2016 Presidential Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of the reviews recommended significant reviews, let alone criminal charges. Was Holder just supposed to say "Nah fuck that, I'mma start charging people!" Come on man.

The AG was held in criminal contempt but I never said anything about criminal charges for anyone. My point was that it's tough to find anything when there's zero cooperation (e.g. IRS targeting of conservative organizations). Again, I get it: there's nothing there, it's just a coincidence there are 9 separate Congressional investigations all just trying to dig up shit on Hillary.

Do you honestly think that's how Congress operates? They simply pick a target and go gangbusters?
 
The AG was held in criminal contempt but I never said anything about criminal charges for anyone. My point was that it's tough to find anything when there's zero cooperation (e.g. IRS targeting of conservative organizations). Again, I get it: there's nothing there, it's just a coincidence there are 9 separate Congressional investigations all just trying to dig up shit on Hillary.

Do you honestly think that's how Congress operates? They simply pick a target and go gangbusters?

When it is the opponents nominee for president? Yes I do believe that.
 
The AG was held in criminal contempt but I never said anything about criminal charges for anyone. My point was that it's tough to find anything when there's zero cooperation (e.g. IRS targeting of conservative organizations). Again, I get it: there's nothing there, it's just a coincidence there are 9 separate Congressional investigations all just trying to dig up shit on Hillary.

Do you honestly think that's how Congress operates? They simply pick a target and go gangbusters?

Yes.
 

This seems pretty fucked up.

Nope, totally legit as long as for the correct side. In the mayoral race in Baltimore ad more votes cast than voters who checked in. Previous MD election software had Republican votes changed to Democrat.
 

This seems pretty fucked up.

While I do believe there is quite a bit of election fraud going on, this guy didn't "prove" anything. He simply made allegations based on assumption and pure conjecture. Unless he reverse engineers the software and finds that it is actually programmed to steal or pad votes in one direction or the other, he hasn't proven anything. It IS possible for the demographics to have swung in the opposite direction.

I do wish someone would actually prove voter fraud. This guy and his statement ain't it.
 
While I do believe there is quite a bit of election fraud going on, this guy didn't "prove" anything. He simply made allegations based on assumption and pure conjecture. Unless he reverse engineers the software and finds that it is actually programmed to steal or pad votes in one direction or the other, he hasn't proven anything. It IS possible for the demographics to have swung in the opposite direction.

I do wish someone would actually prove voter fraud. This guy and his statement ain't it.

I thought the sensationalist title was obvious, and this is more about Schrodinger's vote. Any election that relies on computers is both rigged and not rigged until we can see through the software.
 
Is that the same software from the GW Bush reelection? You'll get accusations of election fraud with any electronic system; which is why I believe that paper is best.
 
Only 100 more days of this back & forth. Cannot wait for it to be over.

Blog: Recovering from my DNC Nausea

Could not agree harder. This week I am back on my "Hillary is no different than the rest of em', she just lives with a microscope on her", kick.

Getting away from all the back/forth rhetoric - I'm not so concerned that the jack-booted thugs are going to kick my door in and take my guns the day she is elected (If there was a way, Obama would have made that happen), my Hillary concerns lie more around:

- She is going to be able to appoint one, if not more Supreme Court justices, and their stances on the 1st and 2nd Amendment are very important (or the sacredness of the Constitution as a whole for that matter)

- I would really like to "know" what her involvement in the whole Benghazi debacle was. There have been countless stories claiming her distain for the military and the Secret Service, this issue does not make me sleep any better.

- Could we please get at least one debate out of the way so that I can see Trump have to stand on his two feet and argue back without calling her a "name". PLEASE?
 
Last edited:
We have/ had a member here who flew on the HMX-1 birds. He has NOTHING positive to say about his personal interaction with the Clintons. I have zero doubt whenever I hear about her character when dealing with the commoners here in the US.

Trump needs to debate her. Any evasion on his part, even if he does debate, makes him look weak and afraid.
 
We have/ had a member here who flew on the HMX-1 birds. He has NOTHING positive to say about his personal interaction with the Clintons. I have zero doubt whenever I hear about her character when dealing with the commoners here in the US.

Trump needs to debate her. Any evasion on his part, even if he does debate, makes him look weak and afraid.
I think he will do well in a debate, her public speaking skills suck and the only way she wins is if CNN feeds her the questions a week out.
 
Disagree because nothing Trump has shown me yet, makes me believe he will do well in the debates.
 
Disagree because nothing Trump has shown me yet, makes me believe he will do well in the debates.
He just seems like the kind of guy that hits the heavy bag well and gets smoked when a live human is across from him.

Twitter, his little press conferences, talk shows, etc- he's only good cause it's going one way and he gets to say whatever he wants and that's it.
 
I think he will do well in a debate, her public speaking skills suck and the only way she wins is if CNN feeds her the questions a week out.
Almost forgot to write a response along with my disagree!

Trump is many things, but when he's not up in front of the hometown crowd with Jock Jams vol. 3 blaring, he has yet to show himself to be a good orator. He seems to have his verbal "safe space" that he retreats to when pressed, which demonstrates to me that his mental agility is not the greatest. He can talk about his business success and how cool America is, but if you press him for specifics he just goes back to his previous talking points. One thing he does really well is avoiding the impression that he's getting flustered. His demeanor is calm even when his mind is struggling for a succinct and definite answer. I suppose you could say that he hides his fluster with bluster. That particular quality is on full display in the recent interview he gave to 60 Minutes along with Mike Pence. You can watch the full interview here, but if you value your time you can just watch the greatest (worst?) hits of the interview here

Keep in mind, however, that lacking an agile mind is not always a bad thing; GWB was not the most articulate debater, but he had an unmistakable charisma and presence that were considerably at odds with Gore in the 2000 election, and again with John Kerry in 2004. Though he wasn't always the most erudite, Bush managed to hold his own and then bolster his image away from the debate stage. We'll see if Trump can boost his image any further in the public eye or if he's already blown his load.

As for Hillary, she has all the charisma of a wet dishrag but has such a keen grasp of the issues and practiced debate style that I think the betting odds are heavily in her favor. She was good against Obama in 2008, and pretty good against Bernie this time around. I say only "pretty good" because the democratic debates were pretty saccharine affairs this year, especially after O'Malley left. Who knows? Perhaps she'll fall flat. Perhaps Trump will take his debate prep seriously and put on a great performance. Either way, I'm going to clear out my schedule during those time slots and prepare to drink the pain away.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top