US Presidential election 2016

Just like the infinitely better qualified and experienced Al Gore did to some imbecile you mean?

and remember the depth of issue that analysts concluded swung that result

1: Gore was 'wooden'
2: They'd rather have a beer with Bush
 
Last edited:
This is hilarious. The United States is having a collective nervous breakdown

The following dialogue is between USAF 4-star General Michael Hayden and Bill Maher (it was missed by most of the media in the wake of the Christie endorsement)

H: "I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign."
M: "Like what?"
H (Quoting Trump): 'We're going to be water-boarding and a whole lot more, because they deserve it.'
M: 'What about killing the terrorists' families?'
H: 'Let me tell you...if he were to order that once in government, the American Armed Forces would refuse to act.'
M: 'Well, that's quite a statement sir...I thought the whole thing was you have to follow orders.'
H: 'You cannot - you are not committed, you are required not to follow an unlawful order, that would be in violation of all international laws of armed conflict.'

Trump actually said - "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
This is hilarious. The United States is having a collective nervous breakdown

The following dialogue is between USAF 4-star General Michael Hayden and Bill Maher (it was missed by most of the media in the wake of the Christie endorsement)

H: "I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign."
M: "Like what?"
H (Quoting Trump): 'We're going to be water-boarding and a whole lot more, because they deserve it.'
M: 'What about killing the terrorists' families?'
H: 'Let me tell you...if he were to order that once in government, the American Armed Forces would refuse to act.'
M: 'Well, that's quite a statement sir...I thought the whole thing was you have to follow orders.'
H: 'You cannot - you are not committed, you are required not to follow an unlawful order, that would be in violation of all international laws of armed conflict.'

Trump actually said - "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand why this is so significant. What Trump is saying is correct, if not politically.
 
Maruco said:
And you guys seriously think one of them will end up in office. Hillary will muller every one of them one on one. I repeat again evens is a steal.
Click to expand...

Firstly there is no evens and secondly this is the Hilary taking cash from Wall Street for speeches.
 
SlimChance said:
I'm not sure I understand why this is so significant. What Trump is saying is correct, if not politically.
Click to expand...

It's illegal under international law. You can't execute non combatants because they might have a family tie to a belligerent. The US does have a loophole I believe, as the CIA aren't bound by the Geneva conventions, which is why they ran the drone programme in the badlands of Waristan rather than the USAF. This is the nearest thing that the US has done to what Trump describes. The CIA also conduct American torture programmes

I'm not totally convinced mind you that its completely removed to what Rubio was saying about 4 year old Palestinian children being trained from an early age to become terrorists. Rubio stopped short of saying America should bomb them pre-emptively, but possibly left the door open for Israel to do so
 
Warbler said:
Just like the infinitely better qualified and experienced Al Gore did to some imbecile you mean?

and remember the depth of issue that analysts concluded swung that result

1: Gore was 'wooden'
2: They'd rather have a beer with Bush
Click to expand...

you simply can't hide your old 80s Stalinist xenophobic hatred of Americans can you. Coming from a country that has an extremist thicko as a party leader too

gore was rightly seen as uninspired muddled and a waffler. He also claimed to have invented the Internet.

Bush had experience . He ran the second biggest state ffs . A whole lot more than the current incumbent
 
Last edited:
:lol:

Surprised you dare show your face after how wrong your predictions have proven

"He's entertainment for now but basically a clown. He has lead but doesn't exactly have a large share of the vote. His vote is a reflection of current profile. That will change." :lol: (sure has, its gone up!)

"He's seen as a clown over there, the bookies have it about right rather than wilful assumptions of American haters" :lol: (pity you didn't factor in how much Americans must hate themselves)

"Frankly hes a sideshow and will remain so" :lol: (priceless, how is the sidehsow coming on? care to update us? has it stopped being funny yet?)

You did of course pop in shortly after Iowa to try and tell us how correct you were

"I'm sure plenty were hoping desperately that Trump would win to demonstrate their prejudice about how stupid Americans are"

you were of course advised to wait for a week and see how New Hampshire went. What was the result there? Come to think of it, did you notcie what happened in South Carolina and Nevada too?

Are you predicting a Rubio revival for Tuesday, the latest Reuters poll has Trump on a new national of 44% and Rubio 5pts behind Cruz on 15%. It strikes me that the best chance the GOP have of stopping Trump is if you predict his victory
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
......and secondly this is the Hilary taking cash from Wall Street for speeches.
Click to expand...

