welshbairn Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, EdgarusQPFC said: The source isnt the issue here, regardless of the site that hosts it cause you will never see this reported on any clinton friendly sites cause she has them all in her pocket, but there are clear cut connections between the FBI Director in charge of her case, and the clinton foundation. The same director that let Clinton away scott free, what are the chances eh? The Same director who promised to recuse himself from any cases involving former employers, this case involved former employers. Its further evidence of how unbelievably corrupt Clinton truly is. But as usual that doesnt matter, what matters is the site that is hosting the information The FBI Director used to work for Lockheed Martin, who also gave a charitable donation to the Clinton Foundation, which is a charity that gives nothing to the Clintons or political campaigns. Calling Lockheed Martin a Clinton Foundation defence contractor is absurd, they don't have a fucking army, they give stuff to poor people around the world. The Alt Right are getting desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 13 minutes ago, welshbairn said: The FBI Director used to work for Lockheed Martin, who also gave a charitable donation to the Clinton Foundation, which is a charity that gives nothing to the Clintons or political campaigns. Calling Lockheed Martin a Clinton Foundation defence contractor is absurd, they don't have a fucking army, they give stuff to poor people around the world. The Alt Right are getting desperate. It's a ridiculous piece of gutter journalism. Presumably the inference is supposed to be that in return for donations Lockheed Martin received Department of State contracts. Anyone who has ever had to apply for D.o.S funding will know it doesn't work that way. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 On 14/09/2016 at 07:35, pandarilla said: I fully agree with you up until the money point (or money shot so to speak). Are you not in any way concerned about the impact money has on politics? I understand that in many ways it always has but like a lot of things in the last 30 years it has reached levels that are so corrupt - it threatens our whole democratic system. I don't think money does significantly corrupt our political system. Maybe the American one a little more so, but I don't think Clinton is an especially bad offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 Fibers the lying troll doesn't think money significantly corrupts politics. Does he live under a rock or is he lying as usual, given he has repeatedly stated lying is to be lauded. Who knows and who cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Trump making gains all over the place in some polls, including taking a lead in Ohio and evens in Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 'Progressive' thought police strike again on campus. Highly disturbing sincere open racism and fascism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Wid though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 'Progressive' thought police strike again on campus. Highly disturbing sincere open racism and fascism. Out of interest have you ever met an actual progressive? You seem to have a fascination with this notion that progressives are all wanting to stifle free speech and get overly annoyed at small incidences of individuals who I'm sure you know aren't representative of the majority of people on the progressive left (who tend to be quite liberal). Or do you just get annoyed because they challenge you on your misogyny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 2 hours ago, banana said: Trump making gains all over the place in some polls, including taking a lead in Ohio and evens in Florida. Without knowing which pollsters and which form of polling, and even who was polled, and which candidates were included in the poll, throwing statements out like that is meaningless. I could just as easily say he's getting demolished all over the place too. That said, if he's only drawing even in Florida in face to face polling (as opposed to computerised polling) which doesn't include Gary Johnson, he's going to get absolutely smashed. Florida, hotbed of casual racism that it is, was by far Obama's tightest swing state. If it doesn't vote Republican, then it would mean a surprisingly good performance by Clinton there. As always, fivethirtyeight (essential reading for those who don't already follow it) has a very good piece on this issue. Here's a link. And here's another. Edited again: re-reading that, I had forgotten quite how easily Obama won 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 1 hour ago, jmothecat said: Out of interest have you ever met an actual progressive? You seem to have a fascination with this notion that progressives are all wanting to stifle free speech and get overly annoyed at small incidences of individuals who I'm sure you know aren't representative of the majority of people on the progressive left (who tend to be quite liberal). Or do you just get annoyed because they challenge you on your misogyny? Fascism and racism apologism, unreal. 