess.


All I heard from the Trumpets tonight was excuses and more excuses. They said he has apologized and should show contrition tomorrow and seem humble and all that jazz. Sean Hannity and his bunch were sickening. does that surprise anyone? They condemned the words, but not the man. :shock: :shock:
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:51 am

cpd wrote:
I feel bad for his advisers and campaign staff. They must be wondering what will happen next. It'd be a tough job for them to sort out this mess.


I don't. Who and what he was was never a mystery. If they didn't see and appreciate that, then that's their fault and nobody else's. Such is the price of foolishness.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12694
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:54 am

cpd wrote:
I think Trump is finished now. I cannot see how he can realistically continue. The latest scandal would have any other politician, PM, Premier or President resigning. They would have no choice but to go.

Even if he does fight on, the damage is too great.

I feel bad for his advisers and campaign staff. They must be wondering what will happen next. It'd be a tough job for them to sort out this mess.


Well Trump has many scandals on his name, many of them would force other candidates to resign, he didn't, I can't see hem resigning over this.
 
cpd
Posts: 6828
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 10:15 am

DocLightning wrote:
cpd wrote:
I feel bad for his advisers and campaign staff. They must be wondering what will happen next. It'd be a tough job for them to sort out this mess.


I don't. Who and what he was was never a mystery. If they didn't see and appreciate that, then that's their fault and nobody else's. Such is the price of foolishness.


Maybe they are Trump devotees but surely there comes a point when you say, that's enough... It isn't nice trying to do PR repair work especially after scandals like this. Even lesser ones are hard enough, but this is a disaster.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12694
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:25 am

cpd wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
cpd wrote:
I feel bad for his advisers and campaign staff. They must be wondering what will happen next. It'd be a tough job for them to sort out this mess.


I don't. Who and what he was was never a mystery. If they didn't see and appreciate that, then that's their fault and nobody else's. Such is the price of foolishness.


Maybe they are Trump devotees but surely there comes a point when you say, that's enough... It isn't nice trying to do PR repair work especially after scandals like this. Even lesser ones are hard enough, but this is a disaster.


Well if that point hasn't been reached already, what will tip them over. At one point Trump said he could shoot someone at broadway and people would still vote for him and this time I believe him ;-)
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:55 pm

The 90% tax rate for income over $1 million is what drove Ronald Reagan to enter politics. For one fight in the early 60s in Madison Square Garden, Mohammed Ali owed 107% taxes on the income he earned after the first million (combined federal, state and city taxes).

I think the rate was down to 65% when Reagan took office. His first tax cut dropped the top rate to 40%.

Unlike the Trump tax plan, or Bush II, Reagan's tax plan actually increased total revenue because he also eliminated thousands of deductions. (Despite increasing income, there was no reduction in deficit spending. His spending increases were more than double the increases in tax income and other budget reductions). Many fairly wealthy people actually ended up paying more in total tax. But they also were able to eliminate more money spent on tax accountants, financial advisors and attorneys.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:09 pm

cpd wrote:
Maybe they are Trump devotees but surely there comes a point when you say, that's enough...


Anyone with any shred of decent judgement would have said that before boarding the ship.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8717
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:19 pm

Ken777 wrote:
If Trump stanys in the race then the Debate on Sunday is one you want to record for historic reasons. All hell will break loose!

Except Sunday's debate is not a debate but more of a townhall-style debate. The moderator introduces the topic but it's the public who asks the questions. If the public does not introduce the question, Clinton should play it safe and keep that card for the final debate.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:20 pm

Wonder if there's a chance Trump blows off the debate Sunday night? I'm being serious here, not just flippant. It would be under 72 hours since the story broke, and by all accounts the Trump campaign and the entire GOP is absolutely in hysterics over this. And I don't believe they can game-plan this in any way, shape or form.

