2016 Presidential Campaign

hillary rodham clinton vs donald john trump who will win?

  • hillary rodham clinton

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • donald john trump

    Votes: 18 60.0%

  • Total voters
    30

Remington1

Council Member
Jan 30, 2016
1,469
1
36
Trump is saying he's expecting a Brexit!! Well I say, if he wins, he can give back Alaska to his BFF Putin. For obvious reasons, the Russians must be kicking themselves everyday for having sold Alaska to the US in 1867 for a cool 7.2 million, OR maybe he could give it back to Canada, as it was stolen from Canada, because Britain was still in charge of our foreign affairs at the time and had their own secret agenda, which excluded Canada, and included the US.

Texas has 18 active reported KKK chapters (most active in all states), so I can imagine they're really mad at their state right now. Texas is moving towards Hillary, I guess the elites and educated of Texas cannot go as low as Trump. They simply cannot stand with a man who's on first-name basis with the bottom of the deck.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,147
2,793
113
Toronto, ON
Trump is saying he's expecting a Brexit!! Well I say, if he wins, he can give back Alaska to his BFF Putin. For obvious reasons, the Russians must be kicking themselves everyday for having sold Alaska to the US in 1867 for a cool 7.2 million, OR maybe he could give it back to Canada, as it was stolen from Canada, because Britain was still in charge of our foreign affairs at the time and had their own secret agenda, which excluded Canada, and included the US.

Texas has 18 active reported KKK chapters (most active in all states), so I can imagine they're really mad at their state right now. Texas is moving towards Hillary, I guess the elites and educated of Texas cannot go as low as Trump. They simply cannot stand with a man who's on first-name basis with the bottom of the deck.

It would certainly be a statement if Trump does not take Texas.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Clinton has actually gained more over Trump in the South than anywhere else. That is to say that while Trump still has a strong lead in southern states, Clinton has made the biggest gains there as opposed to Democrat-leaning swing states and rust belt states. This doesn't help her chances of winning, though if she managed to flip a southern state and win the presidency, it would be good PR after the fact.

It may speak to demographic changes in the US or the unusual nature of this election... or both. If the Democrats were able to make Texas competitive, it would be a game changer for years to come. Republicans wouldn't have a chance without Texas.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,147
2,793
113
Toronto, ON
Clinton has actually gained more over Trump in the South than anywhere else. That is to say that while Trump still has a strong lead in southern states, Clinton has made the biggest gains there as opposed to Democrat-leaning swing states and rust belt states. This doesn't help her chances of winning, though if she managed to flip a southern state and win the presidency, it would be good PR after the fact.

It may speak to demographic changes in the US or the unusual nature of this election... or both. If the Democrats were able to make Texas competitive, it would be a game changer for years to come. Republicans wouldn't have a chance without Texas.

Same would be true if Republicans in the future were able to flip California. If Texas can be flipped, California could be too given the correct candidate and platform.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Same would be true if Republicans in the future were able to flip California. If Texas can be flipped, California could be too given the correct candidate and platform.

Of course, but I'm commenting on the current situation. California flipping Republican is very unlikely but in recent elections, and in this election especially, Texas is moving towards swing state status. California is no where near it.

I doubt it will happen, but the Democrats have a foot in the door in Texas if they actually start focusing on Texas and they make it competitive, the Republicans would be in big trouble. If the Republicans focused on flipping California, they would barely get anywhere.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,147
2,793
113
Toronto, ON
Of course, but I'm commenting on the current situation. California flipping Republican is very unlikely but in recent elections, and in this election especially, Texas is moving towards swing state status. California is no where near it.

I was speaking purely from an intellectual argument. But I don't believe Texas will swing. I also don't think this election will be a model for future elections. So regardless what swings which way this time does not mean it will swing that way every time unless an equivalent pair of candidates are presented to the electorate.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
I was speaking purely from an intellectual argument. But I don't believe Texas will swing. I also don't think this election will be a model for future elections. So regardless what swings which way this time does not mean it will swing that way every time unless an equivalent pair of candidates are presented to the electorate.

I agree. The question is how much current polling reflects the quality of the candidates or the demographic shifts in the US. Is Trump hemorrhaging more voters in the south because they don't like him and prefer Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Seems improbable, while demographic changes are measurable and known. As this election is an anomaly, we can't make sufficient predictions. And I bet the next election will be an anomaly too, so we may never know for sure if a pattern is emerging now or not.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,147
2,793
113
Toronto, ON
I agree. The question is how much current polling reflects the quality of the candidates or the demographic shifts in the US. Is Trump hemorrhaging more voters in the south because they don't like him and prefer Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Seems improbable, while demographic changes are measurable and known. As this election is an anomaly, we can't make sufficient predictions. And I bet the next election will be an anomaly too, so we may never know for sure if a pattern is emerging now or not.

