-
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
The Fern is the last bastion of intellect.
Just ask us.
-
@taniwharugby Yep. Just think next time when you find yourself talking to someone of "average intelligence". Approximately 50% of the world's population are stupider than this prick.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Clinton isn't a little better or a safe pair of hands. She's farking terrible and on par if not worse than Trump.
How?
Which policies of hers would you say are unsafe? EG he has suggested using Nukes against ISIS.. what comparable policy of hers is similarly unsafe?
He suggested Japan & Korea should develop nukes. Ditto.
I get the Trump logic of suggesting they are equally dangerous, I've just never seen anyone lay out a direct comparison show equivilant threat levels from what they want to do. But I'd love to hear it.
Cmon Gollum. There is about as much chance of you or I being serviced by Ivanka than Trump nuking Isis. That isn't a policy, it's a thought bubble.
So you have nothing, you are basing the idea Hillary is as dangerous as Trump on literally zero of her policies (and she has laid her policies out really clearly) and totally ignoring everything he has ever said.
Thats rational & well thought through.
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Clinton isn't a little better or a safe pair of hands. She's farking terrible and on par if not worse than Trump.
How?
Which policies of hers would you say are unsafe? EG he has suggested using Nukes against ISIS.. what comparable policy of hers is similarly unsafe?
He suggested Japan & Korea should develop nukes. Ditto.
I get the Trump logic of suggesting they are equally dangerous, I've just never seen anyone lay out a direct comparison show equivilant threat levels from what they want to do. But I'd love to hear it.
Cmon Gollum. There is about as much chance of you or I being serviced by Ivanka than Trump nuking Isis. That isn't a policy, it's a thought bubble.
So you have nothing, you are basing the idea Hillary is as dangerous as Trump on literally zero of her policies (and she has laid her policies out really clearly) and totally ignoring everything he has ever said.
Thats rational & well thought through.
Once again you reveal how you never actually bother to read something properly. I never said one was more dangerous than the other. The word I used was WORSE.
Despite being shit candidates I don't think either is dangerous from a blow up the world pov.
Why is Clinton arguably WORSE? Well she is arguably WORSE because of her appalling history of corrupt and very dodgy behaviour. And that's before we even get into the email thing and the question mark on her health. The fact she's such a tainted individual is one on the primary reasons she could lose this thing.
As for her policies, would they be the ones so masterfully and professionally laid out by her campaign manager?
-
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
The Fern is the last bastion of intellect.
We even have Winger as a scientific control. Every good experiment needs one.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Once again you reveal how you never actually bother to read something properly. I never said one was more dangerous than the other. The word I used was WORSE.
You said she wasn't a safe pair of hands, and she was as bad as Trump. Again, there's no way anyone can look at her policies & his & go "well, they are equally troubling to the world"
Seriously, a guy who is promoting the idea of an expansion in the number of nuclear states - especially in the South China sea, and who wants to loosen the conditions for nuke use is equally dangerous as someone with bad email security & a hidden does of the flu.
This has been the Trump supporters policy right through, the idea that all their flaws (and the both have a lot) are the same level, the idea they are equally unqualified & risky. But its bullshit.
She took cash from banks (in line with every other global polititian), he took it from the fucking mafia (in line with Silvio Berlusconi & Putin), she hid the flu, he had his gastroenterologist write a mispelled letter while Trump waited in a limo & Trump then attributed it to the doctors (dead) father, she released her tax returns, he wont, He founded Trump university which is being sued, she was sec of state when the US killed Bin Laden, - but they are equally bad etc.
Do I trust her? No of course not. But I don't see her doing anything in 4 years that will materially damage the world or the US. Him on the other hand, even if you actually like the idea of a social war on any group not a white male (and many do), the global implications are off the scale. I don't get how any NZer could (financially) embrace the rise of guy advocating protectionism & trade wars for example, that'll help us how?.
-
The Economist
President Trump?
What was once unthinkable has now become only mildly improbable
Sep 24th 2016 | NEW YORK | From the print edition
TimekeeperIF A week is a long time in politics, then a month is an eternity. In mid-August, Hillary Clinton had opened up a seemingly unassailable polling lead of eight percentage points over Donald Trump. Quantitative forecasting models pegged her odds of victory near 90%, and betting markets approached an 80% probability. Mrs Clinton’s cushion has now all but deflated. By Labour Day, Mr Trump had trimmed her lead in half. And just when the race appeared to be stabilising, the underdog had another growth spurt, picking up about three more points over the past two weeks. Mrs Clinton is now barely clinging to a one-point lead. That puts a man who calls for “unpredictability” in America’s use of nuclear weapons in a near-tie for a presidential election just six weeks away.
