Trump vs. Hillary (NO OTHER OPTIONS)

• O-Trap

  

  ts1227;1819214 wrote:I can, just tell me what you want it to be

  I was looking at the Vegas odds for the election last week, but they stated everything as a matter of percentages. I'm not a sports gambler, so I don't really know how to interpret those.
  

  QuakerOats;1819215 wrote:Yet another pearl of wisdom.
  
  When obama had 30,000 in the Greek stadiums, by God it was a big deal.

  Not to me. I've never cared that much about them. Obama getting elected twice had more to do with the voters who didn't attend the rallies. Not the ones who did.
  

  QuakerOats;1819218 wrote:Thank you for describing Trump supporters to a T.

  Your use of "disenfranchised" is smaller than the one I was intending. Those who are disenfranchised with both candidates and both parties. Or at the very least, those who are disenfranchised enough that they find no value in attending a rally, because while they may vote for one of the candidates over the other, they don't support the candidate to the degree that they'd actually waste the effort to attend a rally.
• rocketalum

  Lost in some of the more 'out there' claims QO makes is a very valid point on bias in coverage. Hillary had one big rally in Columbus shortly after the 3rd debate and it was "Hillary holds biggest rally to date in Ohio!" Trump has a huge rally every day and it's nothing. I'd be fine if they ignored both sides rallies because as we've pointed out ad nauseam they don't mean anything. But, if you're going to cover one you have to cover the other and that's where there's a very valid point in bias of coverage.
• SportsAndLady

  

  rocketalum;1819263 wrote:Lost in some of the more 'out there' claims QO makes is a very valid point on bias in coverage. Hillary had one big rally in Columbus shortly after the 3rd debate and it was "Hillary holds biggest rally to date in Ohio!" Trump has a huge rally every day and it's nothing. I'd be fine if they ignored both sides rallies because as we've pointed out ad nauseam they don't mean anything. But, if you're going to cover one you have to cover the other and that's where there's a very valid point in bias of coverage.

  That is one thing that cannot be denied. There's a definite media bias favoring Hillary. They all want her to win.
  
  That being said, people watch/tune in when it's "see what Donald Trump said, next!" So not only do they want Hillary to win, but they also get viewership when they run a piece on how shitty he is.
• superman

  SportsAndLady;1819264 wrote:That is one thing that cannot be denied. There's a definite media bias favoring Hillary. They all want her to win.
  
  That being said, people watch/tune in when it's "see what Donald Trump said, next!" So not only do they want Hillary to win, but they also get viewership when they run a piece on how shitty he is.

  You would think they would also get viewers with "see what illegal thing Hillary did, next!" Maybe one of them should try it.
• SportsAndLady

  

  superman;1819265 wrote:You would think they would also get viewers with "see what illegal thing Hillary did, next!" Maybe one of them should try it.

  Eh. People know Hillary is crooked. It doesn't sell.
• rocketalum

  This being known about Clinton is not only why it doesn't sell but also why hammering on it hasn't helped Trump break above 40ish% nationally. There just aren't any voters out there that are going to go "Oh Holy S***, Hillary is crooked? Thanks for letting me know Donald" They either knew that and already hated her for it or knew and and still decided Trump is worse. Bashing on Hillary at this point is just fodder for the base, it's not swinging anyone.
  
  In fairness the same could be said about coverage of Donald though. Nobody should be surprised at this point with a headline of "Donald says/does something that is out of line with how a President should behave" so it's not swaying voters this late in the game. But, this is where the bias comes in, it's turned into a story and forced as a narrative in ways Clinton hasn't had to face.
  
  IMHO a lot of this media garbage comes from not just bias but our election process being WAY to long. It started almost 18 months ago. In order to keep people tuning in for that long you have to create stories out of nothing and create the illusion of a horse race.
• like_that

  

  Hillary is going to be elected, but the more I really don't think we will send the end of these emails. The GOP knows these emails are being drowned out by Trump. Once he is out of the picture they will bring it to light and there will be more focus since Trump will be out of the picture. There are emails now showing aides pressuring donors to the foundation to hire Bill for speeches that would result in a profit for them. Once Trump is out of the picture, they better come up with a better defense than "Russia!!!"
• bases_loaded

  

  I think there is a movement behind the scenes to make sure she is impeached by her own party to put Kaine in power after she is elected.
• rocketalum

  bases_loaded;1819271 wrote:I think there is a movement behind the scenes to make sure she is impeached by her own party to put Kaine in power after she is elected.

  What?
  
  So the ol' "let's use the DNC to slant things in her favor, make her the nominee, then impeach her" play huh? Genius.
• like_that

  

  Yeah I am not buying that lol. What was stopping Kaine to run in the primaries to begin with? Not to mention the democrats wouldn't want that egg on their face regardless. I do think the GOP is putting their case together though.
• bases_loaded

  

  They only care about winning. They don't care how they win, just that they do win. Alot of debts are being paid by putting her into the presidency but behind the scenes I think there is a movement tired of their shit. If not for Trump there was no way for her to survive her rapist husband's past, her past, etc. They will only care about winning in 4 years again and she won't get that done.
• jedbartlet02

  bases_loaded;1819276 wrote:They only care about winning. They don't care how they win, just that they do win. Alot of debts are being paid by putting her into the presidency but behind the scenes I think there is a movement tired of their shit. If not for Trump there was no way for her to survive her rapist husband's past, her past, etc. They will only care about winning in 4 years again and she won't get that done.

  1. You sound like Alex Jones with that....you're making yourself look stupid
  
  2. Sounds just like 8 years ago when people were talking about Obama.
• rocketalum

  To impeach her midterm something would have to come out to make enough D's side with the R's in an impeachment proceeding. Something big enough to make that egg on their face worth it. If what we already know wasn't enough to keep them from making her the nominee I'm not sure what we'd have to see, maybe an email about Benghazi saying "F 'em I hope they get overrun". This scenario is basically fantasy land.
  
  What could be a possibility is not making her the nominee again in 2020. If the R's get it together and run a semi appealing candidate she has no shot at re-election. So then they would have to ask themselves is it more important to stick by HRC or keep the white house.
  
  Even this though is basically fantasy as the incumbent has been named as the nominee in every election (baring retirement or resignation) since the 19th century. We haven't even had a challenger win a state primary since Ted Kennedy took a couple from Carter in 1980. Worth noting is LBJ not seeking the nomination in '68 realizing his unpopularity for Vietnam would cost the election. I don't beleive HRC's hubris would allow for that.
• sleeper

  

  She's going to be an 8-year president.
  
  She's going to have at least 4 years of D Senate and House.
  
  She's going to make the court 6:3 D:R with Roberts being a RINO judge(reality, 7:2).
  
  GOP wanted Trump though!
• like_that

  

  sleeper;1819279 wrote:She's going to be an 8-year president.
  
  She's going to have at least 4 years of D Senate and House.
  
  She's going to make the court 6:3 D:R with Roberts being a RINO judge(reality, 7:2).
  
  GOP wanted Trump though!

  Lol, there is a lot of butt hurt going around this election, but you have it the most.
• jedbartlet02

  I'm legit scared of what's going to happen on election day/night and in the days after in/when Trump loses.
  
  There's going to be a lot of violence because of the things Trump is saying at rallies about a rigged election.
• QuakerOats

  like_that;1819270 wrote:Hillary is going to be elected, but the more I really don't think we will send the end of these emails. The GOP knows these emails are being drowned out by Trump. Once he is out of the picture they will bring it to light and there will be more focus since Trump will be out of the picture. There are emails now showing aides pressuring donors to the foundation to hire Bill for speeches that would result in a profit for them. Once Trump is out of the picture, they better come up with a better defense than "Russia!!!"

  
  
  The emails confirm the criminal enterprise that is Clinton Inc., and includes the crimes of pay-to-play at the State Dept. Last week's $12 million from the King of Morocco was simply one more federal charge to be leveled against her. The latest memos detailing the money laundering and flows to Bill and the Foundations as orchestrated by Doug Band and Teneo Corp are simply shocking. Handing the power of the presidency to the most corrupt, serial lying, money-launderers in political history is suicidal. Every decision they have ever made has been with personal enrichment and power consolidation as its foundation. She cannot be trusted to make any decision on behalf of the American people. As the criminal information continues to stream out, she is more and more likely to be impeached nearly immediately after being elected, if she were to be elected even in the face of her massive corruption. A few of the major media outlets, after this latest memo, are now beginning to look at this corruption at long last. The criminality dwarfs Watergate by an immeasurable magnitude. We either have the rule of law, or we don't. And if we do not, look the hell out.
• QuakerOats

  jedbartlet02;1819281 wrote:I'm legit scared of what's going to happen on election day/night and in the days after in/when Trump loses.
  
