Politics - USA

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Asterios**

Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
whatever its obvious your love affair for Clinton is strong and she can do no wrong, yet glossed over the article i showed where wiki leaks plans on releasing more of her emails. sorry but your love interest is not gonna win, me personally wish there was a better candidate running against her but we have what we have so Go Trump 2016 ! ! !

The simple truth here is that the only people who care about Clinton's emails are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her anyway. People care about issues like the economy, foreign policy, etc. They don't care about a candidate's IT qualifications (or obvious lack thereof) because that's not something that has any meaningful effect on their lives. Most of them probably can't even explain in their own words what was going on with the email server or why it is a bad thing. And when it comes time to weigh "didn't configure an email server properly" vs. "wants to build a giant border wall to keep the icky brown people out" or "laughable fraud and failure at business" it's going to be pretty obvious which of these things are more important.

Now, this could change if there's any evidence that she set up the email server maliciously or for personal gain, but so far it seems to be nothing more than a case of "why you let the IT department do their job and handle your email security" that is only in the news as an opportunity for Our Guy to attack Their Guy.

actually would have to disagree with you, since even her own party has turned against her, and we are talking liberals not conservatives, see too many people who would rather vote for Trump (or Jill stein) then Hillary, and they are Democrats. their moto anyone but Hillary. and their reason, those accursed e-mails.

**Kilkrazy**

It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.

But obviously for some reason you do not think so.

**Asterios**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.

But obviously for some reason you do not think so.

no it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.

**Ouze**

What's with Wikileaks teasing what they have? Is this a TV drama during sweeps weeks? Don't tell us, show us.

**Asterios**

Ouze wrote:
What's with Wikileaks teasing what they have? Is this a TV drama during sweeps weeks? Don't tell us, show us.

I agree, but me thinks hes looking for a drum roll and to expand the tense excitement, but i'm curious why he didn't do this earlier when it might have made a difference between her and Sanders?

**Ouze**

Asterios wrote:
since even her own party has turned against her

Asterios wrote:
it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.

Today I learned that having your party against you means the majority of the party votes for you, but not 100% of them.

**Kilkrazy**

Asterios wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.

But obviously for some reason you do not think so.

no it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.

So to be clear, when you said "her own party has turned against her" you did not mean her own party has turned against her, you meant something else.

Please do not spam the forum with this kind of nonsense again. It is against the forum rules.

**kronk**

Ouze wrote:
Asterios wrote:
since even her own party has turned against her

Asterios wrote:
it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.

Today I learned that having your party against you means the majority of the party votes for you, but not 100% of them.

Trump received 13.6 million votes. Cruz got 7.7 million, Rubio got 3.5 million, and Kasich got 4.2 million.

The majority of Republicans didn't vote for Trump! Republicans have turned on Trump! #DumpTrump!

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Edit: Don't ban me KK. I'm just a deliverer of sensationalism!

**Asterios**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.

But obviously for some reason you do not think so.

no it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.

So to be clear, when you said "her own party has turned against her" you did not mean her own party has turned against her, you meant something else.

Please do not spam the forum with this kind of nonsense again. It is against the forum rules.

what I meant usually when a candidate wins the primary for their party their party usually gets in line behind them, and people will vote their own party, but that is not the case with her this time. and while she won the primary she may lose the election.

**kronk**

Asterios wrote:

what I meant usually when a candidate wins the primary for their party their party usually gets in line behind them, and people will vote their own party, but that is not the case with her this time. and while she won the primary she may lose the election.

The EXACT same thing can be said about Trump.

<----- Has voted Republican for President since 1994, but will NOT vote for Trump.

Or Hillary.

**whembly**

Yup.

I'm hoping for a RNC/DNC revolt:

--RNC: The delegates realizes that Trumps would lose in Epic fashion, they vote for any 'not-Trump' to kick off a contested convention.

--DNC: The delegates realizes that the FBI will recommend an indictment (whether DoJ picks it up or not) and pulls the lever for either Sanders or Biden.

Then this guy:
<-------

Gets really excited.

**Asterios**

kronk wrote:
Asterios wrote:

what I meant usually when a candidate wins the primary for their party their party usually gets in line behind them, and people will vote their own party, but that is not the case with her this time. and while she won the primary she may lose the election.

The EXACT same thing can be said about Trump.

<----- Has voted Republican for President since 1994, but will NOT vote for Trump.

Or Hillary.

oh thats without a doubt, but the funny thing is many who opposed Trump and still are now getting behind him, very weird politics, on the other hand many of Sanders supporters are demanding he run independent, something tells me this election is going to be a doozy and upset lots of people one way or the other.

**feeder**

Asterios wrote:
kronk wrote:
Asterios wrote:

what I meant usually when a candidate wins the primary for their party their party usually gets in line behind them, and people will vote their own party, but that is not the case with her this time. and while she won the primary she may lose the election.

The EXACT same thing can be said about Trump.

<----- Has voted Republican for President since 1994, but will NOT vote for Trump.

Or Hillary.

oh thats without a doubt, but the funny thing is many who opposed Trump and still are now getting behind him, very weird politics, on the other hand many of Sanders supporters are demanding he run independent, something tells me this election is going to be a doozy and upset lots of people one way or the other.

Nah. There will be a long and noisy summer, but when November rolls around and America realizes they have to choose between a cold, calculating robot clad in womanskin with decades of political experience vs a insecure, shrieking howler monkey wearing an orange peel with a tenuous grip on reality, well, hail to Prez HRC.

**Easy E**

Sometimes, I wonder if I live in the same world as the posters in this thread.

**WrentheFaceless**

This thread is very strange, yes

**d-usa**

Well, my governor is meeting with Trump and is in the running for a VP pick.

Hell, if there is any chance in hell of Trump winning I would vote for him just to get rid of her!

But in reality, it just shows how clueless and out of touch he is. .

**Gordon Shumway**

Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
Yup.

I'm hoping for a RNC/DNC revolt:

--RNC: The delegates realizes that Trumps would lose in Epic fashion, they vote for any 'not-Trump' to kick off a contested convention.

--DNC: The delegates realizes that the FBI will recommend an indictment (whether DoJ picks it up or not) and pulls the lever for either Sanders or Biden.

Then this guy:
<-------

Gets really excited.

There is no white knight candidate ready to ride in and save either party. There is no credible candidate that could win the nomination at the Republican convention. Nobody thinks that a candidate that couldn't win the nomination or that didn't even try is a legitimate candidate and Trump won enough delegates to win the nomination outright.

Same with Clinton, the DNC can't give the nomination to Sander after Clinton beat him in the primaries and they can't ignore all the voters and the primary process and hand the nomination to Joe Biden just because either. The DNC does have a way out of Clinton's nomination but that requires her to get hit with criminal charges by the DOJ which allow the DNC to give the nomination to Sanders but would upset a lot of Clinton supporters including all of those who are in charge of the DNC.

I think we're heading for an election with 2 candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings ever and we're going to have a low turnout.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Well, my governor is meeting with Trump and is in the running for a VP pick.

Hell, if there is any chance in hell of Trump winning I would vote for him just to get rid of her!

But in reality, it just shows how clueless and out of touch he is. .

Can she see Russia from her house?

**whembly**

Prestor Jon wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yup.

I'm hoping for a RNC/DNC revolt:

--RNC: The delegates realizes that Trumps would lose in Epic fashion, they vote for any 'not-Trump' to kick off a contested convention.

--DNC: The delegates realizes that the FBI will recommend an indictment (whether DoJ picks it up or not) and pulls the lever for either Sanders or Biden.

Then this guy:
<-------

Gets really excited.

There is no white knight candidate ready to ride in and save either party. There is no credible candidate that could win the nomination at the Republican convention. Nobody thinks that a candidate that couldn't win the nomination or that didn't even try is a legitimate candidate and Trump won enough delegates to win the nomination outright.

Same with Clinton, the DNC can't give the nomination to Sander after Clinton beat him in the primaries and they can't ignore all the voters and the primary process and hand the nomination to Joe Biden just because either. The DNC does have a way out of Clinton's nomination but that requires her to get hit with criminal charges by the DOJ which allow the DNC to give the nomination to Sanders but would upset a lot of Clinton supporters including all of those who are in charge of the DNC.

I think we're heading for an election with 2 candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings ever and we're going to have a low turnout.

I beg to differ!

RNC could eventually elect someone like Tom Cotton or Nikki Haley (need to be someone who hasn't ran to quell the ensuing outrage).

DNC? ...right now? I can see Biden do really well. Can't believe I'm saying this now, but compared to the other yahoos... he comes off as the "adult in the room".

If it remains HRC vs Trump? Yeah... I can see record LOW (by percentage) turnout on election day.

**Frazzled**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.

**d-usa**

Prestor Jon wrote:

d-usa wrote:
Well, my governor is meeting with Trump and is in the running for a VP pick.

Hell, if there is any chance in hell of Trump winning I would vote for him just to get rid of her!

But in reality, it just shows how clueless and out of touch he is. .

Can she see Russia from her house?

No, but she was able to see her daughters trailer in the parking lot of the Governor's Mansion and was able to bravely endorse Trump after he locked up the nomination

.

But I'm sure she checks all the right boxes:

- Woman
- Governor (and former chairperson of the National Governors Association) of a solid red state
- Lt. Governor
- 2 terms in the House of Representatives
- Graduated from Oklahoma Baptist University

**Gordon Shumway**

Frazzled wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.

**jreilly89**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.

Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.

Nah, way easier to just be snarky

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yup.

I'm hoping for a RNC/DNC revolt:

--RNC: The delegates realizes that Trumps would lose in Epic fashion, they vote for any 'not-Trump' to kick off a contested convention.

--DNC: The delegates realizes that the FBI will recommend an indictment (whether DoJ picks it up or not) and pulls the lever for either Sanders or Biden.

Then this guy:
<-------

Gets really excited.

There is no white knight candidate ready to ride in and save either party. There is no credible candidate that could win the nomination at the Republican convention. Nobody thinks that a candidate that couldn't win the nomination or that didn't even try is a legitimate candidate and Trump won enough delegates to win the nomination outright.

Same with Clinton, the DNC can't give the nomination to Sander after Clinton beat him in the primaries and they can't ignore all the voters and the primary process and hand the nomination to Joe Biden just because either. The DNC does have a way out of Clinton's nomination but that requires her to get hit with criminal charges by the DOJ which allow the DNC to give the nomination to Sanders but would upset a lot of Clinton supporters including all of those who are in charge of the DNC.

I think we're heading for an election with 2 candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings ever and we're going to have a low turnout.

I beg to differ!

RNC could eventually elect someone like Tom Cotton or Nikki Haley (need to be someone who hasn't ran to quell the ensuing outrage).

DNC? ...right now? I can see Biden do really well. Can't believe I'm saying this now, but compared to the other yahoos... he comes off as the "adult in the room".

If it remains HRC vs Trump? Yeah... I can see record LOW (by percentage) turnout on election day.

There is no way that the RNC is taking away the nomination from Trump after he earned enough delegates to win it outright and won the most votes too. The RNC can't deliberately ignore the entire primary process to hand pick a nominee that didn't even campaign in the primaries and expect everyone to just fall in line and turn out to vote for that candidate because, 1. there'll be an R next his/her name 2 it won't be Trump 3. it won't be HRC. That's insanity and exactly the kind of thinking that got the "establishment" in this position in the first place.

**Gordon Shumway**

Prestor Jon wrote:

There is no way that the RNC is taking away the nomination from Trump after he earned enough delegates to win it outright and won the most votes too. The RNC can't deliberately ignore the entire primary process to hand pick a nominee that didn't even campaign in the primaries and expect everyone to just fall in line and turn out to vote for that candidate because, 1. there'll be an R next his/her name 2 it won't be Trump 3. it won't be HRC. That's insanity and exactly the kind of thinking that got the "establishment" in this position in the first place.

I agree, but I wonder how many more GOP leaders are going to rescind their support for him before this is all over? How many days can Ryan come out and reject Trump's statements before his support becomes untenable?

**Prestor Jon**

jreilly89 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.

Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?

**Frazzled**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.

He's giving a speech. Run the damn country. Fire some people.

**Spinner**

And we all know that giving speeches is in no way part of the president's job.

**Ustrello**

Spinner wrote:
And we all know that giving speeches is in no way part of the president's job.

Never, not one bit. His job is to fire people and be a decider and defeat those damn commies