This would not be seen as a drawback in the US electorate's eyes. It is simply a manifestation of what America is all about - supply-and-demand dictating price.
 
clivex said:
Bush had experience . He ran the second biggest state ffs . A whole lot more than the current incumbent
Click to expand...

Somewhat off-topic, but given the horror-stories you were putting about prior to Obama becoming Prez, can I ask you one simple question:

Who, in your opinion, has proven to be the better President - Obama or GWB?
 
I think it might worth looking at the most recent data for Hillary Clinton too

Now in the first case, I'm not going to over do approval ratings mid campaign, its a metric that is notoriously volatile and dangerous to put that much stock in, but she went negative in about June last year and has remained so ever since, most recently she's about minus 10. Admittedly that's not in Trump territory, he's normally in the low 20's, but its not like she's a great 'knock out' candidate in this area herself

She still wins the hypothetical head to heads against him, but that gap has been narrowing. She used to command a 10pt lead in the summer of 2015, it's now down to about 3pts

Now these are national polls, and the head to head is another notoriously fickle one, I wouldn't put too much stock in them but so far as I can see Florida is absolutely key to her. If she can't carry Florida she's got a real problem, and probably loses on most likely outcome (she can still lose FL but needs to hold PA). If she holds the sunshine state though, she'll win. That's how close its becoming

Florids isn't a bad demographic for her, but Obama took it largely against expectation and he's more popular than her
 
Warbler said:
:lol:

Surprised you dare show your face after how wrong your predictions have proven

"He's entertainment for now but basically a clown. He has lead but doesn't exactly have a large share of the vote. His vote is a reflection of current profile. That will change." :lol: (sure has, its gone up!)

"He's seen as a clown over there, the bookies have it about right rather than wilful assumptions of American haters" :lol: (pity you didn't factor in how much Americans must hate themselves)

"Frankly hes a sideshow and will remain so" :lol: (priceless, how is the sidehsow coming on? care to update us? has it stopped being funny yet?)

You did of course pop in shortly after Iowa to try and tell us how correct you were

"I'm sure plenty were hoping desperately that Trump would win to demonstrate their prejudice about how stupid Americans are"

you were of course advised to wait for a week and see how New Hampshire went. What was the result there? Come to think of it, did you notcie what happened in South Carolina and Nevada too?

Are you predicting a Rubio revival for Tuesday, the latest Reuters poll has Trump on a new national of 44% and Rubio 5pts behind Cruz on 15%. It strikes me that the best chance the GOP have of stopping Trump is if you predict his victory
Click to expand...


Sorry. What has this got to do witn gore?
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Somewhat off-topic, but given the horror-stories you were putting about prior to Obama becoming Prez, can I ask you one simple question:

Who, in your opinion, has proven to be the better President - Obama or GWB?
Click to expand...

what horror stories. Another wnkr misquoting

i didn't rate him for president and think he has been competent but a bit lacklustre. Neither were outstanding presidents but stupid point because both had to deal with entirely different circumstances. It's like trying to compare Churchill and Macmillan say Obama clealy has made less mistakes but has had less crisises to deal with.

i think it was right to question obamas lack of experience. Problem ????
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
:lol:

Surprised you dare show your face after how wrong your predictions have proven

"He's entertainment for now but basically a clown. He has lead but doesn't exactly have a large share of the vote. His vote is a reflection of current profile. That will change." :lol: (sure has, its gone up!)

"He's seen as a clown over there, the bookies have it about right rather than wilful assumptions of American haters" :lol: (pity you didn't factor in how much Americans must hate themselves)

"Frankly hes a sideshow and will remain so" :lol: (priceless, how is the sidehsow coming on? care to update us? has it stopped being funny yet?)

You did of course pop in shortly after Iowa to try and tell us how correct you were

"I'm sure plenty were hoping desperately that Trump would win to demonstrate their prejudice about how stupid Americans are"

you were of course advised to wait for a week and see how New Hampshire went. What was the result there? Come to think of it, did you notcie what happened in South Carolina and Nevada too?

Are you predicting a Rubio revival for Tuesday, the latest Reuters poll has Trump on a new national of 44% and Rubio 5pts behind Cruz on 15%. It strikes me that the best chance the GOP have of stopping Trump is if you predict his victory
Click to expand...

Hang on. Who the fck do you think you are? So I didn't think trump would win? So what?

you really think that there is some compelling reason to post to this thread with your dreary self regarding masterbatory endless posts? Some might have the time and inclination for them but frankly to my mind they suck all the energy out of every thread

Rule of life is that windbags have little grasp or judgment but by their very nature try to convince others that they do

I also have very little Interest in the early primaries.
 
