US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4026

Clinton leads Trump by 11 points in White House race: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 11 points in the U.S. presidential race, showing little change after she became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee this week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The online poll, conducted from Monday to Friday, shows 46 percent of likely voters support Clinton while 34.8 percent back Trump. Another 19.2 percent support neither candidate. Their parties hold conventions in July ahead of a Nov. 8 election.

Clinton's lead was nearly the same a week ago, before she had amassed enough convention delegates to win the nomination and before Trump drew criticism from leaders of both parties for questioning the impartiality of a Mexican-American judge.

[...]

On June 11 2016 05:28 Toadesstern wrote:

www.reuters.com

so no change there yet. Would have expected the lead to grow a bit tbh but that might still come a bit later

On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote:
Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?

On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote:
Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?

The Department of Transportation has authorized six U.S. airlines to schedule round-trip flights from the U.S to Cuba — starting as early as this fall.

The flights are possible thanks to an agreement between the U.S. and Cuba, announced in December, which allows up to 110 daily flights from U.S. cities to Cuban cities. The return of scheduled flights between the countries is a step in the ongoing thawing of relations; for decades, only charter flights were allowed to travel between the two nations.

The approved passenger flights announced Friday do not include any flights to Havana. Instead, they are flights to nine other cities, with up to 10 flights per city per day.

Some airlines will be authorized to fly to Havana "sometime this summer," the DOT says, with up to 20 flights per day permitted.

"Last year, President Obama announced that it was time to 'begin a new journey' with the Cuban people," U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. "Today, we are delivering on his promise by re-launching scheduled air service to Cuba after more than half a century."

The availability of scheduled flights does not meant that tourist travel to Cuba is permitted, the DOT notes. Travelers must still prove their travel falls within an approved category, like journalistic activities, religious work, humanitarian projects or education.

American, Frontier, JetBlue, Silver Airways, Southwest, and Sun Country were each approved for flights by DOT. (Eastern Airlines, which currently offers only charter flights, was not approved.)

Flights will depart from Miami, Chicago, Ft. Lauderdale, Philadelphia, and Minneapolis. The destinations in Cuba are Camagüey, Cayo Coco, Cayo Largo del Sur, Cienfuegos, Holguin, Manzanillo, Santa Clara, Santiago de Cuba and Matanzas.

The DOT has published a full rundown of which routes have been approved.

On June 11 2016 03:52 NukeD wrote:

This whole thing boils down to whether you are satisfied with current state of countries, globalism, capitalism, mega corporations and where all that heads to, or you want change. I think we live in an era where capitalism is under a big microscope of the general population, where people feel it has reached an end of the spectrum where it serves capital and not the people, and a lot of people want it toned down.

Hillary represents "the establishment" and a continuation of these policies, where Trump on the other hand represents an outsider and a change in peoples eyes, for better or for worse.

On June 11 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:


It's actually not a conspiracy driven view. If you watch the Young Turks for more than two minutes (and no matter what you think of them, I'm sure we'll agree they're an important vector of this world view), they will insist on a regular and consistent basis that it's not a conspiracy, that there is no smoke-filled room where evil rich people decide the destiny of the rest of us. The perception that you disagree with is that the general system of money in politics, as you have it, makes it so that what very rich people think is much more important than what random people think, and that this was done by design. Not because rich people are evil and want you ill, but because they have they have their own best interest at heart, obviously, and the system has been modified (or perverted) in a way that gives them the ability to use their wealth to their advantage much more than they should be able to in a democracy.

Where the "conspiracy" is, I suppose, is in the idea that it's not standard for a politician that is very successful in that system, got a lot of power and money thanks to that system, to also want to change it.

On June 11 2016 01:58 pmh wrote:

They don't want to hear this so don't expect a response.
American debating is hilarious. If you have a bad point they make a lengthy and nicely written post with rebutals and such. Pretending to be all about the debate.
And when you have a good point where they don't have a good response at hand they will simply ignore you.
Its so childish but that's how it works on this forum lol.

On June 11 2016 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Also she's a liar (so is Trump). Again not related to some conspiracy that Hillary supporters like to blame, but because she lies. Bosnia for example, people can dismiss it as not a big deal if they want, but it shows she's a liar and willing to completely fabricate a story to make herself appear better than she is. On top of that, she never owns it when she gets caught. She's always "misspeaking", no one who had any clue would of "misspoke" like she did about Nancy Reagan either, that people buy that excuse to me is no better than people who buy Trump's snake oil.

