American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[rscott]

AreOut said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jessica-drake-...

so are we going to believe a proffesional we now that she rejected more than a double of her standard rate?!

If people are this gullible then there is really no hope.

Are you saying that because of her career choice, she can't pick and choose who she sleeps with when not working?

[unrepentant]

rscott said:

Are you saying that because of her career choice, she can't pick and choose who she sleeps with when not working?

She's very believable. I believe, and I hope, that Gloria Allred is putting together enough of a case to bury Trump after the election. The only reason he made his ludicrous speech on Friday about suing all these women is to try and stop more coming forward. The next day another one comes forward. As we know with Savile and Cosby this is a pattern of behavior and there will be others. He will be stting himself now that Allred is involved.

[cqueen]

AreOut said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jessica-drake-...

so are we going to believe a proffesional we now that she rejected more than a double of her standard rate?!

If people are this gullible then there is really no hope.

She didn't feel safe going into trumps room alone so took to female friends with her

[AreOut]

rscott said:

Are you saying that because of her career choice, she can't pick and choose who she sleeps with when not working?

so you are telling me that she didn't know why was she called to come at the golf course?! She is a professional escort&porn star so certainly not for driving the golf cart.

[Countdown]

AreOut said:

so you are telling me that she didn't know why was she called to come at the golf course?! She is a professional escort&porn star so certainly not for driving the golf cart.

Is she an "escort"? Or does Donald just assume all women are wes?

[unrepentant]

230TE said:

Hillary is going to be the least effective and most quickly forgotten president since Jimmy Carter

What evidence do you have to suggest that? I'm interested because there's a lot of uninformed onanism on this thread, maybe you know something in Norfolk that we don't know here in the USA? Most of the opposition here is based on the assumption that she will be way too effective a president. The reason many republicans will hold their noses and vote for Trump is that they know that if she gets in and gets the senate she will change the supreme court for a generation. They believe that she will introduce single payer healthcare system, raise the minimum wage, invest heavily in education for the poor, enhance women's rights, empower immigrant communities and raise the taxes for the rich. They are st scared right now that she will be the opposite of ineffective.

So I'm interested to hear from the sage of East Anglia on why you feel qualified to pontificate so decisively on her ineffectiveness.

Oh, by the way. Jimmy Carter is not at all forgotten and is one of the most respected and admired people in the democratic party, a party that represents a majority of Americans.

[rscott]

AreOut said:

rscott said:

Are you saying that because of her career choice, she can't pick and choose who she sleeps with when not working?

so you are telling me that she didn't know why was she called to come at the golf course?! She is a professional escort&porn star so certainly not for driving the golf cart.

Any evidence for the claim that she's an escort, or did you just assume that based on her career choice?

[unrepentant]

Countdown said:

AreOut said:

so you are telling me that she didn't know why was she called to come at the golf course?! She is a professional escort&porn star so certainly not for driving the golf cart.

Is she an "escort"? Or does Donald just assume all women are wes?

She's not an escort, she's an adult entertainment performer. The adult movie industry is huge, especially in CA and considered pretty mainstream here. It pays a lot of taxes and employs a lot of people.

[AreOut]

unrepentant said:

She's not an escort, she's an adult entertainment performer.

so do you claim she doesn't want to take the money if it's not caught on camera?! Please.

[Funkycoldribena]

unrepentant said:

What evidence do you have to suggest that? I'm interested because there's a lot of uninformed onanism on this thread, maybe you know something in Norfolk that we don't know here in the USA? Most of the opposition here is based on the assumption that she will be way too effective a president. The reason many republicans will hold their noses and vote for Trump is that they know that if she gets in and gets the senate she will change the supreme court for a generation. They believe that she will introduce single payer healthcare system, raise the minimum wage, invest heavily in education for the poor, enhance women's rights, empower immigrant communities and raise the taxes for the rich. They are st scared right now that she will be the opposite of ineffective.

So I'm interested to hear from the sage of East Anglia on why you feel qualified to pontificate so decisively on her ineffectiveness.

Oh, by the way. Jimmy Carter is not at all forgotten and is one of the most respected and admired people in the democratic party, a party that represents a majority of Americans.

Vomit inducing.

[bitchstewie]

AreOut said:

unrepentant said:

She's not an escort, she's an adult entertainment performer.

so do you claim she doesn't want to take the money if it's not caught on camera?! Please.

