Author Topic: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)  (Read 23049 times)

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2016, 05:43:55 PM »
Because, after all, the Left-Wing Media knows that Republicans love idiots, liars and bigots, so showing him to be such would naturally bring him to the fore.

Although there is quite a bit of evidence to show that is true, I somehow doubt that was the plan. :)

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2016, 05:45:16 PM »
And speaking of Hillary's "deplorables" statement, I always thought she made one big error.

She should have ended the statement with "Some, I assume, are good people."

Then the Republicans wouldn't have been able to complain about it. :D

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #52 on: October 12, 2016, 05:53:56 PM »
When the media is round the clock Trump-o-vision during the primaries, then those in the Republican camp are going to listen to what the man has to say.  If you don't think the left had a hand in selecting him you're kidding yourself.  Are they "helping him" now?  Only so much as they want people to feel the race could go any way still and our country is at the mercy of the next big scandal!  Tune in!

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #53 on: October 12, 2016, 08:12:59 PM »
I'm not sure I agree with that.  The people who caucused and voted for him in the primaries are probably not the kind of folks hanging on Wolf Blitzer's every word.  They're far more likely to be listening to all the usual media suspects on the right, righter and rightmost.  The media sure as hell is going to cover it, since everybody loves a circus and this one comes to town only once every four years.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #54 on: October 12, 2016, 08:48:47 PM »
I'll just remind everyone what actually happened in the GOP primaries at around the time of the first 2-3 debates. The media was certainly not propping up Trump to 'win'; that much is certain. But then again that wouldn't have been their tactic *even if* they were trying to help him. What was very clear going into those debates is that Trump was on a search-and-destroy mission to sink Jeb Bush. Period, end of story. Most of his efforts went towards that, with the occasional lob at Fiorina. He more or less acted as if the others didn't exist, which was in effect another way of sidelining them but without wasting his time. What the media *did do* at this time was to highlight and underline all of his efforts to make Jeb look stupid, and a little bit down the line, the same with Fiorina. It would have been clear to anyone rooting for Trump at the time that the key to his gain would be through others' losses. Victory by attrition. It was made all the easier because the crop of GOP candidates was weak, with the exception of a couple of them like Rubio and Rand Paul. However Rand was very easy to ignore and subsequently to make to look foolish, and he was never a real threat to anyone, his grandstanding filibuster notwithstanding. He doesn't have the chops for public rhetoric, and the Republicans were obviously not looking for a GOP version of Bernie at that time, so Rand was out of luck. Rubio, on the other hand, impressed me initially, and from leaked DNC emails they clearly noted him as being a serious threat to Hillary (another potential Obama, the emails say), along of course with Jeb. So all the media had to do was massively publicize Trump's best moments of humiliating each of the top GOP threats in order, first annihilating Jeb in a matter of weeks, and subsequently going on to (probably correctly) frame Fiorina as a psychopath and then Rubio (incorrectly) as a mindless robot. After the dust settled Cruz, Kasich, and Christie were left, all of whom were basically ridiculous and unlikeable candidates for one reason or another. And so the job was done.

For those of us here attempting to examine whether or not the media knowingly 'assisted' the DNC in propping up Trump, I think the issue would be best framed by inspecting not whether they outright said good things about him, but rather whether they set the conditions whereby his chief competitors would fail. That, to me, would be enough to at least begin the argument, although not enough to finish it. I personally believe that Trump, the liberal media, and Hillary were all working together (even if loosely) to sabotage Jeb's campaign. Once that was done it may be that there was no real plan left and things went along their own course. I think that if Trump hadn't been involved Rubio and Jeb both would have done much better than they did, although I suspect Fiorina would have sabotaged herself eventually. It seemed farcical to me that Cruz and Christie were among the last standing. I'm sure some blame for this should go to the GOP as well, since their own rhetorical extremism makes it very hard to for them get the leader they need. Right now they've got the one they deserve.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2016, 08:51:06 PM by Fenring »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #55 on: October 12, 2016, 11:29:23 PM »
There could also be riots when Trump loses. I think that's more likely given the ferocity of his supporters and the apparent lack of enthusiasm among hers.