Barack Obama held a similarly slim edge in national polling over Mitt Romney on the eve of an election he won comfortably in 2012. But the president had plenty of breathing room in state-specific polls, which turned out to be a better predictor of the outcome. By contrast, Mrs Clinton has lost even more ground in many state polling averages than she has nationally. Iowa, which Mr Obama carried by ten and six points in 2008 and 2012, seems to have slipped from her grasp entirely: the last two polls there have her trailing by eight and five. Recent surveys of Maine’s second congressional district, which awards an electoral vote independent of the statewide winner, put Mr Trump up by 11, ten and five points; Mr Obama won it by nine. Four of the past five Ohio polls give Mr Trump a lead of at least three points. And Florida, which Mrs Clinton led by four in late summer, now looks like a coin-flip.
Mrs Clinton could afford to lose all of these places and still eke out a win. Recent polls show her maintaining an edge in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire. But those states alone would leave her short of victory. With those in the bag, her easiest path to the presidency runs through Colorado, whose electorate is better-educated and more Hispanic than the national average. In July and August, her polling leads there ranged from five percentage points to 13. But the only survey taken of the state so far this month gave Mr Trump a four-point lead. If Mrs Clinton cannot hold on in the Centennial State, expect Mr Trump to be sworn in on January 20th.
There is no doubt that current polling suggests the election would be close to a toss-up if it were held today. As a result, betting markets now give Mrs Clinton just a 65% chance of victory. Democrats, as well as never-Trump Republicans and independents can only hope either that recent surveys misrepresent public opinion, that Mrs Clinton’s superior campaign infrastructure will enable her to outperform them or that the polls will eventually swing back in her direction. There is solid evidence to back all three claims.
The news has recently been unkind to Mrs Clinton. On September 9th she said that half of Mr Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables”. She then fell ill with pneumonia, and unwisely tried to conceal the ailment, giving ammunition for two of Mr Trump’s attacks—that she is untrustworthy and that she is frail. Moreover, she had to take three days off from campaigning to convalesce, ceding the spotlight to Mr Trump. These stumbles coincided with his gains.
However, they may not have actually led many voters to change their minds. Some studies suggest that sharp swings in the polls, such as the “bounces” candidates enjoy after their conventions, are caused mostly by partisans being more eager to talk to interviewers following good news for their preferred candidates than they are after a setback. Andrew Gelman, a professor at Columbia University, has found that when a candidate seems to surge in the polls, the share of respondents who say they belong to that politician’s party—and were thus always likely to be supporters—also increases.
Sure enough, recent battleground-state surveys showing Mr Trump ahead, like one in Ohio conducted from September 9th to 12th by the well-respected Ann Selzer, often contain more people calling themselves Republicans than do earlier polls. It is possible—though far from certain—that disgruntled Democrats haven’t felt like picking up the phone of late when pollsters call, even if they are sure to pull the lever for Mrs Clinton in November.
Another argument for Mrs Clinton’s chances is the disparity between her war chest and ground game and Mr Trump’s. Even as small donors, whom Republicans have historically had trouble courting, have flocked to Mr Trump, his fund-raising lags far behind the establishment favourite’s: Mrs Clinton pulled in $143m in August, compared with his $90m. That has enabled her to clobber him on the airwaves—she is outspending him on advertising by a factor of five—and to invest in a formidable get-out-the-vote operation. Mrs Clinton has opened over three times as many field offices in battleground states as Mr Trump has. And Mr Trump’s continued battles with much of the Republican establishment—particularly in Ohio, whose governor, John Kasich, still refuses to endorse him—may also hinder co-operation between his staff and those working for down-ballot Republican candidates.
Moreover, Mrs Clinton’s vaunted analytics department can target persuadable voters whose doors await a knock, and likely supporters with a middling propensity to vote who could use a ride to the polls, with the pinpoint accuracy of a Facebook advertisement. In contrast, Mr Trump has scoffed at data-driven campaigning, calling it “overrated”. No one knows quite how much of a difference these factors will make, because in the past presidential candidates have generally fought each other to a draw in the ground game. But as long as they are worth more than zero, Mrs Clinton should show better results at the ballot box than she does in telephone polls.