32 minutes ago, Savage Henry said: Without knowing which pollsters and which form of polling, and even who was polled, and which candidates were included in the poll, throwing statements out like that is meaningless. I could just as easily say he's getting demolished all over the place too. You'll notice I said 'some' polls. Nate Silver agrees: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 12 minutes ago, banana said: Fascism and racism apologism, unreal. You'll notice I said 'some' polls. Nate Silver agrees: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ Indeed. I linked to that too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 14 minutes ago, Savage Henry said: Indeed. I linked to that too! Then we're in agreement - net indications are that Trump is rallying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Trump admits Obama was born in the US, while blaming Clinton for the rise of the rumour. The media are utterly, utterly seething because they were under the impression it was a news conference. In reality Trump spoke for 30 seconds, with the rest being veterans endorsing him. Seems to have been some backstage shenanigans too. A quick search on Twitter shows some truly vitriolic stuff from the journos. Could be Trump going back to the Trump we all know... Just as an LA Times poll has him 6 points (!) ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Trump admits Obama was born in the US, while blaming Clinton for the rise of the rumour. The media are utterly, utterly seething because they were under the impression it was a news conference. In reality Trump spoke for 30 seconds, with the rest being veterans endorsing him. Seems to have been some backstage shenanigans too. A quick search on Twitter shows some truly vitriolic stuff from the journos. Could be Trump going back to the Trump we all know... Just as an LA Times poll has him 6 points (!) ahead. Trump's right in there with the Truthers. Unfortunately/ fortunately the certifiably insane demographic doesn't count for much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Out of interest have you ever met an actual progressive? You seem to have a fascination with this notion that progressives are all wanting to stifle free speech and get overly annoyed at small incidences of individuals who I'm sure you know aren't representative of the majority of people on the progressive left (who tend to be quite liberal). Or do you just get annoyed because they challenge you on your misogyny? Any women in politics is a progressive as far as Banana is concerned.They should be in the kitchen making their man's tea . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Without knowing which pollsters and which form of polling, and even who was polled, and which candidates were included in the poll, throwing statements out like that is meaningless. I could just as easily say he's getting demolished all over the place too. That said, if he's only drawing even in Florida in face to face polling (as opposed to computerised polling) which doesn't include Gary Johnson, he's going to get absolutely smashed. Florida, hotbed of casual racism that it is, was by far Obama's tightest swing state. If it doesn't vote Republican, then it would mean a surprisingly good performance by Clinton there. As always, fivethirtyeight (essential reading for those who don't already follow it) has a very good piece on this issue. Here's a link. And here's another. Edited again: re-reading that, I had forgotten quite how easily Obama won 2012. People are also forgetting that demographics and the electoral college are skewed heavily towards the Democrats - Clinton could theoretically lose the popular vote but win due to Trump piling up votes in what are the GOP strongholds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 25 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: People are also forgetting that demographics and the electoral college are skewed heavily towards the Democrats - Clinton could theoretically lose the popular vote but win due to Trump piling up votes in what are the GOP strongholds. There's also the thing that Clinton has done loads of groundwork setting up paid and volunteer staff to get out the vote in the swing states. Trump hasn't done any of that, so even he does well in the polls in a particular state he could still lose at the ballot box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 People are also forgetting that demographics and the electoral college are skewed heavily towards the Democrats - Clinton could theoretically lose the popular vote but win due to Trump piling up votes in what are the GOP strongholds. This is also true. Most people don't understand how the electoral college - or the American vote - works, however. Nate Silver wrote a good article this morning basically saying that the candidates popularity is inverse to the amount of press coverage they get. Essentially Trump couldn't be a worse candidate, but Clinton runs him close. It's a case study in political incompetence. The more people see Trump and Clinton, the less they like them. One term presidency, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 Trump will unquestionably be a one-termer if he wins, Clinton may just manage to cling on to at least the nomination due to her willingness to bend to whatever the donors wish. You'd imagine even a dull Republican in the mould of Romney would thrash her though. Either one of them could get indicted in their term, very easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Savage Henry said: This is also true. Most people don't understand how the electoral college - or the American vote - works, however. Nate Silver wrote a good article this morning basically saying that the candidates popularity is inverse to the amount of press coverage they get. Essentially Trump couldn't be a worse candidate, but Clinton runs him close. It's a case study in political incompetence. The more people see Trump and Clinton, the less they like them. One term presidency, anyone? Heard an American pundit saying something similar. If the election becomes about Trump, Clinton wins but if it becomes about Clinton, Trump wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.