2016 Presidential Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, Trump says some stupid shit, but the limp-wristed pussy-ass reaction from Clinton's side (to most of what he says) is way fucking worse.

They act so indignant and shit, so offended. Man, shut the fuck up. People are tired of that crap, and that's the only reason Trump is so popular in the first place.

Trump isn't very popular. You might know that if you were you know in America. Pretty ignorant of you to assume people from another country fee the same way you do....

Obviously dripping in sarcasm. Obvious "shit posting"
 
Trump isn't very popular. You might know that if you were you know in America. Pretty ignorant of you to assume people from another country fee the same way you do....

Obviously dripping in sarcasm. Obvious "shit posting"
The size of each candidate's rallies would beg to differ. @Rapid is dead on the mark.
 
"Second Amendment people, maybe there is (something they could do)."

That is inciting violence? 2A people are assassins? Gun owners are killers?
 
Recent polling data looks good for Clinton

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Latest Polls

Until you dig into the sample...majority of polled were democrats. Apparently the latest gallop (had equal percentage of Rs and Ds) was statistically tied.
What is "random sample" polling, Alex?
When every poll is quote-unquote oversampling democrats, that means that there are simply more self-identified democrats than republicans in America. It's not a statistical aberration, it's simple demographics.

The size of each candidate's rallies would beg to differ. @Rapid is dead on the mark.
If Bernie Sanders taught us anything, it's that big rallies don't guarantee victory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump isn't very popular. You might know that if you were you know in America. Pretty ignorant of you to assume people from another country fee the same way you do....

Obviously dripping in sarcasm. Obvious "shit posting"

So unpopular he beat out all your other excuses for a Republican candidate?

If you're trying to define this as 'popular enough' to win the White House, then maybe not, unless there's an October bombshell... or a similar situation to that seen with Brexit. As in, there's always the chance that a lot of shy/secret Trump voters are keeping their true intentions hidden until voting day. Either way, he's certainly popular enough with a very large number of people... and that's understandable, because his rise to power was engineered by leftist idiocy and right wing complacency. How many naive morons were saying things like 'he'll never win the nomination' or 'surely this latest remark will be the end of him'? OVER AND OVER FOR MONTHS. It's like those people (including a lot of supposedly intelligent ones) are living in a bubble and they just don't understand why Trump gets votes, or how he got to his current position in the first place.

Like I said, there's a very good reason Trump is even a choice. The Democrats are heading even further to the left (at full-retard pace) pandering to BLM and other bullshit social justice causes, while the Republicans are trying to play it safe by sitting somewhere on the middle of the fence, not being as conservative on some issues as a lot of their voters would like them to be. All the Republicans had to do was come up with one other candidate who wasn't a corrupt career politician (apparently hard to find these days) and who wasn't trying to play it safe. If Trump can be so popular while remaining so reckless, it kind of proves the point that conservative voters are tired of mainstream politicians and their pussyfooting around.

In a parallel universe, with all other things being the same, a well-spoken version of Trump would probably win the election by a landslide. The Democrats should count their lucky stars that he is who he is, with all his imperfections, rather than a slightly more refined candidate with the same level of focus and high energy.
 
Last edited:
"Second Amendment people, maybe there is (something they could do)."

That is inciting violence? 2A people are assassins? Gun owners are killers?
Can't believe I'm agreeing with @lindy here. Trump has said some dumb shit in the past, but if you listen to him long enough you'll find that he really doesn't speak in nuance and innuendo all that often. He's generally pretty plainly-spoken, which is part of his appeal. With a few exceptions, there usually isn't any sort of hidden meaning behind his words. I don't think he was inciting violence - in the full video from his rally, he leads up to this statement by talking about gun violence and gun owners collectively opposing 2A stuff. I mean, if you just listened to the 15-second video, it does sound pretty bad. But when placed in the larger context of his speech, it's pretty innocuous.

I promise that this is the last time I'll defend Donny this week.
 
What is "random sample" polling, Alex?
When every poll is quote-unquote oversampling democrats, that means that there are simply more self-identified democrats than republicans in America. It's not a statistical aberration, it's simple demographics.

523 more Democrats than Republicans. Wonder who would lead that poll?

NBC News SurveyMonkey Toplines and Methodology 8 1-8 7

Can't believe I'm agreeing with @lindy here. Trump has said some dumb shit in the past, but if you listen to him long enough you'll find that he really doesn't speak in nuance and innuendo all that often. He's generally pretty plainly-spoken, which is part of his appeal. With a few exceptions, there usually isn't any sort of hidden meaning behind his words. I don't think he was inciting violence - in the full video from his rally, he leads up to this statement by talking about gun violence and gun owners collectively opposing 2A stuff. I mean, if you just listened to the 15-second video, it does sound pretty bad. But when placed in the larger context of his speech, it's pretty innocuous.