The final argument in favour of Mrs Clinton’s chances is that polling averages tend to revert towards their means, and that Mr Trump is now bumping up against his previous ceiling of around 40% of the vote. She will presumably benefit from returning to the campaign trail, and could get a boost from increased efforts on her behalf by Democratic heavyweights. Even if Mr Trump does well in the debates, they will likely push talk of deplorables and pneumonia off the front pages. Moreover, both the economy and the president’s approval ratings have been on the rise of late, strengthening the appeal of Mrs Clinton’s run for a third Obama term.
The two third-party candidates could also lose some of their lustre. They currently appear to be taking more votes away from the Democrat than the Republican—by a slight margin in the case of the Libertarian Gary Johnson, but a large one in that of the far-left Green Party’s Jill Stein, who gobbles up 3% in national polls. But support for third parties tends to dwindle as elections draw near. The combination of the also-rans’ expected absence from the debates, which only admit candidates averaging at least 15% in the polls, and the growing plausibility of a Trump presidency could drive Stein supporters worried about her playing Ralph Nader to Mrs Clinton’s Al Gore into the Democratic camp.
For all these reasons, it is far too early for Mrs Clinton’s supporters to panic. But even though virtually every variable besides recent polls points in her favour, the race is now close enough that even a mild “October surprise”—perhaps in the form of the unflattering document-dump that Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks and a harsh critic of Mrs Clinton, promises is forthcoming—could vault Mr Trump ahead. Even without that, the idea that a Clinton landslide would lead to the banishment from American politics of Mr Trump’s appeals to racial and cultural resentment is receding fast.
What academics call the fundamentals of the race—the economy is performing modestly well, the same party has held power for eight years, and neither side benefits from incumbency—suggest a tie between an identikit Democrat and a generic Republican. Mrs Clinton is the second-least-popular major-party candidate in modern history. The main reason she is ahead is that Mr Trump is the first. But in the month since he hired Kellyanne Conway as his campaign manager, he has mostly avoided self-sabotage. If he can continue to do so, the election could remain the nail-biter that fundamentals have indicated all along.
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Once again you reveal how you never actually bother to read something properly. I never said one was more dangerous than the other. The word I used was WORSE.
You said she wasn't a safe pair of hands, and she was as bad as Trump. Again, there's no way anyone can look at her policies & his & go "well, they are equally troubling to the world"
Seriously, a guy who is promoting the idea of an expansion in the number of nuclear states - especially in the South China sea, and who wants to loosen the conditions for nuke use is equally dangerous as someone with bad email security & a hidden does of the flu.
This has been the Trump supporters policy right through, the idea that all their flaws (and the both have a lot) are the same level, the idea they are equally unqualified & risky. But its bullshit.
She took cash from banks (in line with every other global polititian), he took it from the fucking mafia (in line with Silvio Berlusconi & Putin), she hid the flu, he had his gastroenterologist write a mispelled letter while Trump waited in a limo & Trump then attributed it to the doctors (dead) father, she released her tax returns, he wont, He founded Trump university which is being sued, she was sec of state when the US killed Bin Laden, - but they are equally bad etc.
Do I trust her? No of course not. But I don't see her doing anything in 4 years that will materially damage the world or the US. Him on the other hand, even if you actually like the idea of a social war on any group not a white male (and many do), the global implications are off the scale. I don't get how any NZer could (financially) embrace the rise of guy advocating protectionism & trade wars for example, that'll help us how?.
Are you seriously saying that she was responsible for killing Bin Laden?
Social war on any group not a white male? Wtf
Just admit you misread my post and move the fuck on.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Once again you reveal how you never actually bother to read something properly. I never said one was more dangerous than the other. The word I used was WORSE.
You said she wasn't a safe pair of hands, and she was as bad as Trump. Again, there's no way anyone can look at her policies & his & go "well, they are equally troubling to the world"
Seriously, a guy who is promoting the idea of an expansion in the number of nuclear states - especially in the South China sea, and who wants to loosen the conditions for nuke use is equally dangerous as someone with bad email security & a hidden does of the flu.
This has been the Trump supporters policy right through, the idea that all their flaws (and the both have a lot) are the same level, the idea they are equally unqualified & risky. But its bullshit.
She took cash from banks (in line with every other global polititian), he took it from the fucking mafia (in line with Silvio Berlusconi & Putin), she hid the flu, he had his gastroenterologist write a mispelled letter while Trump waited in a limo & Trump then attributed it to the doctors (dead) father, she released her tax returns, he wont, He founded Trump university which is being sued, she was sec of state when the US killed Bin Laden, - but they are equally bad etc.
Do I trust her? No of course not. But I don't see her doing anything in 4 years that will materially damage the world or the US. Him on the other hand, even if you actually like the idea of a social war on any group not a white male (and many do), the global implications are off the scale. I don't get how any NZer could (financially) embrace the rise of guy advocating protectionism & trade wars for example, that'll help us how?.
Are you seriously saying that she was responsible for killing Bin Laden?
Social war on any group not a white male? Wtf
Just admit you misread my post and move the fuck on.
1, she was sec of state, do you know what sec of state does? Of course she had a hand in killing Bin Laden
2, yep, thats literally the deal for 50% of his supporters. Hell, look at his supporters on here, they are the same guys posting re Islam on other threads or ranting about PC eroding their rights
3, just admit you have no fucking idea of the policies of both candidates or geopolitics in general & move on. -
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Once again you reveal how you never actually bother to read something properly. I never said one was more dangerous than the other. The word I used was WORSE.
You said she wasn't a safe pair of hands, and she was as bad as Trump. Again, there's no way anyone can look at her policies & his & go "well, they are equally troubling to the world"
Seriously, a guy who is promoting the idea of an expansion in the number of nuclear states - especially in the South China sea, and who wants to loosen the conditions for nuke use is equally dangerous as someone with bad email security & a hidden does of the flu.
This has been the Trump supporters policy right through, the idea that all their flaws (and the both have a lot) are the same level, the idea they are equally unqualified & risky. But its bullshit.
She took cash from banks (in line with every other global polititian), he took it from the fucking mafia (in line with Silvio Berlusconi & Putin), she hid the flu, he had his gastroenterologist write a mispelled letter while Trump waited in a limo & Trump then attributed it to the doctors (dead) father, she released her tax returns, he wont, He founded Trump university which is being sued, she was sec of state when the US killed Bin Laden, - but they are equally bad etc.
Do I trust her? No of course not. But I don't see her doing anything in 4 years that will materially damage the world or the US. Him on the other hand, even if you actually like the idea of a social war on any group not a white male (and many do), the global implications are off the scale. I don't get how any NZer could (financially) embrace the rise of guy advocating protectionism & trade wars for example, that'll help us how?.
Are you seriously saying that she was responsible for killing Bin Laden?
Social war on any group not a white male? Wtf
Just admit you misread my post and move the fuck on.
1, she was sec of state, do you know what sec of state does? Of course she had a hand in killing Bin Laden
2, yep, thats literally the deal for 50% of his supporters. Hell, look at his supporters on here, they are the same guys posting re Islam on other threads or ranting about PC eroding their rights
3, just admit you have no fucking idea of the policies of both candidates or geopolitics in general & move on.- Um ok. What vital role did she play in killing him? I'll bet he'd still be alive if it wasn't for her. Yep, she probably led the SEAL team.
- Is that literally the deal is it? Just a bunch of racists and misogynists? That's just as stupid as arguing that all of Clinton's supporters are poor, welfare dependent dopes who bleed the gummint.
- So logical and well thought through. You truly practice what you preach.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
- Um ok. What vital role did she play in killing him? I'll bet he'd still be alive if it wasn't for her. Yep, she probably led the SEAL team.
- Is that literally the deal is it? Just a bunch of racists and misogynists? That's just as stupid as arguing that all of Clinton's supporters are poor, welfare dependent dopes who bleed the gummint.
1, ok so yes, you have no idea what a Sec of State does, it was a rogue seal team acting by themselves, like the A-Team apparently, no generals, no intelligence officials, Obama, they all had zero hand in it.
- No, its not. Clinton called a big chunk of his supprters rascists & bigots. Outrage! Only thing is, every impartial poll supports that.
*Nearly half of Trump's supporters described African Americans as more "violent" than whites. The same proportion described African Americans as more "criminal" than whites, while 40 percent described them as more "lazy" than whites.