For a "normal" candidate, this wouldn't even be an option, but do you really want a candidate with the lack of self-discipline like Trump, onstate against Hillary Clinton 72 hours after this came out? I'm not saying the braintrust at the GOP would make this decision, but I'm wondering if Trump himself would just now show?

And the truth is, whether he shows up or not, he's screwed as a candidate. Clinton will absolutely torch him Sunday night ,and you know Anderson Cooper isn't going to let him off the hook, either. It will dominate the debate.Secondly, what happens if Trump drops out? Mike Pence, in many ways, is a bigger nut on issues as Trump is, and I'd wager the Democrats are already putting togther ads and have them ready if Pence becomes the nominee. I believe the only thing Pence would do is to make the election a little less one-sided when the vote is cast, nothing more.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12694
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:58 pm

Hillis wrote:
Wonder if there's a chance Trump blows off the debate Sunday night? I'm being serious here, not just flippant. It would be under 72 hours since the story broke, and by all accounts the Trump campaign and the entire GOP is absolutely in hysterics over this. And I don't believe they can game-plan this in any way, shape or form.

For a "normal" candidate, this wouldn't even be an option, but do you really want a candidate with the lack of self-discipline like Trump, onstate against Hillary Clinton 72 hours after this came out? I'm not saying the braintrust at the GOP would make this decision, but I'm wondering if Trump himself would just now show?

And the truth is, whether he shows up or not, he's screwed as a candidate. Clinton will absolutely torch him Sunday night ,and you know Anderson Cooper isn't going to let him off the hook, either. It will dominate the debate.Secondly, what happens if Trump drops out? Mike Pence, in many ways, is a bigger nut on issues as Trump is, and I'd wager the Democrats are already putting togther ads and have them ready if Pence becomes the nominee. I believe the only thing Pence would do is to make the election a little less one-sided when the vote is cast, nothing more.


Probably a new scandal by then......
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:13 pm

Secondly, what happens if Trump drops out? Mike Pence, in many ways, is a bigger nut on issues as Trump is, and I'd wager the Democrats are already putting togther ads and have them ready if Pence becomes the nominee. I believe the only thing Pence would do is to make the election a little less one-sided when the vote is cast, nothing more.


Has a US major party nominee ever dropped out this late? Not in 20th century but maybe in 19th/1800's?
 
LMP737
Posts: 6280
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:37 pm

Dreadnought wrote:

Few dispute her intelligence. It's what she does with that intelligence that turns people off. She is a criminal mastermind. Like Al Capone or Lucky Luciano, she is clearly involved in all sorts of unethical and illegal activity, but she is smart enough to avoid leaving enough clear evidence that would convince a jury beyond doubt. Having a friendly Justice department was certainly a help - it's becoming more and more clear that The FBI's investigations into her were strictly contained within boundaries set by the DOJ they were not allowed to cross. Had the head of DOJ not been a Democratic flunky, she'd be facing criminal charges without a doubt.


Please turn off the talk radio.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:02 am

Hillis wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

I actually agree with you there, she is extremely intelligent and actually quite capabel, but also too much Wall Street and not very trustworthy. With her background and intelligents she should have blown mr. Trump out of the water, but alais. I should have said it different. But still maintain both parties could have done alot better ;-)


Few dispute her intelligence. It's what she does with that intelligence that turns people off. She is a criminal mastermind. Like Al Capone or Lucky Luciano, she is clearly involved in all sorts of unethical and illegal activity, but she is smart enough to avoid leaving enough clear evidence that would convince a jury beyond doubt. Having a friendly Justice department was certainly a help - it's becoming more and more clear that The FBI's investigations into her were strictly contained within boundaries set by the DOJ they were not allowed to cross. Had the head of DOJ not been a Democratic flunky, she'd be facing criminal charges without a doubt.