Honestly I'd perhaps step back and think before you dig yourself into more of a hole.

fking disgraceful.

[230TE]

unrepentant said:

What evidence do you have to suggest that? I'm interested because there's a lot of uninformed onanism on this thread, maybe you know something in Norfolk that we don't know here in the USA? Most of the opposition here is based on the assumption that she will be way too effective a president. The reason many republicans will hold their noses and vote for Trump is that they know that if she gets in and gets the senate she will change the supreme court for a generation. They believe that she will introduce single payer healthcare system, raise the minimum wage, invest heavily in education for the poor, enhance women's rights, empower immigrant communities and raise the taxes for the rich. They are st scared right now that she will be the opposite of ineffective.

So I'm interested to hear from the sage of East Anglia on why you feel qualified to pontificate so decisively on her ineffectiveness.

Oh, by the way. Jimmy Carter is not at all forgotten and is one of the most respected and admired people in the democratic party, a party that represents a majority of Americans.

I've looked at her manifesto, or whatever you call it over there. Taxpayer funding for every single issue group big enough to have a Facebook page. And that's about it.

Nice ad hominem attack by the way. Keep it up, always makes the attacker look really good (in his own eyes anyway). Maybe you'll turn this thread into a safe space for Hillary fans yet.

[mikal83]

230TE said:

unrepentant said:

What evidence do you have to suggest that? I'm interested because there's a lot of uninformed onanism on this thread, maybe you know something in Norfolk that we don't know here in the USA? Most of the opposition here is based on the assumption that she will be way too effective a president. The reason many republicans will hold their noses and vote for Trump is that they know that if she gets in and gets the senate she will change the supreme court for a generation. They believe that she will introduce single payer healthcare system, raise the minimum wage, invest heavily in education for the poor, enhance women's rights, empower immigrant communities and raise the taxes for the rich. They are st scared right now that she will be the opposite of ineffective.

So I'm interested to hear from the sage of East Anglia on why you feel qualified to pontificate so decisively on her ineffectiveness.

Oh, by the way. Jimmy Carter is not at all forgotten and is one of the most respected and admired people in the democratic party, a party that represents a majority of Americans.

I've looked at her manifesto, or whatever you call it over there. Taxpayer funding for every single issue group big enough to have a Facebook page. And that's about it.

Nice ad hominem attack by the way. Keep it up, always makes the attacker look really good (in his own eyes anyway). Maybe you'll turn this thread into a safe space for Hillary fans yet.

yeh but, he's right, your wrong and your not big enough to admit it I guess!

[230TE]

mikal83 said:

yeh but, he's right, your wrong and your not big enough to admit it I guess!

Yes, that's probably it. I'm trying very hard to become a Hillary fan so that I'm allowed to participate in this thread, but it's hard work. I spent a bit of time trying (via Democrat-friendly news sources like CBS) to work out what a Hillary presidency would actually do, and I'm none the wiser. "Because it's my turn" is not an adequate reason for wanting to be the President of the most powerful nation on Earth. The figure that comes to mind is Gordon Brown - he wanted to be PM so much that it hurt, but once he got the job he had absolutely no idea what to do with it. I guess Unrep's one true love will try to keep the globalist bandwagon rolling long enough for all the Clintons' friends to cash in and bail out before the wheels come off, so we'll have a few more years of that lovely combination of conspicuously signalled public virtue and rampant private greed that has marked the last twenty or so years. That doesn't really make me want to add a Hillary fridge magnet to my collection, somehow.

[Countdown]

AreOut said:

so do you claim she doesn't want to take the money if it's not caught on camera?! Please.

Brilliant logic. Almost Trump-esque... first make a statement which is completely false and then suggest actresses are de-facto wes....

[Talksteer]

230TE said:

mikal83 said:

yeh but, he's right, your wrong and your not big enough to admit it I guess!

Yes, that's probably it. I'm trying very hard to become a Hillary fan so that I'm allowed to participate in this thread, but it's hard work. I spent a bit of time trying (via Democrat-friendly news sources like CBS) to work out what a Hillary presidency would actually do, and I'm none the wiser. "Because it's my turn" is not an adequate reason for wanting to be the President of the most powerful nation on Earth. The figure that comes to mind is Gordon Brown - he wanted to be PM so much that it hurt, but once he got the job he had absolutely no idea what to do with it. I guess Unrep's one true love will try to keep the globalist bandwagon rolling long enough for all the Clintons' friends to cash in and bail out before the wheels come off, so we'll have a few more years of that lovely combination of conspicuously signalled public virtue and rampant private greed that has marked the last twenty or so years. That doesn't really make me want to add a Hillary fridge magnet to my collection, somehow.

How about this from Vox; how a Clinton White House would actual operate and the gap between Hilary in office (popular) and running for office (unpopular):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hIFDaGs8l8

Based on the above I think there is a very good chance she'd actually be a very successful US President as one of the principle features of the US president is that in terms of power they are relatively limited. Her previous suggests that she'd be good a finding acceptable compromises, Trump on the other hand claims to be able to do a whole bunch of stuff that is very much not within the scope of the US president's powers or would require them to be used in a very dangerous manner.

Imagine President Trump as opposed to candidate Trump not accepting the result of election or creating special prosecutors to jail his opponents.

Edited by Talksteer on Sunday 23 October 18:26

[unrepentant]

230TE said:

Hillary is going to be the least effective and most quickly forgotten president since Jimmy Carter

230TE said:

unrepentant said:

What evidence do you have to suggest that? I'm interested because there's a lot of uninformed onanism on this thread, maybe you know something in Norfolk that we don't know here in the USA? Most of the opposition here is based on the assumption that she will be way too effective a president. The reason many republicans will hold their noses and vote for Trump is that they know that if she gets in and gets the senate she will change the supreme court for a generation. They believe that she will introduce single payer healthcare system, raise the minimum wage, invest heavily in education for the poor, enhance women's rights, empower immigrant communities and raise the taxes for the rich. They are st scared right now that she will be the opposite of ineffective.

So I'm interested to hear from the sage of East Anglia on why you feel qualified to pontificate so decisively on her ineffectiveness.

Oh, by the way. Jimmy Carter is not at all forgotten and is one of the most respected and admired people in the democratic party, a party that represents a majority of Americans.

I've looked at her manifesto, or whatever you call it over there. Taxpayer funding for every single issue group big enough to have a Facebook page. And that's about it.

Nice ad hominem attack by the way. Keep it up, always makes the attacker look really good (in his own eyes anyway). Maybe you'll turn this thread into a safe space for Hillary fans yet.

Just as I thought. Another clueless blowhard.

[AreOut]

Countdown said:

Brilliant logic. Almost Trump-esque... first make a statement which is completely false and then suggest actresses are de-facto wes....

rofl, fking for money is called prostitution whatever fancy name you invent for it

[Vaud]

I'd personally argue that Jimmy Carter was far more effective after his presidency than during, and possibly better regarded for that work?

[Talksteer]

davepoth said:

rovermorris999 said:

It seems Hillary isn't much liked even by those who intend to vote for her so how's this for a scenario.....

It's polling day and the opinion polls have Hillary with a commanding lead, it looks a done deal. Lots of those who were going to reluctantly vote for Hillary think 'she's won, I don't like her so I won't bother voting; it's safe, Trump won't get in'.
Trump voters on the other hand are much more fired up and committed plus there is a lot of 'shy' Trump support which does turn out.
Cue dropping jaws on the news programmes as the results come in, much like after the Brexit vote. Hello President Trump.

Could this happen?

Possibly. I have a feeling that they key in the "new politics" we now have is working out where the shy people are going to vote. It was messed up in the referendum because the pollsters assumed it would lie the same way as it did in the Scottish referendum - a fair assumption since the questions were similar.

However, I think it comes down to whichever side is less shouty on the internet. In the Scottish referendum the internet had it as leave by a landslide, and remain by a landslide in the EU referendum, both of which were wrong. Those campaigns effectively shut down debate online so if the media wanted to take a quick poll of the internet to work out who was ahead they'd end up showing those results every time.

I don't think we can conflate the "buzz" on the internet with polling and referendums with elections.

The shy Tory effect predates the internet is probably more of a feature of the left being more "revolutionary" and being based out of a union background. Ergo being a Tory could have very significant real work consequences. This is less of a factor today but the hate and passion is still there in the Labour party hence the shy effects remain.

The BBC did a very good program about the shy Tory a few years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047ws86/broadcast...

Referendum campaigns were essentially one off occasions so the polling data was very poor. The online buzz was a poor proxy for electoral success.

Generally the US election polling is accurate to around 2% for the main candidates hence why Clinton is currently rate at around an 85% chance of winning at this stage.