Patterns do change. Texas before the 60s was a solid Democrat stronghold as was most of the south. It would be silly to assume that it would remain Republican forever.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,816
469
83
Can we start taking bets on how many lies he will tell today?


Confessions of a Trump Fact-Checker

What we’re experiencing from Trump is a daily avalanche of wrongness. The essential truth of this election cannot be conveyed with an examination of any one particular chunk of ice. The story is the massive accumulation of nonsense, big stuff and little stuff alike, day after day.

The fewest inaccuracies I’ve heard in any day is four. The most is 25. (Twenty-five!) That doesn’t include the first two debates, at which I counted 34 and 33, respectively. Over the course of 33 days, I counted a total of 253 (including some that repeat).

During the Toronto mayoral election two years ago, the bombastic blond media-bashing conservative-populist outsiders—yes, Toronto finds the Trump phenomenon eerily familiar—made so many false claims that I decided the only way to convey the truth of the election was with the blunt, accessible tool of a list. A typical headline on the “Campaign Lie Detector” fact-check feature I hastily invented: “Doug Ford says 21 inaccurate things during radio appearance.”

It occurred to me this September, during a particularly outrageous and dishonest Trump Thursday, that the lie detector needed to be reincarnated. I had a third once-in-a-lifetime liar on my hands—and this one was even worse.

My first day making a Trump lie list, September 15, I counted 12 false claims. Among them: Trump falsely claimed again to have opposed the Iraq War, falsely claimed that Clinton’s campaign invented the phrase “alt-right,” falsely described his rocky visit to a church in Flint, Michigan, falsely claimed his poll numbers with black voters were skyrocketing and falsely claimed Hispanic poverty has worsened under the Obama administration.

Reporters noted some of this on Twitter. But the fact-checking largely stayed confined to personal social media accounts, out of articles and cable segments and corporate feeds seen by many more people. These are some of the headlines Trump got that day: “Donald Trump reveals more details of his tax plan.” “Donald Trump releases one-page summary of medical records.” “Donald Trump: The Fed Is Very Political.”

That is perfectly understandable. All of the above is real news. Other than the Iraq lie, which was already old news by then, none of his false claims was, in itself, tremendously significant.

But I think they added up to something crucial. All together, one of the day’s most important news items was really this: “Candidate makes up a whole bunch of things in rapid succession for no particular reason.” It went largely untold.

That’s why I include in my lists even the small errors that provide easy fodder for the Trump supporters (and sometimes non-supporters) who accuse me of pedantic nitpicking. While I’d make the lists more unimpeachable if I stuck to the big falsehoods, I think the accumulation of little ones is sometimes just as revealing.

Trump, for example, likes to read the lyrics to the song “The Snake” as an allegory for the supposed danger posed by Muslim refugees. He has repeatedly claimed it was written by singer Al Wilson, who performed it in the late 1960s. In fact, it was written in the early 1960s by Oscar Brown Jr., the late singer and civil rights activist, whose family has asked Trump to stop using it.

Some Trump supporters chortle when I point this out. But it matters to the Browns, and I think it tells us something about this potential president. Every politician sometimes gets things wrong about complicated issues, sometimes practices evasive dishonesty. Trump gets things wrong all the time, pointlessly, about almost everything, and almost never corrects himself. Even if he’s not intentionally lying, he’s habitually erring. At very least, it suggests a serial carelessness with facts and a serial resistance to conceding error. Both traits seem relevant to the discussion of who should be commander-in-chief.

Confessions of a Trump Fact-Checker - POLITICO Magazine
 

davesmom

Council Member
Oct 11, 2015
2,084
0
36
Southern Ontario
So you're not fat.


I have been called a lot of things in my lifetime by 'ugly' was never one of them. But since your opinion doesn't matter a damn to me, call me whatever you like. It's water off a duck's back!

I am wondering, if the public only wants to hear about the issues, why do the moderators keep asking question about what the public is tired of hearing about?
Why don't they forget about, 'Why did you say this 15 years ago''?, 'So-and-so said you did this 20 years ago, Did you do that?"
Why not 'What do you plan to do about the economy/security/immigration/ the national debt, etc.'?


And why can't anybody seem to understand that their plans are only that - PLANS. They can't say specifically what they are going to do as President about any issue, only what they would like to do. Their plans will have to be discussed, negotiated and approved by other powers-that-be.