You're neglecting the ferocity of some of the "anybody but Trump" crowd, and the matter of their being racial minorities. Racial minorities, although it's more generally blacks specifically, DO have a track record of rioting upon hearing about outcomes they find unfavorable towards them specifically. Further: The other groups that have likewise held proven track records of rioting are all left wing organizations.

Likewise, while Trump rallies have been violent at points, it has almost universally been demonstrated that those escalations were in response to actions by, once again, left wing agitators getting into the crowd.

This is also an ongoing thing with many shooters or other domestic terror attacks. They're either Islamic Terrorists, apolitical and literally insane, or functionally insane with left-wing leanings. Guy flew a small plane into an IRS office building? Socialist. Guy shoots a U.S. Representative in a parking lot, oh hey, he was a Democratic campaign volunteer in the previous election cycle(and crazy). And the list goes on and on.

The only things they've got recently on the right-wing side is McVeigh, and that was over 20 years ago and he was far out whacky even then. And then that family of ranchers in Nevada (x2), which wasn't exactly in the random acts of violence category.

A Trump win is highly unlikely at this point, but win or lose, I'm inclined to say that if a "Trump supporter" does get violent in the aftermath of the election, it's going to be in self-defense. Trump's rhetoric aside, I'd be highly sceptical of anything happening. Now if Hillary was making such statements, I would be taking those seriously.

That being said, with McVeigh being brought up, I could see some militia groups getting uppity, and possibly making an attempt at following his model. But that isn't rioting, and I doubt they'd react immediately, their response would be weeks, months or even a year or more later.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2016, 01:37:23 AM »
Not sure it's worth wading in here, but let me go on the record as saying that I see no evidence for virtually everything that Seriati is saying. Similarly, TheDaemon's comments that only blacks and left wing organizations riot.

I continue to be surprised how unwilling people are to actually use facts to back up their wild speculations - for example, if you want to make an asseertiion about the relative favorability of news coverage towards Clinton and Trump, you can actually use data:

Quote
How did you go about measuring media coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

We compiled a total of 21,981 articles written about the election dating back to July 1, 2015. To be included in our data set, each article had to reference either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in its headline (but not both). The articles came from the websites of eight major media outlets: the New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Politico, Fox News and the Weekly Standard. We wanted a mixture liberal and conservative outlets, at least according to conventional wisdom.

We looked at the number of articles that were published about each candidate over time, which captures their ability to dictate the news cycle. And using the actual text of the articles, we evaluated the tone of the coverage — how positive or negative it was toward each candidate — and how it has shifted throughout the campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/

And the data suggest that the coverage is approcimately equal.

 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2016, 06:49:09 AM »
TD... White guy shoots up a prayer meeting?  White supremacist.  Two white guys shoot up a high school?  Nazi sympathizers... why leave the most egregious spree killers in the past couple of decades out of your analysis? That's not even getting into the attacks on,  murders of and kidnappings of abortion providers in the past two decades - almost all perpetrated by white people.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2016, 07:30:15 AM »
Quote
I personally believe that Trump, the liberal media, and Hillary were all working together (even if loosely) to sabotage Jeb's campaign.
I can't wait for the first shred of evidence to appear to back up this theory.  Remember that everybody thought Trump was an outlandish figure (Seth Meyers: “Donald Trump often talks about running as a Republican, which is surprising. I just assumed he was running as a joke.” and the Huffington Post relegated coverage of his early campaign to the Entertainment News section.  Naturally they focused instead on the front-runner, and in this case at that same early stage Jeb had all the money and all the attention.  It's still a mystery why Jeb failed so badly, and an even bigger surprise to almost everyone that Trump succeeded. But we shouldn't blame dark forces for his ascent; he manufactured his rise and earned the nomination of his Party.  They did it to themselves.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2016, 07:37:09 AM »
Quote
Likewise, while Trump rallies have been violent at points, it has almost universally been demonstrated that those escalations were in response to actions by, once again, left wing agitators getting into the crowd.
How come there aren't violent episodes at Clinton rallies, where "right wing agitators" are actually being paid to jump up and denounce her?  If you invite a motorcycle gang to Thanksgiving dinner, something's going to get broken, and it won't take much encouragement by the host for it to happen.

Quote
A Trump win is highly unlikely at this point, but win or lose, I'm inclined to say that if a "Trump supporter" does get violent in the aftermath of the election, it's going to be in self-defense.
Let's wait and see.  He's told his audiences to be "poll watchers" in Democratic voting districts, basically to challenge black voters.  That's going to be ugly and you can't put that on anybody but Trump.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #60 on: October 13, 2016, 08:08:00 AM »
It's no mystery why Jeb and most of the others failed so badly. There is only one issue that really matters in the long run and that is border security. Amnesty for illegals defeats border security immediately because it encourages everyone and anyone to come to America illegally because they assume there will be another amnesty down the road for them. So border security starts with refusing to grant amnesty to illegals. Then it comes down to actual border security and Trump was the only one who demonstrated any real intent on taking it seriously. The Wall is just a first step but what it does demonstrate is serious intent. That's something none of the other candidates had.

Remember Jeb said that coming to America illegally was an act of love. He wasn't going to secure the border. His brother didn't so why would he be any different? And long term if any other candidate had won besides Trump it wouldn't matter anyway because if they didn't deport illegals then eventually those illegals and their children are going to end up getting some sort of amnesty and voting and at that point conservatives lose it all. The next time Republicans lose is the last time because the Democrats will fling the borders wide open to accept tens of millions of new Democrat voters. Hillary promised as much and that's one promise there is no doubt she will keep.

Obama succeeded in laying the groundwork, dispersing refugees to sparsely populated areas where there is a good chance that they will be able to turn red voting districts blue because a few votes in those places go a long way. Once Hillary gets in she will execute the coup de grace and it's game over.  Everyone can see this. And that's why just like Old Ben Kenobi, Trump is our only hope. If anyone else had won the Republican primary, in the long term Republicans still lose.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2016, 08:52:04 AM »
TD... White guy shoots up a prayer meeting?  White supremacist.  Two white guys shoot up a high school?  Nazi sympathizers... why leave the most egregious spree killers in the past couple of decades out of your analysis? That's not even getting into the attacks on,  murders of and kidnappings of abortion providers in the past two decades - almost all perpetrated by white people.

I don't place National Socialist sympathizers on the "right wing" side of the political spectrum. I live in the United States, not Europe. Generally speaking, I place most racial supremacy groups outside of the (US) political spectrum in general as they exist on a different axis than the traditional left-right political spread allows for, a position that generally puts them more in line with the left wing than the right wing(as once you remove the racial supremacy content, you either end up with leftist agendas, or cults, although I'll admit there are a few at first glance, "Constitutionalist" groups in that mix that would tend to skew things to the right.

They get lumped into the right-wing because where they do overlap with the traditional left-right spectrum, they're barely matching up with the American Right(in regards to "individual rights" which they of course reinterpret  the "individual" part of that to be "white" and often more specifically into "white straight male"). But that's mostly because the things they oppose most strongly at present happen to be things the American Right-wing likewise objects to, just for different reasons.

But even if I accept your premise of them being right-wing, spree killing aren't riots. The anti-abortion killings, aren't riots. As a "riot" requires a "large group" to be involved in "violent behavior." Almost every counter-example you provided involved only 1 shooter. A small number involved 2 people, and an even smaller number involved 3 or more, which would meet Webster's technical definition for "riot."

Although I'd personally set the bar higher than that and require some degree of indiscriminate property destruction to be thrown into the mix. Which makes a racist group shooting up a minority religious observance fail that test, and ditto for an anti-abortion activist bombing an abortion clinic, or their bombing of/shooting at abortion clinic employees. That isn't an act of indiscriminate property destruction or violence.   

The American "right-wing" does get violent, but that violence when it happens tends to be highly targeted, and has generally been targeted specifically at the (correct) target of their ire, whatever it may be for that specific person. The acts are usually premeditated, and only happen after some degree of planning.

The "left-wing" on the other hand, just simply goes out and riots, and usually ends up doing great harm to their own immediate vicinity and people that either have nothing to do with what they're actually rioting over or only have a tenuous relationship to it at best(such as "not being black" or "being white" and being where the riots were in the case of some of the racial riots in US history). They occur at times of high emotion, are spur of the moment, and aside from an activist agitator possibly being involved(which I strongly suspect in the riots over the past several years), aren't premeditated(which is why their location selection usually sucks balls).

Which puts it back in the court of "If rioting occurs, it will be in the event of a left-wing(Clinton) loss."

Now if mass shootings, bombings, or other such things happen, those could be potential right-wing responses(as they're not the exclusive domain of the right-wing; Islamic Terrorists and leftists employ both tactics as well) to a Trump loss, but it is likely that such a response wouldn't happen on Election Night, or even the week following it. That response would come along later.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2016, 09:05:49 AM »
Quote
I personally believe that Trump, the liberal media, and Hillary were all working together (even if loosely) to sabotage Jeb's campaign.
I can't wait for the first shred of evidence to appear to back up this theory.  Remember that everybody thought Trump was an outlandish figure (Seth Meyers: “Donald Trump often talks about running as a Republican, which is surprising. I just assumed he was running as a joke.” and the Huffington Post relegated coverage of his early campaign to the Entertainment News section.  Naturally they focused instead on the front-runner, and in this case at that same early stage Jeb had all the money and all the attention.  It's still a mystery why Jeb failed so badly, and an even bigger surprise to almost everyone that Trump succeeded. But we shouldn't blame dark forces for his ascent; he manufactured his rise and earned the nomination of his Party.  They did it to themselves.

We need to do reading comprehension 101 again: I personally believe this. I did not state it as a fact, and I had no intention with that comment to prove it was true. Evidence is not required to demonstrate that is what I believe; stating that it's my opinion is enough for that. Whether or not it's accurate is for you to decide, but the onus isn't on me to prove that all of my opinions are correct unless I intend for you to agree with me.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2016, 09:10:55 AM »
Quote
We need to do reading comprehension 101 again: I personally believe this. I did not state it as a fact, and I had no intention with that comment to prove it was true. Evidence is not required to demonstrate that is what I believe; stating that it's my opinion is enough for that. Whether or not it's accurate is for you to decide, but the onus isn't on me to prove that all of my opinions are correct unless I intend for you to agree with me.
We personally believe things based on some sort of perception or evidence.  You don't need evidence to believe this particular opinion.  The perception is tied to your continuing suspicion about Hillary, which you also have said is personal, not political.  Not sure why you share that sort of opinion in a political forum, where you should expect people to ask you for the basis of your belief.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2016, 09:15:23 AM by AI Wessex »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2016, 09:23:31 AM »
Quote
We need to do reading comprehension 101 again: I personally believe this. I did not state it as a fact, and I had no intention with that comment to prove it was true. Evidence is not required to demonstrate that is what I believe; stating that it's my opinion is enough for that. Whether or not it's accurate is for you to decide, but the onus isn't on me to prove that all of my opinions are correct unless I intend for you to agree with me.
We personally believe things based on some sort of perception or evidence.  You don't need evidence to believe this particular opinion.  The perception is tied to your continuing suspicion about Hillary, which you also have said is personal, not political.  Not sure why you share that sort of opinion in a political forum, where you should expect people to ask you for the basis of your belief.

You're allowed to ask for it, but I'm not obliged to provide it. When I want to convince I present facts. When I want to state my opinion I'll just do that. Not every comment is meant to convince. In this case I was coloring the facts of the debates with my perception of what I think was going on. It was a throw-in, rather than being the basis for what I was saying. My 'thesis', if you will, was not materially contingent on that one statement being true.

Not sure why you're suggesting that a) this is only a political forum (despite it often being that), and b) that no one should ever post opinions unless backed up by evidence.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2016, 10:06:15 AM »
Quote
Not sure why you're suggesting that a) this is only a political forum (despite it often being that), and b) that no one should ever post opinions unless backed up by evidence.
We're talking about elections and candidates, ergo this is a political forum as well as a social topics forum.  I didn't say that you shouldn't post opinions without evidence.  I'm saying you shouldn't expect that nobody will ask for something to support the opinion, and if asked should be willing to provide it.  It's acceptable to say that you have no evidence, but then the opinion carries no weight in a discussion.  I'm pretty sure I can back up any opinion I've ever given here, whether or not the back-up I provide convinces anyone else.  I will offer one opinion for which I have no evidence, that bittersweet chocolate ice cream with cherries is the best flavor in the world.  Care to debate me on that?

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2016, 10:26:41 AM »
Opinions without facts are feelings.

You actually have every right to cast your vote because of feelings. But you don't make a very credible argument on a public forum when your truth is solely anchored in feelings, even when they run counter to facts.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2016, 10:40:38 AM »
Quote
But even if I accept your premise of them being right-wing, spree killing aren't riots. The anti-abortion killings, aren't riots. As a "riot" requires a "large group" to be involved in "violent behavior." Almost every counter-example you provided involved only 1 shooter. A small number involved 2 people, and an even smaller number involved 3 or more, which would meet Webster's technical definition for "riot."
Quote
The American "right-wing" does get violent, but that violence when it happens tends to be highly targeted, and has generally been targeted specifically at the (correct) target of their ire, whatever it may be for that specific person. The acts are usually premeditated, and only happen after some degree of planning.
I think this is a fairly accurate assessment.  If we are talking rioting, it's historically from "the left".  Though that makes sense as the left tends to court/champion for those oppressed by the current system.  That system being the "target" of the riot. (at least symbolically)

Violence from the right is more targeted.

The enemies of "the left" are hard to find in a distilled avatar form.  The enemies of "the right" are easier to find a figurehead for, and attack.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2016, 10:42:40 AM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2016, 10:45:30 AM »
Opinions without facts are feelings.

You actually have every right to cast your vote because of feelings. But you don't make a very credible argument on a public forum when your truth is solely anchored in feelings, even when they run counter to facts.

Wow, what an interpretation of what I said. Where did you get the idea that I said my opinion has no facts behind it? What I said, in fact, is that I wasn't posting that particular opinion with the intent to convince, and therefore I didn't include facts along with it. Converting that into a claim that I have no facts is...curious.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #69 on: October 13, 2016, 11:02:17 AM »
This is why I hate posting during the run up to elections.  People take things to ridiculous extremes.  Interpretation of evidence is based on entire life experiences and putting things in context, it's an insight not a logical proof.  Could any of us convert it into one?  Sure, absolutely, we could in fact write and publish a book on it, research it, spend years and make it convincing even if it would not be persuasive to everyone, thousands of people do so all the time.  But demanding gotcha proof elements on interpretations that hang on thousands of data points is frankly just silly. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #70 on: October 13, 2016, 11:38:37 AM »
FYI, latest poll shows New Mexico:

Clinton:35
Trump:31
Johnson:24

https://www.abqjournal.com/857961/clinton-trump-in-tight-race-in-new-mexico.html

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #71 on: October 13, 2016, 11:40:50 AM »
Wow!  24%  That's pretty amazing.  NM particularly aligned with his platform or just fed up with the other two that much?  :)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #72 on: October 13, 2016, 01:06:10 PM »
Well, he was a popular governor of the state for eight years, so he has name recognition and a known track record there.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2016, 10:28:18 AM »
This doesn't really belong on this thread, but I didn't find one more appropriate, and this is such a burn, it really needed to be added somewhere.

In case anyone missed it, The New York Times' lawyer responds to Trump's demand that they retract the article about two women who said that Trump touched them inappropriately:

Quote
Dear. Mr. Kasowitz:

I write in response to your letter of October 12, 2016 to Dean Baquet concerning your client Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. You write concerning our article "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately" and label the article as "libel per se." You ask that we "remove it from [our] website, and issue a full and immediate retraction and apology." We decline to do so.

The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one's reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host's request to discuss Mr. Trump's own daughter as a "piece of ass." Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump's unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.

But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance -- indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night's presidential debate. Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women's accounts. They provided readers with Mr. Trump's response, including his forceful denial of the women's reports. It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.

Sincerely,
David McCraw

If only we could all slam each other with such eloquence. :)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #74 on: October 14, 2016, 10:43:46 AM »
It's well written, and yet is a bogus argument all the same. There is a big difference between locker room talk and boasting of having had one's way with the ladies, and between a direct accusation of what might amount to sexual harassment or even borderline sexual assault depending on the specifics. The first might give one the reputation of being an ass, but the second could potentially have legal consequences. I'm not saying I think Trump's lawyer should have his way, but it absolutely does not follow that because a man has a bad reputation he is immune to being slandered or libelled.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #75 on: October 14, 2016, 10:56:58 AM »
Just to be clear, Trump's "locker room talk" was an admission of sexual assault.  He later claimed he was lying, that it was "just talk".

Printing allegations that it was not "just talk", and has in fact happened, IS news.  It was predictable from the second his defense of his words left his mouth. 

I do agree that putting forward him being such a sleaze that he has no good name to damage is sloppy and no defense at all.  Granted, they did nothing that needs defending, so it was nothing but an attack/riposte against someone who has no concept of freedom of the press.  They have good reason to do everything in their power (and within the law) to see to it this guy never gets elected.  He is openly hostile to the press. 

I guess that's what happens when you cage up the wild animal, poke it repeatedly and keep it on display round the clock forever.  Eventually it gets sick of the attention and lashes out at you, and will eat you if it ever gets out of that cage.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #76 on: October 14, 2016, 11:19:48 AM »
Quote
I'm not saying I think Trump's lawyer should have his way, but it absolutely does not follow that because a man has a bad reputation he is immune to being slandered or libelled.
You can't slander someone who has admitted to what the claims allege.

"I assault women."
"He assaulted these women."
"Slander!"

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #77 on: October 14, 2016, 12:07:19 PM »
Granted, they did nothing that needs defending, so it was nothing but an attack/riposte against someone who has no concept of freedom of the press.

Oh, I think he has a pretty good grasp of what "Freedom of the press" entails, as it is that same freedom which grants him the ability to run off his mouth in public speaking engagements, or to pursue advertising campaigns for his own business interests.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #78 on: October 14, 2016, 12:15:41 PM »
That's probably fair.  I don't think he expects to WIN any suits like this he brings.  Just be a PITA and/or expensive enough that the threat still has teeth. 

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #79 on: October 14, 2016, 12:22:34 PM »
That's a tactic he's used successfully in business for decades.  First agree to a contract and price, then refuse to pay the full amount and let the contractee know that it will cost them a fortune in legal fees to recover the rest, and they won't receive any money until the suit is resolved years down the road.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #80 on: November 01, 2016, 12:21:02 AM »
Darn, I did not predict Comey's action (perhaps because it is an unprecedented step for an FBI Director since the time of J Edgar Hoover). I think it will cost Clinton 2% in the polls and so she will come in at 49%.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2016, 07:21:57 AM »
It may only cost her 1-2%, but even when she had a 7 point lead in the polls she didn't hit 49% except in a few outliers.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #82 on: November 01, 2016, 11:04:44 AM »
It may only cost her 1-2%, but even when she had a 7 point lead in the polls she didn't hit 49% except in a few outliers.

Yeah, in some of the polling I've seen there's close to a 5% break for the Green Party, 6 to 7% for Libertarian. Leaving just under 90% of the vote for Trump, Clinton, and others. The Winner this year may do well to get 45% of the popular vote.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #83 on: November 01, 2016, 11:56:15 AM »
It looks like some of the 3rd party votes are reverting to the two main parties...I'm guessing 47% Clinton, 45% Trump, 1% Green, and 5% Libertarian, and 2% other.  Not that I'd bet on it.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #84 on: November 01, 2016, 11:19:02 PM »
There's a general trend in Presidential elections that third party candidates decline in popularity in the last few weeks of the election. I was projecting earlier that through a much better funded ground game, Clinton would get a larger share of those late-deciding voters shed from the third party candidates. The problem with the Comey actions, reckless as they are, is that he is the Director of the FBI and that will carry credibility with some undecided voters. 

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #85 on: November 04, 2016, 08:33:44 AM »
Things are tightening up rather than shifting in the last few days before the main event.  Potential voters who were more reluctant than undecided are committing, as expected.  A few states are flipping in polls, but mostly they are slipping into the margin of error range, so pollsters are hedging their bets.  Clinton looked like an 80-90% lock on FiveThirtyEight 3 weeks ago, and now clocks in at about 65%.  Unless there is yet another bomb dropped about either Clinton or Trump over the weekend, it's already baked.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #86 on: November 04, 2016, 09:39:07 AM »
I doubt we'll see another big revelation or off the cuff statement that can have an impact.  From here out I expect it to be dueling allegations of voter intimidation and election fraud.   :-\

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #87 on: November 04, 2016, 11:44:19 AM »
Trump will either drive the country into the side of a mountain if he loses or off the cliff if he wins.  Either way expect maximum damage to the country and $$MM more in his pocket, so it's all good.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #88 on: November 04, 2016, 12:23:28 PM »
For people like Cherry who are so upset about the potential for vote rigging and fraud, there is a very clear and overt effort in several states to reduce the number of people who vote in Democratic leaning precincts and districts:
Quote
A study of nearly 400 counties in Alabama, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi found that those counties collectively reduced the number of polling locations available to voters by at least 16 percent — eliminating more than 860 places. In Arizona, almost every single county shut down voting locations, and more than half of the counties in Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama that provided data to the researchers did so as well.

This sharp reduction — which would have difficult to implement if the Voting Rights Act were still in full force—means that voters in dozens of counties may have to travel a greater distance and wait in a longer line.

Researchers with the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights found that found that the vast majority of the closures happened in areas with a documented history of racial discrimination that used to hold elections under Justice Department supervision. Before the Supreme Court neutered the Voting Rights Act, these states and counties had to clear any voting changes with the federal government— even something as small as closing a single polling place — and prove the change wouldn’t harm voters of color.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #89 on: November 04, 2016, 02:30:59 PM »
A study of nearly 400 counties in Alabama, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi found that those counties collectively reduced the number of polling locations available to voters by at least 16 percent — eliminating more than 860 places. In Arizona, almost every single county shut down voting locations, and more than half of the counties in Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama that provided data to the researchers did so as well.

Wow!  Thanks for bringing that totally unbiased and not overblown fact to our attention!  sarcasm off.

Now, how about some context.  Those six states have 564 counties, have you looked at the polling places in any of them?  I looked at some random ones from each state.  Not surprising for instance that every county in Az closed some stations, there are only 15 counties in Arizona and the county I looked at had over 150 polling places.  Alabama?  67 counties, looked at a couple at found 49 polling places in one and 14 in another.  The counties that have urban populations have greater numbers of polling places, and the polling places are closer together (meaning that its far easier for their residents to adjust). 

Quote
This sharp reduction — which would have difficult to implement if the Voting Rights Act were still in full force—means that voters in dozens of counties may have to travel a greater distance and wait in a longer line.

Then that goes to show you why the Voting Rights Act was been abusively misapplied.  There's no reason that local election boards should be forced to run multiple polling locations with no lines that are less than a mile of each other.

Quote
Researchers with the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights found that found that the vast majority of the closures happened in areas with a documented history of racial discrimination that used to hold elections under Justice Department supervision. Before the Supreme Court neutered the Voting Rights Act, these states and counties had to clear any voting changes with the federal government— even something as small as closing a single polling place — and prove the change wouldn’t harm voters of color.

Couldn't possibly be that they forgot to check to see if the closures were more strongly correlated with urban density and distance between polling places could it? 

Meanwhile in states that didn't discriminate against black people when our grandparents were in diapers they had free reign to close polling places without any scrutiny whatsoever (and frequently do so, yet you don't bother to even pay attention to that).

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #90 on: November 04, 2016, 02:36:22 PM »
Here's another story about Trump campaign voter intimidation. Wish this one away, too...
Quote
An Ohio federal judge on Friday issued a restraining order against the Donald Trump campaign, finding that Trump supporters are planning to monitor urban areas and illegally intimidate minority voters in the crucial swing state.

Seriati, ignoring the rest of your post which shows a lack of reading comprehension:
Quote
Meanwhile in states that didn't discriminate against black people when our grandparents were in diapers they had free reign to close polling places without any scrutiny whatsoever (and frequently do so, yet you don't bother to even pay attention to that).
Why would any kind of oversight be required when there was no pattern of voter discrimination?  Not to mention that you from time to time reject calls to consider past events as not relevant to current circumstances.  Otherwise, you'd have been up in arms about the 22,000,000 Bush WH emails spanning his 8 years in office that disappeared from the RNC email servers when he left office.  Imagine what they would have revealed about the conduct of his Administration's run-up to and prosecution of the war in Iraq.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #91 on: November 04, 2016, 11:21:10 PM »
More vote rigging by disenfranchisement caught by a judge:
Quote
A federal judge on Friday ordered elections boards in three North Carolina counties to restore voter registrations canceled too close to Election Day after the NAACP sued over thousands of the challenges.

U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs issued the ruling after an emergency hearing earlier in the week on NAACP allegations that at least three counties purged voter rolls through a process disproportionately targeting blacks.

Biggs said the local elections boards must “take all steps necessary” to restore voter registrations canceled during the 90 days preceding Election Day on Tuesday.

Early voting ends Saturday in the critical swing state, which the NAACP has previously sued over other voter access issues.

The voters’ names were removed through challenges filed by activists, which the NAACP said was illegal under federal law because of the proximity to the election.

Does it seem strange to anyone else that with all of the claims by Trump and his supporters about Democratic attempts to rig the vote that so many of the news reports are about Republicans doing it to potential Democratic voters?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 11:26:51 PM by AI Wessex »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2016, 02:32:48 AM »
Are Republicans committing more voter fraud than Democrats? Are they just more likely to get caught because they are less adept at it or because other Republicans don't cover for them? Or is the mainstream media focusing more on Republican voter fraud because they've chosen a side?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #93 on: November 05, 2016, 06:55:33 AM »
Are Republicans committing more voter fraud than Democrats? Are they just more likely to get caught because they are less adept at it or because other Republicans don't cover for them? Or is the mainstream media focusing more on Republican voter fraud because they've chosen a side?
I can't believe you don't get it.  These are the ones the Republicans want us to see, because why else would they be so obvious and stupid about how they go about it?  These are the sacrificial "collateral damage" they use to hide the rest of their massive vote fraud organization.  They make every attack on a Republican headquarters, black church or Muslim look so obviously like false flag attacks to distract us from what they're really doing.  How do I know this?  Because people are voting for him, which no one who recognizes him as a low-life con man would do if he didn't pull the wool over their eyes.

But if you're right and I'm wrong, how come none of the right-wing conservative or Republican arms of the media have caught any of the actual Democratic attempts to rig the vote? If they're not competent enough to do that, why haven't the Russians exposed anything?  So far almost every story from those sources have turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by right-wing groups or obvious attempts to make Democrats look bad by exaggerating voter errors.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 07:02:08 AM by AI Wessex »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2016, 09:39:11 AM »
Trump has taped into the shadow
When Trump talks about the election being rigged it is because he is trying to rig the election.
Like a hypnotist that implant a suggestion it’s subtle and the likely result will be intimidation at the polling stations. 

We create what we fear

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2016, 09:41:35 PM »
FWIW, I turned in my absentee ballot yesterday and was wearing 6 "I voted" stickers when I left. Is that suspicious?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #96 on: November 06, 2016, 12:12:19 AM »
FWIW, I turned in my absentee ballot yesterday and was wearing 6 "I voted" stickers when I left. Is that suspicious?

Clearly you were helping compensate for me. I voted on Friday, and declined the sticker.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #97 on: November 06, 2016, 08:51:38 AM »
Amazingly enough, after this unbearably long ordeal small things can have a big enough impact to change people's minds at the last minute.  Obama was interrupted by a single protester at one of his rallies.  Hillary's supporters started screaming and yelling to drown the man out, but Obama spent about 5 minutes telling them to quiet down before they finally did.  Then he spoke directly and respectfully to and about the man in a calm and confident tone.  Trump portrayed it differently, saying that it was a disgrace the way that Obama screamed at the man.  I've heard of a few cases of people who weren't sure they were going to vote, but are now at long last energized.  Reality bites.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #98 on: November 06, 2016, 09:43:12 AM »
Looks like we have at least one "faithless elector" in play. One of the chosen electors for Hillary in Washington has said he won't vote for her. He's going to let her feel the Bern instead?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« Reply #99 on: November 06, 2016, 02:01:13 PM »
I bet he changes his mind if it will change the outcome of the election, instead of being a "feel good" protest vote.