Iranian leaders have reacted with fury to reports that newly declassified US diplomatic cables revealed extensive contacts between Ayatollah Khomeini and the Carter administration just weeks ahead of Iran’s Islamic revolution.

It was previously known that Ruhollah Khomeini, the charismatic leader of the Iranian revolution, had exchanged some messages with the US through an intermediary while living in exile in Paris. But new documents seen by the BBC’s Persian service show he went to a great lengths to ensure the Americans would not jeopardise his plans to return to Iran – and even personally wrote to US officials.

The BBC’s reporting suggests that the Carter administration took heed of Khomeini’s pledges, and in effect paved the way for his return by holding the Iranian army back from launching a military coup.

The BBC Persian service obtained a draft message Washington had prepared as a response to Khomeini, which welcomed the ayatollah’s direct communications, but was never sent.

The corporation also published a previously released but unnoticed declassified 1980 CIA analysis titled Islam in Iran, which shows Khomeini’s initial attempts to reach out to the US dated back to 1963, 16 years before the revolution.

The BBC’s reports have created a huge row in Iran: if true they would undermine the myth that Khomenei staunchly resisted any direct links with the US, which remained taboo for three decades until the recent nuclear negotiations.

Earlier this month, Khomeini’s successor, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, denied the report, saying it was based on “fabricated” documents.

Other Iranian politicians have also questioned the BBC’s revelations, including Ebrahim Yazdi, Khomeini’s spokesman and adviser at the time of the revolution, and Saeed Hajjarian, a reformist figure.

On June 11 2016 06:13 kwizach wrote:

Beyond their comments on corruption at the structural level, TYT have repeatedly singled out Clinton as an example of a particularly corrupt politician, going as far as mentioning individual positions of hers that they criticized as the result of the influence of money on her. Of course, they never had any shred of evidence to back up their accusations.


Spare us your holier-than-thou comments on how this forum "works", especially considering each time I replied to your comments arguing that Clinton should pick Sanders as VP you ignored my responses and stopped posting.


Another false equivocation, just as dishonest as ever. Trump is a pathological liar, while Clinton is as honest as the norm on the Democratic side, Sanders included. And it's funny that you'd accuse her of never owning up to anything, since it's precisely Clinton who has apologized for her mistakes, while I have yet to see Sanders own up to anything, with the exception of the data breach his campaign engaged in, an episode about which his campaign still partially lied about and which they sought to use for fundraising by playing the victim card and suing the DNC.

On June 11 2016 05:34 Gorsameth wrote:

So Trump, who is being shown to lie constantly is trustworthy to you?

Also you believe the correct way to fight terrorists is to murder their families?

On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote:
Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?

On June 11 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote:
Well I'm not just voting for trump because of his personality or character lol, I agree with his positions on immigration, trade and terrorism. My point is I would outright reject a candidate who I feel is not trust worthy, doesn't matter what they say why should I believe them?

On June 11 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:


It's actually not a conspiracy driven view. If you watch the Young Turks for more than two minutes (and no matter what you think of them, I'm sure we'll agree they're an important vector of this world view), they will insist on a regular and consistent basis that it's not a conspiracy, that there is no smoke-filled room where evil rich people decide the destiny of the rest of us. The perception that you disagree with is that the general system of money in politics, as you have it, makes it so that what very rich people think is much more important than what random people think, and that this was done by design. Not because rich people are evil and want you ill, but because they have they have their own best interest at heart, obviously, and the system has been modified (or perverted) in a way that gives them the ability to use their wealth to their advantage much more than they should be able to in a democracy.

Where the "conspiracy" is, I suppose, is in the idea that it's not standard for a politician that is very successful in that system, got a lot of power and money thanks to that system, to also want to change it.

On June 11 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:

Don't you just love the contortions that Hillary supporters have to go through to whitewash her past and explain away her duplicitous nature?

Also, don't underestimate the significance of the bolded part above. Those are the key Trump issues. He has scored a ton of points with them throughout his campaign, and he's going to continue to score points with them against Hillary.

On June 11 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:

Don't you just love the contortions that Hillary supporters have to go through to whitewash her past and explain away her duplicitous nature?

Also, don't underestimate the significance of the bolded part above. Those are the key Trump issues. He has scored a ton of points with them throughout his campaign, and he's going to continue to score points with them against Hillary.