In smaller, but still significant, numbers, Clinton backers also viewed blacks more critically than whites with regard to certain personality traits. Nearly one-third of Clinton supporters described blacks as more "violent" and "criminal" than whites, and one-quarter described them as more "lazy" than whites.
Clinton is relying heavily on black voters to help her win the White House, and her victory over Sanders in the early state nominating contests was due in part to her overwhelming lead among African Americans.
When asked about where they wanted to live, 36 percent of Trump supporters said, "I prefer to live in a community with people who come from diverse cultures," compared with 46 percent of Cruz supporters, 55 percent of Kasich supporters and 70 percent of Clinton supporters.
Trump's supporters were more likely to be critical of affirmative action policies that favor minorities in school admissions or in hiring.
Some 31 percent of Trump supporters said they "strongly agree" that "social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against white people," compared with 21 percent of Cruz supporters, 17 percent of Kasich supporters and 16 percent of Clinton supporters.
To be sure, not all Trump supporters expressed negative attitudes about blacks. No more than 50 percent of his supporters rated blacks negatively, relative to whites, on any of the six character traits in the poll.
Yet when their answers to the poll questions were compared with responses from supporters of other candidates, Trump supporters were always more critical of blacks on personality traits, analysis of the results showed.*
So no, its not "just as stupid" its a fucking backed up fact, unlike everything you've argued the last few posts.
-
When working class whites support Trump, it must be racism not the sense that the elites don't give fuck about them and that under Clinton it will certainly get worse.
In the last election, approximately 93% of blacks voted for Obama. Were they called racist or just looking out for their interests?
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
When working class whites support Trump, it must be racism not the sense that the elites don't give fuck about them and that under Clinton it will certainly get worse.
In the last election, approximately 93% of blacks voted for Obama. Were they called racist or just looking out for their interests?
Read the link above, or any of the ones in 538, Economist, Pew, Atlantic, Washpo, NYT, regarding that deplorables quote. No, you don't HAVE to be racist to support him - and at least half of his supporters are NOT, but close to half are.
-
Sorry to bust your PC bubble, crime rates, rates of violence, domestic abuse, number of single mothers are all way worse for blacks than for whites in the US. This is FACT.
I know, I know, whites can't say it. Because that would mean they are racist. And the establishment media are knee deep in this PC muck. Even conservatives are terrified of being labeled with the dreaded label
RACIST!!!!!!!
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Sorry to bust your PC bubble, crime rates, rates of violence, domestic abuse, number of single mothers are all way worse for blacks than for whites in the US. This is FACT.
I know, I know, whites can't say it. Because that would mean they are racist. And the establishment media are knee deep in this PC muck. Even conservatives are terrified of being labeled with the dreaded label
RACIST!!!!!!!
Undeniably true stats Frank but this of course ignores the causality of those problems. Statistically there is a higher percentage of blacks that live in poverty than whites. A more relevant comparison would be between poor black people and poor white people. I have no idea if such stats are available but it would be an interesting read one way or another.
-
@Catogrande said in US Election Thread 2016:
Undeniably true stats Frank but this of course ignores the causality of those problems. Statistically there is a higher percentage of blacks that live in poverty than whites. A more relevant comparison would be between poor black people and poor white people. I have no idea if such stats are available but it would be an interesting read one way or another.
The current "must read" book in the states is Hillbilly Elegy,
Its a book by a guy from the "white Trash" side of America, its huge in the states right now because its a very frank look at where its gone wrong for the white under class & what needs to be done to fix it. And yes Cato, poor white is certainly no better than poor black on all of those scales.
Atlantic did a good write up of it, I've been getting that on the KIndle the last few months, its £1.79 an issue on Amazon, good read in the election cycle
As to the "FACTS" making Franks view right, "while 40 percent described them as more "lazy" than whites." Not sure what fact would back that up?
Its no different to the idea Maori are over represented in jail so must therefore be "worse" than Pakehas & its PC to not be able to say that. I mean the "stats" back that up. They are also terrible parents apparently.
Poor people are very very similar no matter the race, but race often dictates which ones are poor.
There's any number of things skewing it eg America's war on drugs hit inner cities - where poor blacks live & smoke crack, but skipped the countryside where poor whites live & do oxy, heroin or meth. So you have black crime rates up, but in contrast white deaths by heroin are at an all time high.
US Politics