I promise that this is the last time I'll defend Donny this week.


HOLY HELL!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
523 more Democrats than Republicans. Wonder who would lead that poll?

NBC News SurveyMonkey Toplines and Methodology 8 1-8 7
RAN
DOM
SAM
PLING

Does it not tell you anything that nearly every recent poll has "oversampled" democrats? That's either a massive, inconceivable conspiracy across multiple organizations to fix poll numbers, or a quantifiable demographic shift. Does it tell you anything that the FOX NEWS poll "oversampled" democrats by some 25%, and reported a 10-point lead for Hillary?
 
Can't believe I'm agreeing with @lindy here. Trump has said some dumb shit in the past, but if you listen to him long enough you'll find that he really doesn't speak in nuance and innuendo all that often. He's generally pretty plainly-spoken, which is part of his appeal. With a few exceptions, there usually isn't any sort of hidden meaning behind his words. I don't think he was inciting violence - in the full video from his rally, he leads up to this statement by talking about gun violence and gun owners collectively opposing 2A stuff. I mean, if you just listened to the 15-second video, it does sound pretty bad. But when placed in the larger context of his speech, it's pretty innocuous.

I promise that this is the last time I'll defend Donny this week.

Ok, now follow that through. Are you not physically repulsed by the stupid crap coming out of the Clinton camp and its supporters, claiming that he's trying to start some kind of civil war?

Is that level of stupid not painfully cringeworthy? This kind of shit is exactly what makes Trump voters even more likely to vote for him, as well as swinging more undecided people in his favour.

The only thing Trump had to do throughout his entire campaign was act reckless and carefree -- he handed the other side plenty of rope to hang themselves with, through their own poor reactions.

Yes, Trump does the same sort of things with some of the stupid shit he says... the difference is, people are more tired of it when it comes from Clinton's camp because the left has been doing it for years now. If anything, some people will find Trump's idiocy refreshing, because no one has dared to be that stupid or politically incorrect... in this ocean of political correctness we're currently lost in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, now follow that through. Are you not physically repulsed by the stupid crap coming out of the Clinton camp and its supporters, claiming that he's trying to start some kind of civil war?

Is that level of stupid not painfully cringeworthy? This kind of shit is exactly makes Trump voters even more likely to vote for him, as well as swinging more undecided people in his favour.

The only thing Trump had to do throughout his entire campaign was act reckless and carefree -- he handed the other side plenty of rope to hang themselves with, through their own poor reactions.
It's a fundamental mistake to associate every liberal, SJW, whatever-you-want-to-call-it with the Clinton campaign. You know what is more damning to me? The amount of republicans saying that stuff. The fact that GOP members currently IN OFFICE are backing away from their party's candidate in a very-public way is far more telling than what some 'tard on on Facebook says. Not only that, but major republican donors, traditional endorsers, and even people in the security establishment are coming out in public and says "We don't want this guy." Do you not understand how significant that is? It means that the entire republican political establishment is running away from this guy because he's so fucking toxic. I don't know if you quite understand the American political system, but without a ton of money, endorsements, and party support, there is no feasible way a candidate can make it to November. The fucking Koch Brothers don't even want to give him money, and he's practically a libertarian masturbation fantasy!

Trump did very well in the primary because he only had to appeal to the hardest of hardcore conservatives. In America, primary participation is only something like 20-25%. This year it was slightly higher (though not quite as high as 2008), at about 28%. Had he realized that he needed to do the "presidential pivot" and begin tailoring his message to a broader segment of America, he might've done okay. Instead, he and his campaign said "This is fine" and doubled down on their messaging, which even a first-year polisci student could tell you is patently retarded.

-Make blatantly racist statements against a hispanic judge in a nation of ~55 million hispanics? Great idea!
-Talk shit on a gold star family in a country that has a giant hard-on for its vets? SUPERB
-Complain about election rigging three mo--okay I can't do this any more

TL;DR version: Trump could have won. He had a legit shot. Clinton is probably the weakest candidate that the democrats have brought out in years. All he had to do was be a good boy and temper his statements. Instead, he loaded a double-stack mag into his campaign's Glock and mag dumped into his own foot. I don't think he can recover. You've seen my posts - I hate Hillary too. But I'm also realistic about her chances. If she can phone in a halfway decent debate performance, and not literally die between now and November, she will win by a big EV margin.
 
RAN
DOM
SAM
PLING

Does it not tell you anything that nearly every recent poll has "oversampled" democrats? That's either a massive, inconceivable conspiracy across multiple organizations to fix poll numbers, or a quantifiable demographic shift. Does it tell you anything that the FOX NEWS poll "oversampled" democrats by some 25%, and reported a 10-point lead for Hillary?

Dude, random or not, more registered Democrats were polled so of course the results would favor Clinton.

Do you really think more Americans register as Democrats? I don't. Most are Independents I believe.
 
It means that the entire republican political establishment is running away from this guy because he's so fucking toxic. they are running scared that their power is falling away
Fixed that for you. Have you stopped to think that the 50 or so "security" professionals don't want their work or ideology stepped on? We all can pin point fucked up areas where we have personally seen the results of said "experts". Furthermore, when have you ever seen any established body willingly accept criticism of failed policy or ideology?

More to the point, if you look at the two candidates, Trump just wants allies to pull their weight. Clinton has actively and knowingly been a security risk for classified information. It would seem like any risk assessment would place Clinton as the greater risk to national security.

You've seen my posts - I hate Hillary too. But I'm also realistic about her chances.
Sorry no, I don't see that you hate Hillary. Virtually every recent post you have made has been in support of, or in derision of damn near anything said about her that is painted in a negative light. No offense, but if we were to go by your posts, it would seem like you are rushing to her defense. Your choices are yours of course, but I wanted to point out what it looks like to a simpleton like me, and maybe others... :thumbsup:
 
It's a fundamental mistake to associate every liberal, SJW, whatever-you-want-to-call-it with the Clinton campaign. You know what is more damning to me? The amount of republicans saying that stuff. The fact that GOP members currently IN OFFICE are backing away from their party's candidate in a very-public way is far more telling than what some 'tard on on Facebook says. Not only that, but major republican donors, traditional endorsers, and even people in the security establishment are coming out in public and says "We don't want this guy." Do you not understand how significant that is? It means that the entire republican political establishment is running away from this guy because he's so fucking toxic. I don't know if you quite understand the American political system, but without a ton of money, endorsements, and party support, there is no feasible way a candidate can make it to November. The fucking Koch Brothers don't even want to give him money, and he's practically a libertarian masturbation fantasy!

Trump did very well in the primary because he only had to appeal to the hardest of hardcore conservatives. In America, primary participation is only something like 20-25%. This year it was slightly higher (though not quite as high as 2008), at about 28%. Had he realized that he needed to do the "presidential pivot" and begin tailoring his message to a broader segment of America, he might've done okay. Instead, he and his campaign said "This is fine" and doubled down on their messaging, which even a first-year polisci student could tell you is patently retarded.

-Make blatantly racist statements against a hispanic judge in a nation of ~55 million hispanics? Great idea!
-Talk shit on a gold star family in a country that has a giant hard-on for its vets? SUPERB
-Complain about election rigging three mo--okay I can't do this any more

TL;DR version: Trump could have won. He had a legit shot. Clinton is probably the weakest candidate that the democrats have brought out in years. All he had to do was be a good boy and temper his statements. Instead, he loaded a double-stack mag into his campaign's Glock and mag dumped into his own foot. I don't think he can recover. You've seen my posts - I hate Hillary too. But I'm also realistic about her chances. If she can phone in a halfway decent debate performance, and not literally die between now and November, she will win by a big EV margin.

ke4gde got there first. The establishment is coming out against someone who's anti-establishment... no surprise there. Can't respond to every point because it's late, but Hillary will win because pretty much everything is biased towards her. There are too many people with too much money to allow someone like Trump to come in and shake things up.
 
Dude, random or not, more registered Democrats were polled so of course the results would favor Clinton.

Do you really think more Americans register as Democrats? I don't. Most are Independents I believe.
Registered? No. But then again, not all states require you to register for one party or another. I do, however, believe that more Americans lean democrat (or liberal, or whatever). The NBC poll you linked supports that: 35% registered dems, 30% registered republicans, 32% independent. Of those, 51% voiced support for Hillary Clinton, versus 41% for Trump. A 10 point polling advantage when the candidate only enjoys a 5 point raw demographic advantage demonstrates just how unpopular Trump is.

A reminder: I said this only two weeks ago

The Johnson/Weld ticket is looking more attractive each day.

And this earlier in the year


And last year

Not trying to give Clinton an out here - I really don't like her..

I don't shill for the Hill. I just think Trump fucking sucks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Registered? No. But then again, not all states require you to register for one party or another. I do, however, believe that more Americans lean democrat (or liberal, or whatever). The NBC poll you linked supports that: 35% registered dems, 30% registered republicans, 32% independent. Of those, 51% voiced support for Hillary Clinton, versus 41% for Trump. A 10 point polling advantage when the candidate only enjoys a 5 point raw demographic advantage demonstrates just how unpopular Trump is.

43% of respondents of Gallup poll from 2014 were Indy. Had no idea it was that high. Seems Americans are tired of the Establishment. A fall BREXIT redux in the US?
 
Trump did very well in the primary because he only had to appeal to the hardest of hardcore conservatives. In America, primary participation is only something like 20-25%. This year it was slightly higher (though not quite as high as 2008), at about 28%. Had he realized that he needed to do the "presidential pivot" and begin tailoring his message to a broader segment of America, he might've done okay. Instead, he and his campaign said "This is fine" and doubled down on their messaging, which even a first-year polisci student could tell you is patently retarded.

This^. Most of my buddies that were dickhard for Trump during the primaries (myself included) defended him by saying that a lot of his bullshit statements were just "saying what others won't", "no President would ever actually do/say that, but he's trying to win a nomination as an anti-establishment candidate", "He'll even out after the primaries so he can get those on the fence." But he just expanded his rhetoric to the point that he went from viable anti-establishment candidate to loud jackass cartoon figure. Most people respect the office of the presidency and expect the POTUS to be the standard of class and representative of America. Regardless of how popular you start out, there is some necessary level of political savvy that keeps you from saying things that could even potentially be misconstrued as insulting a dead servicemember's parents. It is highly likely at this point that most people voting for Trump would vote for anything with a pulse over Hillary Clinton and simply don't have a better option. Also, Gary Johnson is too liberal to take much of Trump's voters. I honestly believe that the election may as well be tomorrow because these candidates are so divisive for people that no one that already has their minds' made up (probably everyone) is gonna be swayed by anything in the next couple of months.
 
Ok, now follow that through. Are you not physically repulsed by the stupid crap coming out of the Clinton camp and its supporters, claiming that he's trying to start some kind of civil war?

Is that level of stupid not painfully cringeworthy? This kind of shit is exactly what makes Trump voters even more likely to vote for him, as well as swinging more undecided people in his favour.

The only thing Trump had to do throughout his entire campaign was act reckless and carefree -- he handed the other side plenty of rope to hang themselves with, through their own poor reactions.

Yes, Trump does the same sort of things with some of the stupid shit he says... the difference is, people are more tired of it when it comes from Clinton's camp because the left has been doing it for years now. If anything, some people will find Trump's idiocy refreshing, because no one has dared to be that stupid or politically incorrect... in this ocean of political correctness we're currently lost in.
It's a fundamental mistake to associate every liberal, SJW, whatever-you-want-to-call-it with the Clinton campaign. You know what is more damning to me? The amount of republicans saying that stuff. The fact that GOP members currently IN OFFICE are backing away from their party's candidate in a very-public way is far more telling than what some 'tard on on Facebook says. Not only that, but major republican donors, traditional endorsers, and even people in the security establishment are coming out in public and says "We don't want this guy." Do you not understand how significant that is? It means that the entire republican political establishment is running away from this guy because he's so fucking toxic. I don't know if you quite understand the American political system, but without a ton of money, endorsements, and party support, there is no feasible way a candidate can make it to November. The fucking Koch Brothers don't even want to give him money, and he's practically a libertarian masturbation fantasy!

Trump did very well in the primary because he only had to appeal to the hardest of hardcore conservatives. In America, primary participation is only something like 20-25%. This year it was slightly higher (though not quite as high as 2008), at about 28%. Had he realized that he needed to do the "presidential pivot" and begin tailoring his message to a broader segment of America, he might've done okay. Instead, he and his campaign said "This is fine" and doubled down on their messaging, which even a first-year polisci student could tell you is patently retarded.

-Make blatantly racist statements against a hispanic judge in a nation of ~55 million hispanics? Great idea!
-Talk shit on a gold star family in a country that has a giant hard-on for its vets? SUPERB
-Complain about election rigging three mo--okay I can't do this any more

TL;DR version: Trump could have won. He had a legit shot. Clinton is probably the weakest candidate that the democrats have brought out in years. All he had to do was be a good boy and temper his statements. Instead, he loaded a double-stack mag into his campaign's Glock and mag dumped into his own foot. I don't think he can recover. You've seen my posts - I hate Hillary too. But I'm also realistic about her chances. If she can phone in a halfway decent debate performance, and not literally die between now and November, she will win by a big EV margin.

I still think Trump can win.
He used the Democrat playbook to defeat his opponents, and is still using their playbook.
Hillary's health is going from an infowars joke into the mainstream, how she handles stress will come out in the debates.
The Polls are also useless if the don't include 3rd Party candidates (who should get debate invites too).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top