The right keeps saying she's a criminal? How? Where? She hasn't commited a crime. Benghazi? The email server to-do? Whitewater? Filegate? Travelgate? Where is all this proof that she's a criminal? There isn't any. It's simply the narrative the right has tried to build about the Clinton's in general for over 30 years now, and it has no teeth. Is she perfect? Far from it, just as the rest of us are far from it. But she has a solid and established record as a United States Senator and Secretary of State that shows that she is as prepared for this job as anyone in the nation.

And Trump? The shadiness of this guy is legendary. He's stiffed contractors, investors and workers. He has a history of civil rights violations. He has shady dealings with Russia and other nations where he seems to have a huge monetary interest. He won't release his taxes, and we have a good idea why, and that's because it would reveal that for all his bluster, he's just a con artist.

Hillary Clinton is no criminal, like you would like to believe, Chuck. She's not. But you keep bringing it up in the hopes that if you say it long and loud enough, you'll believe it's true.


Look we know you are in love with Hillary, For the record I despise T rump all of you on here wonder why I have not voted in 25+ years look at the top of both tickets that should tell you everything. I am surprised your girl isn't in Haiti again after the hurricane. The Clintons sure had no problem screwing that poor nation after the earthquake. Both Clinton and Trump have screwed a multitude of people over. She has ZERO in common with the working man. Also have you ever read any of the statements from former secret service who worked for the Clintons? Hillary was a flat out bitch to ALL the working staff not to mention Hillary taking everything in the white house that wasn't nailed down and then forced to give it back. Well now she has her chance at swiping it again since the idiots in this country will vote her in no doubt. Anyone who gets 250k for a 20 min speech from the big banks has no business telling me the evils of big business. Here is a nice article of how generous the Clintons were with the poor Haitians.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... foundation
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:08 am

stratosphere wrote:
Hillis wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:

Few dispute her intelligence. It's what she does with that intelligence that turns people off. She is a criminal mastermind. Like Al Capone or Lucky Luciano, she is clearly involved in all sorts of unethical and illegal activity, but she is smart enough to avoid leaving enough clear evidence that would convince a jury beyond doubt. Having a friendly Justice department was certainly a help - it's becoming more and more clear that The FBI's investigations into her were strictly contained within boundaries set by the DOJ they were not allowed to cross. Had the head of DOJ not been a Democratic flunky, she'd be facing criminal charges without a doubt.


The right keeps saying she's a criminal? How? Where? She hasn't commited a crime. Benghazi? The email server to-do? Whitewater? Filegate? Travelgate? Where is all this proof that she's a criminal? There isn't any. It's simply the narrative the right has tried to build about the Clinton's in general for over 30 years now, and it has no teeth. Is she perfect? Far from it, just as the rest of us are far from it. But she has a solid and established record as a United States Senator and Secretary of State that shows that she is as prepared for this job as anyone in the nation.

And Trump? The shadiness of this guy is legendary. He's stiffed contractors, investors and workers. He has a history of civil rights violations. He has shady dealings with Russia and other nations where he seems to have a huge monetary interest. He won't release his taxes, and we have a good idea why, and that's because it would reveal that for all his bluster, he's just a con artist.

Hillary Clinton is no criminal, like you would like to believe, Chuck. She's not. But you keep bringing it up in the hopes that if you say it long and loud enough, you'll believe it's true.


Look we know you are in love with Hillary, For the record I despise T rump all of you on here wonder why I have not voted in 25+ years look at the top of both tickets that should tell you everything. I am surprised your girl isn't in Haiti again after the hurricane. The Clintons sure had no problem screwing that poor nation after the earthquake. Both Clinton and Trump have screwed a multitude of people over. She has ZERO in common with the working man. Also have you ever read any of the statements from former secret service who worked for the Clintons? Hillary was a flat out bitch to ALL the working staff not to mention Hillary taking everything in the white house that wasn't nailed down and then forced to give it back. Well now she has her chance at swiping it again since the idiots in this country will vote her in no doubt. Anyone who gets 250k for a 20 min speech from the big banks has no business telling me the evils of big business. Here is a nice article of how generous the Clintons were with the poor Haitians.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... foundation


You may hate Trump (or so you say), but you do a great job in rambling on about nothing like he does.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:21 am

Hillis wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
Hillis wrote:

The right keeps saying she's a criminal? How? Where? She hasn't commited a crime. Benghazi? The email server to-do? Whitewater? Filegate? Travelgate? Where is all this proof that she's a criminal? There isn't any. It's simply the narrative the right has tried to build about the Clinton's in general for over 30 years now, and it has no teeth. Is she perfect? Far from it, just as the rest of us are far from it. But she has a solid and established record as a United States Senator and Secretary of State that shows that she is as prepared for this job as anyone in the nation.

And Trump? The shadiness of this guy is legendary. He's stiffed contractors, investors and workers. He has a history of civil rights violations. He has shady dealings with Russia and other nations where he seems to have a huge monetary interest. He won't release his taxes, and we have a good idea why, and that's because it would reveal that for all his bluster, he's just a con artist.

Hillary Clinton is no criminal, like you would like to believe, Chuck. She's not. But you keep bringing it up in the hopes that if you say it long and loud enough, you'll believe it's true.


Look we know you are in love with Hillary, For the record I despise T rump all of you on here wonder why I have not voted in 25+ years look at the top of both tickets that should tell you everything. I am surprised your girl isn't in Haiti again after the hurricane. The Clintons sure had no problem screwing that poor nation after the earthquake. Both Clinton and Trump have screwed a multitude of people over. She has ZERO in common with the working man. Also have you ever read any of the statements from former secret service who worked for the Clintons? Hillary was a flat out bitch to ALL the working staff not to mention Hillary taking everything in the white house that wasn't nailed down and then forced to give it back. Well now she has her chance at swiping it again since the idiots in this country will vote her in no doubt. Anyone who gets 250k for a 20 min speech from the big banks has no business telling me the evils of big business. Here is a nice article of how generous the Clintons were with the poor Haitians.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... foundation


You may hate Trump (or so you say), but you do a great job in rambling on about nothing like he does.


Whatever *rolls eyes* you just keep living in your dream world thinking Hillary is the best thing since sliced bread. At least when Condoleezza Rice gave a speech for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach she was paid 50K and the club raised 258K and Rice gave back her speaking fee. Hillary on the other hand charged 200k for her speech and only netted 106k for the club and she funneled the money from that speech to the Clinton Foundation what I like to call their own personal slush fund. She is as evil as it gets it's downright embarrassing to have her as our possible first female president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/t ... ees-119030
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:26 am

Hillis wrote:
You may hate Trump (or so you say), but you do a great job in rambling on about nothing like he does.


Exactly. It reminds me of most so-called "libertarians". They don't want to take responsibility for the short falls of their own party, and yet claim a moral high-ground that they can whine about. I've never found a libertarian that I can't trip up within 5 or 10 minutes by using their own beliefs against them. I remember one guy who lost his mind when I told him that removing government subsidies from his ferry-mass transit ride in the morning (Seattle) would cost him an additional $ 12 to $ 15 per day, he lost his mind. Every.....and I mean EVERY....."libertarian" I've met are cast aside when you mention their own, personal, tax deduction / government subsidy.

Heck, just look up a couple of the douche bags here at a.net, who claim they are the ultimate Ayn Rand examples while they bitched and moaned about not being able to find a job, all the while living (and still living) in their parent's basements. It was amusing to watch said Ayn Randian believer complain he couldn't find a job, and he only found a job that was funded by the USA Federal Govt defense spending.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:38 am

stratosphere wrote:

Whatever *rolls eyes* you just keep living in your dream world thinking Hillary is the best thing since sliced bread. At least when Condoleezza Rice gave a speech for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach she was paid 50K and the club raised 258K and Rice gave back her speaking fee. Hillary on the other hand charged 200k for her speech and only netted 106k for the club and she funneled the money from that speech to the Clinton Foundation what I like to call their own personal slush fund. She is as evil as it gets it's downright embarrassing to have her as our possible first female president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/t ... ees-119030


I never said she was the best thing since sliced bread. I've said many times that like the rest of us, she has her flaws. We all have them. I am saying she is far and away more qualified to be President than certainly Mr. Trump, or, for that matter, anyone else the GOP tried to run this time around, no exceptions.