Rumor has it that those voter who say they will support Clinton say that they will vote for a Republican Congress to keep her under control. ????????
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,816
469
83
The Nazi echoes in Trump's tweets

On Feb. 27, 1933, a deranged young Dutch communist set fire to the German parliament, the Reichstag. The newly elected German chancellor sensed an immediate opportunity to eliminate the last freedoms of the Weimar regime in the name of public safety. “These sub-humans do not understand how the people stand at our side,” Adolf Hitler thundered. “In their mouse-holes, out of which they now want to come, of course they hear nothing of the cheering of the masses.”

It goes without saying that Donald Trump is no Hitler — there is only one Hitler — and the firebombing of a Trump campaign office in Orange County, N.C., Saturday night was no Reichstag fire. But nevertheless there were some disturbing echoes of 1933 in Trump’s immediate response. He tweeted: “Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning.”

There is so much wrong with that sentence it’s hard to know where to begin. In the first place Trump is not winning North Carolina — the Realclearpolitics average of polls has him down by 2.9 points. Second, you don’t refer to anyone — even arsonists — as “animals”; however deeply flawed, even criminal, they remain human beings. Third, and most importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that the arsonists were “representing” Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Even if the attack was the work of local Democrats, it’s impossible to imagine that Clinton or the Democratic Party had anything to do with it. It’s just as likely to be a false-flag operation carried out by Trump’s alt-right supporters to implicate the Democrats. But Clinton rightly did not make any such allegation. All her Twitter feed said was: “The attack on the Orange County HQ ‪@NCGOP office is horrific and unacceptable. Very grateful that everyone is safe.”

Clinton’s reaction was as appropriate as Trump’s was not. Unfortunately this is part of a pattern in the past 10 days: As Trump has been falling behind in the polls, following the release of an audiotape in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women, his rhetoric has become more and more incendiary. He gives every indication of wanting to burn down America’s political house if he cannot be its leader.

In another echo of Nazi propaganda, Trump accuses Clinton of meeting “in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends and her donors.” He did not allege that these bankers were Jewish but that is the implication many will draw. Trump did mention one person as part of this conspiracy — the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who owns a minority stake in the New York Times — thus continuing his pattern of demonizing Mexicans.

Trump also says that Hillary Clinton needs to be drug-tested and “locked up.” There is a name for a country where political leaders lock up their adversaries: It’s called a dictatorship. This is the kind of thing that happens in Zimbabwe, Burma, Russia, Egypt — not in the United States.

Perhaps worst of all Trump suggests that the election is “rigged.” His compliant surrogates have tried to spin his words to suggest he is simply criticizing “biased” news coverage of all the women who are accusing him of sexually assaulting them. On Sunday, Newt Gingrich claimed that “14 million [voters] picked Donald Trump, 20 TV executives have decided to destroy him.”

This is ludicrous enough — if anyone is destroying Donald Trump it is Trump himself — but the candidate made clear that he is alleging a conspiracy that goes beyond media coverage. Trump tweeted: “The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary — but also at many polling places — SAD.” Trump and his spokesmen have expressed particular concern about voter fraud in “inner cities”— code for non-white neighborhoods.

As if fraud explains Clinton’s lead among non-white voters; in the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, she beats him in this category 76% to 16%. Trump’s long record of racist and xenophobic comments might have something to do with it.

What Trump is doing is dangerous and reprehensible. He is creating his own version of the “stabbed in the back” myth propagated by German rightists after World War I. They claimed that the German army had not really lost the war; it had been betrayed by Jews and Marxists on the home front. Trump is assigning blame for his potential defeat to a shadowy cabal that includes such groups as international bankers and ethnic minorities.

The Nazi echoes in Trump's tweets - LA Times
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
And why can't anybody seem to understand that their plans are only that - PLANS. They can't say specifically what they are going to do as President about any issue, only what they would like to do. Their plans will have to be discussed, negotiated and approved by other powers-that-be.



Probably because the candidates say they 'will' do these things, not that they plan to, or will try to. The fact that many of these things are completely out of their control is ignored.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Obama's half-brother to attend debate as Trump's guest - World - CBC News


Does anyone know anything about this guy? Where's he from, what has he said about Obama, why is he for Trump?


I know nothing about him but I can only guess he's for Trump because he is intelligent and can see what a sham Hillary is. Not everyone is easily fooled!

I have been called a lot of things in my lifetime by 'ugly' was never one of them. But since your opinion doesn't matter a damn to me, call me whatever you like. It's water off a duck's back!


Does a question like that warrant a response?
 
Last edited: