The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[yokel]

Okay whatever you say....

You are a fucking embarrassment.

[husaberg]

You are a fucking embarrassment.

So Yokel,When your daughter grows up, do you intend to sell her off as a mail order bride to some loser like yourself, You know that's clearly so dim witted and repugnant can't get a women without ordering and paying for one from a third world country?

[yokel]

When your daughter grows up do you intend to sell her off as a mail order bride to some loser like yourself, that's clearly so dim witted and repugnant can't get a women without ordering from a third world country?

Answer the Jewish question.

[husaberg]

Answer the Jewish question.

Sounds like more of your Hilter ravings again, what would be your final solution to selling off your daughter?
Would you sell her to Trump?

When your daughter grows up do you intend to sell her off as a mail order bride to some loser like yourself, that's clearly so dim witted and repugnant can't get a women without ordering from a third world country?

[WristTwister]

A bad choice getting a moderator who is a registered Republican or Democrat if they wanted to remove bias. Some Dem voters do register as Republicans as they can vote on the candidates - a bit cunning, but not common enough practice to expect the moderator to be doing the same thing.

It's interesting that Hillary Clinton is under-performing against him, considering how "polarising" Donald Trump is. There may be a lower voter turn out for this election because people don't want either of them.

Of course if anyone is interested in which-way the big money is voting, Google Hillary Clinton campaign finance and Donald Trump campaign finance.

[Virago]

There's little doubt that Clinton won the first debate, and most people seem to agree.

She was focused, and she was prepared. If the obsessive conspiracy theorists want to work themselves into a frenzy over that, let 'em. At times she seemed hesitant in her responses, particularly to Trump's constant interruptions, which gave the impression that departure from the script rattled her.

Trump on the other hand was never hesitant. In typical Trump style he talked fast and loose - you could see him almost trying to formulate policy and history as he was speaking. As a result he was unfocused and rambling, at times never even attempting to answer a straight question.

The next debate (if there is one) will be interesting. I suspect that rather than be policy focused, Trump will be going for the jugular.

[pritch]

A bad choice getting a moderator who is a registered Republican or Democrat if they wanted to remove bias. Some Dem voters do register as Republicans as they can vote on the candidates - a bit cunning, but not common enough practice to expect the moderator to be doing the same thing.

It's interesting that Hillary Clinton is under-performing against him, considering how "polarising" Donald Trump is. There may be a lower voter turn out for this election because people don't want either of them.

Of course if anyone is interested in which-way the big money is voting, Google Hillary Clinton campaign finance and Donald Trump campaign finance.

Nah, that's far too sensible for this thread. Although that bit about the big money is problematical, Hillary is bought and paid for.

Yokel might be moved to post another of his silly conspiracy nutters' video clips. Amazing how dimwitted the people who make these, and those who give them credence are. That last one contained a fantasy about Trump's allegedly sabotaged mic but brushed over three important words: "IN THE HALL". The clip mentioned them once and moved quickly on. For the millions watching on TV, including me, there was no problem, Trump portrayed himself as exactly the silly sniffling clueless twat that he is.

I don't know why Yokel keeps banging on about Clinton, 'cause nobody can stand her either.

Southpark summed it up years ago when they said the US elections ony ever give a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. Even Southpark never saw this one coming.

[Virago]

Interesting that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were not permitted to take part in the debate.

It appears the public mustn't be distracted from the two party circus.

Pretty normal for any political system that favours the big players. It used to be the same in New Zealand under the FPP system, only National and Labour were invited for debate. Smaller parties were on a hiding to nothing - even when parties like Social Credit started gaining an appreciable foothold, they still protested their exclusion from the public debates. In those days a vote for anything other than National or Labour was considered to be a wasted vote - and under FPP it invariably was.

[yokel]

There's little doubt that Clinton won the first debate, and most people seem to agree.

She was focused, and she was prepared. If the obsessive conspiracy theorists want to work themselves into a frenzy over that, let 'em. At times she seemed hesitant in her responses, particularly to Trump's constant interruptions, which gave the impression that departure from the script rattled her.

Trump on the other hand was never hesitant. In typical Trump style he talked fast and loose - you could see him almost trying to formulate policy and history as he was speaking. As a result he was unfocused and rambling, at times never even attempting to answer a straight question.

The next debate (if there is one) will be interesting. I suspect that rather than be policy focused, Trump will be going for the jugular.

No Trump won, only a silly TV watcher would say otherwise.

Trumps performance wasn't great but it was good enough.

[Virago]

No Trump won, only a silly TV watcher would say otherwise.

Trumps performance wasn't great but it was good enough.

Some of those "silly TV watchers" actually watched the live debate and formulated their own opinion, rather than searching Youtube for a predetermined opinion.

Still, if that's what you want...

[pritch]

Yokel might be moved to post another of his silly conspiracy nutters' video clips.

And there he is as predicted. Although the guy in one of the new ones is possibly sane, unlike the others.

It's reported that Trump's handlers wanted him to hammer Hillary about the Clinton Foundation at the next debate. The accusation (which may not be without basis) is that countries and individuals made a major donation to the Clinton Foundation and in return gained access to the upper levels of the US Administration, or otherwise received favourable treatment from the State Department when Hillary was Secretary of State.

It would have been a sound tactical ploy to go after her on that basis because she was apparently very vulnerable in that area. Until today.

Trump also has a charitable foundation although Trump himself has donated no money to his own foundation for a number of years. He has though donated money from the foundation, as if from himself, and has accepted the credit for doing so. The benefactors of this largesse then reciprocate by holding their next bunfight in a Trump hotel so he gains financially from donating other people's money.

There are strict controls on what such a foundation can be used for, none of the money may be used to benefit officers of the foundation. Yet Trump has reportedly used the money donated to his foundation by others to pay the legal costs arising from a lost court action. He has twice paid about US$10,000 for giant six foot high portraits of himself. That'd be OK if he had donated the portraits although who, apart from Yokel, would want one? One is hanging at his golf club though. He has apparently also used foundation money to buy sports memorabilia.

There is the suspicion that he has had companies that owed him money pay the Trump Foundation instead. The motive presumably to classify the money as a charitable donation and avoid tax.

Today the killer. This financial genius, this "winner", has never thought to register his foundation as a charity. The Trump Foundation has been operating illegally since day one. The Attorney General is investigating and his tax audit probably just got a whole lot more complicated. The Clintons must be thanking their lucky stars.

[husaberg]

Some of those "silly TV watchers" actually watched the live debate and formulated their own opinion, rather than searching Youtube for a predetermined opinion.
Still, if that's what you want...

And there he is as predicted. Although the guy in one of the new ones is possibly sane, unlike the others.

.

Yokels he posted.
Note the author

HA Goodman is also the author of Breaking the Devil's Heart and Logic of Demons, a widely acclaimed series of existential fantasy novels.

Rather apt really.

Looking at his Youtube channel makes it pretty clear he has no bias at all
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDB...yqt-FTNdkzFN-A

This one off his channel is rather funny

DONALD TRUMP CUBA AND FOUNDATION SCANDALS EXPLAINED: It’s About Hillary Clinton

[FatMax]

Some of those "silly TV watchers" actually watched the live debate and formulated their own opinion, rather than searching Youtube for a predetermined opinion.

Still, if that's what you want...

Quote of this thread and personification of this whole presidential debarcle, Excellent work

[YellowDog]

I've sort of changed my mind about our head of state. The next time we have a discussion about dropping the monarchy, the US model tells me we are much better off.

Just imagine having some low life gutter snipe, like WP, as our president

[pritch]

Can't claim this as my own but I like it.

"If Trump takes over the Whitehouse from Obama, does that mean orange is the new black?"