And I noticed that your language in your first statement, in calling Hillary a bitch, etc, sounds a lot like the crap Trump puts out. Sure, you hate him, don't you.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:25 am

So let's just think about consequences here:
1) DNC takes the Senate and the WH
2) At least one liberal justice is nominated
3) Jerrymandering is brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court somehow rules that Jerrymandering is unconstitutional
4) DNC now takes control of the House. A new Voting Rights Act is passed. Voters cannot be made to wait more than 30 minutes in line. Voter ID laws are illegal. Vote-by-mail must be made available to all voters. Etc.

At this point the GOP now has a crisis. If the GOP is to ever again reign on a national scale, they can no longer use tricks and voter suppression. They have to actually convince American voters to vote for them. And that is going to mean abandoning the "social conservatives," or continue to face a deepening demographic disadvantage that they cannot possibly overcome.
 
acentauri
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:35 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:40 am

Hillary could hit a winning home run on Sunday by being diplomatically nice to Dump and letting him hang himself - again. Unrelenting criticism by Clinton could back fire and create sympathy votes. Personally, I think the GOP will cancel/postpone the event, before Dump does irreparable damage to the Party.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8717
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 3:19 pm

DocLightning wrote:
So let's just think about consequences here:
1) DNC takes the Senate and the WH
2) At least one liberal justice is nominated
3) Jerrymandering is brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court somehow rules that Jerrymandering is unconstitutional
4) DNC now takes control of the House. A new Voting Rights Act is passed. Voters cannot be made to wait more than 30 minutes in line. Voter ID laws are illegal. Vote-by-mail must be made available to all voters. Etc.

That sounds wonderful, but it's gonna be hard to rule gerrymandering as unconstitutional. The parties involved would have to show proof that they're being packed into a district to benefit a party. Because in a majority of states it's up to the legislature to draw the districts, some states may actually be just unfortunate coincidences (like Iowa which has proportional districts) and if that ends up benefitting one party over another, it's not the state's fault. But let's say you have proof that your state packed you for the purposes of creating safer districts. Then comes the long winding road: which Amendment of the Constitution can you use to justify that it's unconstitutional? Let's say you got it. Now comes the process to rule on it: you need a district judge to rule in your favor, and then a circuit court (if they decide to rule on the issue), and finally the SCOTUS (if it decides to rule on the issue after a circuit split).

Even if you eliminate gerrymandering, I still don't think the Democrats will regain the House instantly. Democrats in 2006 and 2008 were able to have a large majority because many red states had Democrat elected officials (the South still had plenty of blue seats and even northern red states like Idaho, the Dakotas, and Utah had Democrats). Some of these seats are lost for good (good luck getting a Democrat elected in Arkansas or Alabama, for instance). At the local level, the GOP dominates. It would take a serious wave of dissatisfaction to allow red states to elect Democrats to some seats and have a chance at retaking the House.

The best chance to eliminate skewed seats? Implement the Wyoming Rule. Make every state have a number of representatives based on the ratio of its population to the least populous state (WY in this case). California would go up to 66 seats, Texas would go up to 46, and so on. There would be no need to pack seats as much because there are more seats available for election. The more seats you have, the more difficult it is to group people without creating an artificial majority.

DocLightning wrote:
At this point the GOP now has a crisis. If the GOP is to ever again reign on a national scale, they can no longer use tricks and voter suppression. They have to actually convince American voters to vote for them. And that is going to mean abandoning the "social conservatives," or continue to face a deepening demographic disadvantage that they cannot possibly overcome.
As its older white base dies, a younger more open minded base replaces it. I'm certain that if the GOP ever got to a socially neutral/fiscal conservative position it would be a force to be reckoned with. It's easy to accept that many Republicans couldn't care less about social issues: they're more fiscally minded. However, it's the whole guilt by association that has them down.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 3:29 pm

acentauri wrote:
Hillary could hit a winning home run on Sunday by being diplomatically nice to Dump and letting him hang himself - again. Unrelenting criticism by Clinton could back fire and create sympathy votes. Personally, I think the GOP will cancel/postpone the event, before Dump does irreparable damage to the Party.


Let me amend that a bit. She doesn't have to go into hysterics, which isn't her style anyway. But if she's calm, nuanced, and consistently saying to Trump, in the first person "this shows that you are not in any way, shape or form, fit to be President of the United States", and do it over and over and over, Trump will go off the rails. I expect he'll go off the rails anyway. But just the constant, level attack will drive Trump out of his mind.

I just glanced at Face The Nation a few minutes ago, and Peggy Noonan, a champion of the right, was saying she hopes Trump has some kind of Epiphany tonight where he completely changes and somehow salvages his campaign. People like Trump do not change. He was taught that he was better than everyone else, that rules don't apply to him, that he can browbeat and verbally assault opponents and that he's entitled to do so. He was taught an utter disregard for woman, and it shows in him, and also in his sons as well. You can't change 70 years of being a creep in one evening. He'll revert to what he is when push comes to shove.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:08 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
That sounds wonderful, but it's gonna be hard to rule gerrymandering as unconstitutional. The parties involved would have to show proof that they're being packed into a district to benefit a party.


That's actually very easy to do. There are already computer algorithms that can gerrymander better than most groups of people. That means that the mathematical means exist to prove this definitively.
einsteinboricua wrote:
Even if you eliminate gerrymandering, I still don't think the Democrats will regain the House instantly.


In the 2012 election Democrats won 50.6% of the popular vote in the House but only occupied 46.2% of house seats. Now, part of that is the "small state/big state" effect, in which people who live in, say, Alaska or North Dakota get more congressional seats per capita than someone in New York or California. But gerrymandering is also a major part of that. The demographics of the country continue to become more diverse, giving the DNC the advantage. At that point, the GOP has to win on merit, not numbers.

The GOP has worked very hard to maintain barriers to voting. This is not a matter of principle for them, it is a matter of necessity. If we moved to an Australian system in which all citizens are required to submit a ballot (even if it's blank) and the government has a duty to facilitate this, it would be devastating for the current GOP. Overnight.

einsteinboricua wrote:
As its older white base dies, a younger more open minded base replaces it. I'm certain that if the GOP ever got to a socially neutral/fiscal conservative position it would be a force to be reckoned with. It's easy to accept that many Republicans couldn't care less about social issues: they're more fiscally minded. However, it's the whole guilt by association that has them down.


And if they can do that, then you are right. But the problem is that, as we have seen, you can't just kick people out of the GOP. That said, social conservative adults tend to raise social conservative kids. Here we are 70-odd years from the Civil Rights Act and we are still grappling with substantial structural, systemic, and sometimes overt racism. Back around the time of the CRA, the DNC and GOP very abruptly switched roles with respect to these issues (which must have been a thing to see) and that happened by tacit agreement between the two parties. Basically, the prejudiced people (and there are a lot of them) were willingly traded to the GOP by the DNC. But in this case, the DNC doesn't want those people back. The GOP can't kick them out (they can't; political parties work on democratic rules) and even if they could, there's nowhere for them to go. The only solution is to build a third party that is socially neutral or even socially liberal but fiscally conservative. The problem is that most liberals would still be voting en bloc for the DNC and so the RNC and the new party would split votes and the DNC would dominate until several election cycles into the future when the demographics had sorted out. If you've ever studied game theory, you can see why there are significant barriers to such a move.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12694
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:49 pm