  There's going to be a lot of violence because of the things Trump is saying at rallies about a rigged election.

  
  I would be far, far more scared about the loss of the rule of law in this nation. If the Clinton's are above the law, and the rest of us are not; then you better be worried.
• like_that

  

  jedbartlet02;1819281 wrote:I'm legit scared of what's going to happen on election day/night and in the days after in/when Trump loses.
  
  There's going to be a lot of violence because of the things Trump is saying at rallies about a rigged election.

  I will be out of the country. Perfect timing.
• jedbartlet02

  QuakerOats;1819282 wrote:The emails confirm the criminal enterprise that is Clinton Inc., and includes the crimes of pay-to-play at the State Dept. Last week's $12 million from the King of Morocco was simply one more federal charge to be leveled against her. The latest memos detailing the money laundering and flows to Bill and the Foundations as orchestrated by Doug Band and Teneo Corp are simply shocking. Handing the power of the presidency to the most corrupt, serial lying, money-launderers in political history is suicidal. Every decision they have ever made has been with personal enrichment and power consolidation as its foundation. She cannot be trusted to make any decision on behalf of the American people. As the criminal information continues to stream out, she is more and more likely to be impeached nearly immediately after being elected, if she were to be elected even in the face of her massive corruption. A few of the major media outlets, after this latest memo, are now beginning to look at this corruption at long last. The criminality dwarfs Watergate by an immeasurable magnitude. We either have the rule of law, or we don't. And if we do not, look the hell out.

  You cannot be serious?
• jedbartlet02

  QuakerOats;1819283 wrote:I would be far, far more scared about the loss of the rule of law in this nation. If the Clinton's are above the law, and the rest of us are not; then you better be worried.

  
  If you are so gravely concerned about Hillary's emails......why weren't you pushing for impeachment because of this:
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
• bases_loaded

  

  Only one side has a history of violence this election cycle....it's not Trump's you fucking dolt.
• Automatik

  

  What will the OC Trump Contingent do when he gets rekt in less than 2 weeks?
  
  Explore relocation options? Continue to whine incessantly on a half-assed message board? Work towards getting Hillary out in 4 years opposed to 8?
• rocketalum

  QuakerOats;1819282 wrote:The emails confirm the criminal enterprise that is Clinton Inc., and includes the crimes of pay-to-play at the State Dept. Last week's $12 million from the King of Morocco was simply one more federal charge to be leveled against her. The latest memos detailing the money laundering and flows to Bill and the Foundations as orchestrated by Doug Band and Teneo Corp are simply shocking. Handing the power of the presidency to the most corrupt, serial lying, money-launderers in political history is suicidal. Every decision they have ever made has been with personal enrichment and power consolidation as its foundation. She cannot be trusted to make any decision on behalf of the American people. As the criminal information continues to stream out, she is more and more likely to be impeached nearly immediately after being elected, if she were to be elected even in the face of her massive corruption. A few of the major media outlets, after this latest memo, are now beginning to look at this corruption at long last. The criminality dwarfs Watergate by an immeasurable magnitude. We either have the rule of law, or we don't. And if we do not, look the hell out.

  For this to happen you have to assume R's retain control of both House and Senate. If they keep just the house, easily they pass the simple majority needed to impeach. No way they clear the 2/3rds in the senate though to actually remove her from office.
  
  Then you have to think about the long game. If you try for an impeachment and fail, does that only embolden and empower HRC's 2020 rhetoric? "The republicans have been after me since the 90's, tried again and failed, they are the party of obstruction blah blah blah"
• Heretic

  

  bases_loaded;1819287 wrote:Only one side has a history of violence this election cycle....it's not Trump's you fucking dolt.

  Of cooouuuurrrrsssssseeeeee. Anyone with the base intellect to do a Google search can see within moments that both sides have had incidents of violence, but whatever it takes to get through life, eh?