As an aside isn't it just a bit weird to drag up five year old posts? Not much going on in your life grass? Lonely?

If you really have to, try getting them right. I was strongly for clinton rather than obama
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Rule of life is that windbags have little grasp or judgment
Click to expand...

and so speaketh the oracle :lol:

Remind us again how accurate you're esteemed and superior judgement has been please? There's wriggle room in a lot of positions. It's rare that anyone gets things completely spot on. Most fair minded people accept that, but you aren't even remotely close. What makes you think you possess any judgement given your appalling track record?

In fact you're MO is very similar to Trumps the way you start a conversation with an insult or denunciation in order to try and establish some self-regarding sense of superiority. He did it the other day at the debate when he was asked a question by a radio show host, and began by mentioning how poor his ratings were. You will quite often start a post with "complete crap" or "biggest load of rubbish I've ever read". The problem though is that once you strip the abuse away and examine your track record, or "grasp or judgement" if you prefer, you come crashing down. Like you have with your assessment of Trump the candidate, and as Grassy not unreasonably points out, like you did with Bush and Obama
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
As an aside isn't it just a bit weird to drag up five year old posts? Not much going on in your life grass? Lonely?

If you really have to, try getting them right. I was strongly for clinton rather than obama
Click to expand...


Who is dragging-up five year old posts?

It's an honest question. You were absolutely against Obama on the basis that he had no experience other than Chicago. I'm merely asking whether you have revised your opinion, based on the last seven years of his Presidency. In other words, has his lack of administrative experience in the high-offices of Government prior to his election, been the handicap you suggested it was or not? Call it an exercise in establishing whether or not you're capable of revising an opinion based on evidence, or do you remain obstinate in the face of that evidence.

To an extent, you have provided your answer with the 'competent' statement, so no need to reply further, unless you wish to expand.

And stop laddering your tights, you complete Mildred.
 
Last edited:
No need to expand. it was a fair judgement call beforehand and thats that

Your reply was pointless
 
Your original post did refer to my posts from five years ago. Well done for remembering, because I barely do. But you should get out more or take up a hobby or something

Will add just one thing....

surely it's difficult to judge a presidency until a good few years after the event. I know we are going down the route of that that stupid Mao saying about the French Revolution but there's a lot in his legacy to either unravel or succeed
 
Here's another tool you might like to try and play with for modelling the general election outcome. Nate Silver you'll probably recall was the guru who got all of the swing states right in 2012. The BBC brought him over to the UK about 12 months ago, where he failed. His reputation in the US however remains in tact, albeit its increasingly damaged on this cycle due to his constant under estimating of Trump. So far as I can see this is down to two factors

1: His models are quantitatively cold and struggle to capture things like emotion. They assume rationality (which they have to) but something else that is much harder to capture is seemingly going on this cycle

2: The 'poll plus' model in particular has correlated endorsements as being historically the best predictor, and he over relies on this as a result. Trump has destroyed it basically. The problem I suspect is that a lot of endorsements occur when a result is becoming apparent and the endorsee wants to end up on the winning side. It might be questionable therefore as to whether they form opinion, or reflect it

Anyway, back to the tool

The historic (reset button) is the 2012 election. What you then need to do is slide the five factors according to how you think turnout and vote share will alter. As you do states change colour

I'm not totally convinced by it, but then to build an accessible model with complexity would almost be impossible. The three observations I'd make are;

1: The swings are uniform across the US, one suspects that in certain states it will be more aggressive than others, particularly in the rust belt, Florida, and hispanic states of NM, CO & NV
2: In a race that likely features a sexist male against America's first female candidate, it seems odd that gender isn't factored and assumed to be uniform across the socio/ economic strata
3: The lumping of Hispanic and Latino voters into one homogenous group could be errorneous. The Mexican voters of NV, NM and CO will trend democrat and behave differently to the Cuban voters of FL who trend republican. As someone pointed out to me yesterday, the Floridan Cubans are the most disproportionately influential group in the whole of the US. It's possibly this which is making me think Hillary has to put Julian Castro on the ticket after all

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
 
On the subject of the inherent stupidity of Americans (and thus their ability to vote in someone like Trump), I was watching an old film (40's) the other day, where a map of the world was depicted in the background. I was able to determine that it was an American map in two ways - 1) It had the American continents in the centre and 2) It had a large section devoted to informing any viewers that it was "The World". Presumably there was sufficient doubt in the manufacturers minds as to the ability of their audience to determine what was being shown without the instructive label.

And they voted in Reagan.
 
Back
Top