America isn't that democratic, unfortunately. Lots of barriers can be put up, to block idea's. Gerrymander is something strange to me, for a lot of people it doesn't matter what they vote, only 13 states matter anyway. Why vote, if you are a democrat in Taxes? Or a republican in New York?
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8717
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:17 pm

DocLightning wrote:
That's actually very easy to do. There are already computer algorithms that can gerrymander better than most groups of people. That means that the mathematical means exist to prove this definitively.

Yes, the means exist to do so. However, legislatures have sole authority to draw the districts how they please. Diluting a party base, while not ethical, is not unconstitutional. That doesn't make it right, I know. But it'll be hard to prove that with other means the result wouldn't be the same. Some states simply have more of one party than another. It's impossible to believe that states with more than 1 seat will have the opposite party occupy at least one seat. Imagine Idaho. Imagine if at large Democrats got 45% of the vote while Republicans got 55%. An at large result would mean that the delegation should be 1-1, yet if in both districts the result was 45-55, the two seats will go to Republicans. If Democrats are scattered all over the place and can't group in an area, their votes are diluted no matter what.

DocLightning wrote:
In the 2012 election Democrats won 50.6% of the popular vote in the House but only occupied 46.2% of house seats. Now, part of that is the "small state/big state" effect, in which people who live in, say, Alaska or North Dakota get more congressional seats per capita than someone in New York or California. But gerrymandering is also a major part of that. The demographics of the country continue to become more diverse, giving the DNC the advantage. At that point, the GOP has to win on merit, not numbers.

Take PA which in 2012 resulted in Democrats earning 50% of the vote in the state. If in one district voter turnout exceeds the average over the state, that's how you get these results. I would be intrigued to see what would happen if voter turnout is high (at least 65% across the nation). But if you have districts where one party is more motivated than another to vote, that's how you get these skewed results. Districts that contained PHL and PIT probably had higher turnout (which allowed Obama to carry the state) and casted votes for a Dem candidate for the House. Central districts probably had average or below average and no matter what would have been in Republican hands (the margin subject to discussion).

DocLightning wrote:
The GOP has worked very hard to maintain barriers to voting. This is not a matter of principle for them, it is a matter of necessity. If we moved to an Australian system in which all citizens are required to submit a ballot (even if it's blank) and the government has a duty to facilitate this, it would be devastating for the current GOP. Overnight.

No arguments there. Or if the districts were across state lines such that a rep does not belong to one single state. That would mean that state legislatures would have no power to draw districts and protect incumbents. Instead, an independent commission would be in charge (or the Senate as it is by definition bounded by state boundaries). The House would be far more representative that way: people still have a vote and a rep, districts within states are still tended to, and cross border districts would be wild cards depending on the situation.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:54 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
Yes, the means exist to do so. However, legislatures have sole authority to draw the districts how they please. Diluting a party base, while not ethical, is not unconstitutional.


That's your opinion. Which is irrelevant. I'm not dismissing you, but your claim that it is not constitutional might have merit but neither you nor I get to decide that.

That the only opinion that *is* relevant is that of the Supreme Court. :)
 
VapourTrails
Posts: 3939
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 9:30 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:30 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
Except Sunday's debate is not a debate but more of a townhall-style debate. The moderator introduces the topic but it's the public who asks the questions. If the public does not introduce the question, Clinton should play it safe and keep that card for the final debate.


In answer to the thread topic: IMHO, Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the US.

As for the last four weeks leading up to the 8 November, anything could happen before then!
 
User avatar
winterlight
Posts: 1432
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:32 am

The establishment chose Clinton months ago as their next puppet leader. All this build up is just a show.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: c933103, David_itl, qf789, tommy1808 and 27 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos