|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Norway28707 Posts
seems likely that you might know trump voters they just aren't very vocal about it. 
|
On October 03 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2016 02:34 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2016 02:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 03 2016 01:31 oBlade wrote:On October 02 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:From firsthand accounts of Trump's models and financial and immigration records... Trump may very well be a human trafficker: BREAKING: U.S. Senate Moves To Investigate Donald Trump For Human Trafficking (DETAILS)
A United States senator just sent the Department of Homeland Security a letter asking for the immediate investigation of Donald Trump’s modeling agency after an August 30th publication by media outlet, Mother Jones, in which Trump’s company was accused of trafficking illegal immigrants willing to work as models. The investigation by Mother Jones uncovered countless cases of Trump ignoring immigration laws by employing illegal immigrants to work for Donald Trump’s Model Management. Mother Jones reported that: “Trump Model Management, has profited from using foreign models who came to the United States on tourist visas that did not permit them to work here, according to three former Trump models, all noncitizens, who shared their stories with Mother Jones. Financialand immigration records included in a recent lawsuit filed by a fourth former Trump model show that she, too, worked for Trump’s agency in the United States without a proper visa.” By law, people visiting the United States from a foreign land are not allowed to attain employment via an American company. Trump, however, is known for not only hiring illegals, but hiring them for the specific reason of not having to follow US labor laws. Models hired by Donald Trump’s Model Management have come out against the mogul, saying they were barely able to making ends meet after paying the high cost of rent and fees bestowed on them by the company. Trump profited $2 million dollars in the 17 years the company has been in existence. In response to the investigation, senator Barbara Boxer sent the following letter to US Citizenship and Immigration’s Leon Rodriguez: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NN3ARcc.jpg) The openly anti-immigrant candidate is being accused of “illegally importing” women to work as models in his agency, and while this makes him look like a giant fool, it could also hold legal ramifications that would leave Trump paying a hefty fine, and possibly even serving jail time for human trafficking. Along with her letter, Boxer also tweeted out: Trump: tough on illegal immigration unless he’s importing foreign models to exploit. https://t.co/eahs6srlDE— Barbara Boxer (@BarbaraBoxer) August 31, 2016 This isn’t the first time that Trump has been accused of shipping immigrants in with the sole intention of exploiting them for near slave wages. One woman, in particular, was set to be on Trump’s cancelled MTV show “Girls of Hedsor Hall.” Earlier this summer, she spoke out against Trump, saying that he brought her here for no reason other than to be able to pay her less than minimum wage. Unfortunately for Republicans, they didn’t know the anti-immigrant Republican they nominated to lead their party was nothing more than a phony, showboating, trafficker of women. Despite the illusions Trump has cast out about his strict immigration policies, his past has proven to be far more telling than his mouth. http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/09/07/breaking-u-s-senate-moves-to-investigate-donald-trump-for-human-trafficking-details/ When all else fails, the guy you don't like is a human trafficking child rapist. "When all else fails" is a phrase used only for when other things are failing. Trump is already incredibly guilty in plenty of other scandals. I would recommend replacing "When all else fails-" with "And on top of all the other immoral and illegal bullshit that Trump has done, it might be the case that-". I mean exactly what I said, we've been spammed with the fact that he's a broke, sexist, racist bully for a year but he still manages to be a viable candidate who keeps the polls tight. The reaction is always to just keep heaping more outlandish stuff. I'm told he's only a viable candidate because the voting population is too dumb to evaluate Trump's scandals as worse than Clinton's, and too misanthropic to care about his hate. It's a very tight philosophy: It shouldn't be so close because he's so evil, but it is so close because his voters are so despicable. This is actually the case. Trump's shittiness as a candidate only works because of the shittiness of the voter base he's appealing to.
These people are shitty. Got it 
|
On October 03 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 02:34 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2016 02:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 03 2016 01:31 oBlade wrote:On October 02 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:From firsthand accounts of Trump's models and financial and immigration records... Trump may very well be a human trafficker: BREAKING: U.S. Senate Moves To Investigate Donald Trump For Human Trafficking (DETAILS)
A United States senator just sent the Department of Homeland Security a letter asking for the immediate investigation of Donald Trump’s modeling agency after an August 30th publication by media outlet, Mother Jones, in which Trump’s company was accused of trafficking illegal immigrants willing to work as models. The investigation by Mother Jones uncovered countless cases of Trump ignoring immigration laws by employing illegal immigrants to work for Donald Trump’s Model Management. Mother Jones reported that: “Trump Model Management, has profited from using foreign models who came to the United States on tourist visas that did not permit them to work here, according to three former Trump models, all noncitizens, who shared their stories with Mother Jones. Financialand immigration records included in a recent lawsuit filed by a fourth former Trump model show that she, too, worked for Trump’s agency in the United States without a proper visa.” By law, people visiting the United States from a foreign land are not allowed to attain employment via an American company. Trump, however, is known for not only hiring illegals, but hiring them for the specific reason of not having to follow US labor laws. Models hired by Donald Trump’s Model Management have come out against the mogul, saying they were barely able to making ends meet after paying the high cost of rent and fees bestowed on them by the company. Trump profited $2 million dollars in the 17 years the company has been in existence. In response to the investigation, senator Barbara Boxer sent the following letter to US Citizenship and Immigration’s Leon Rodriguez: The openly anti-immigrant candidate is being accused of “illegally importing” women to work as models in his agency, and while this makes him look like a giant fool, it could also hold legal ramifications that would leave Trump paying a hefty fine, and possibly even serving jail time for human trafficking. Along with her letter, Boxer also tweeted out: Trump: tough on illegal immigration unless he’s importing foreign models to exploit. https://t.co/eahs6srlDE— Barbara Boxer (@BarbaraBoxer) August 31, 2016 This isn’t the first time that Trump has been accused of shipping immigrants in with the sole intention of exploiting them for near slave wages. One woman, in particular, was set to be on Trump’s cancelled MTV show “Girls of Hedsor Hall.” Earlier this summer, she spoke out against Trump, saying that he brought her here for no reason other than to be able to pay her less than minimum wage. Unfortunately for Republicans, they didn’t know the anti-immigrant Republican they nominated to lead their party was nothing more than a phony, showboating, trafficker of women. Despite the illusions Trump has cast out about his strict immigration policies, his past has proven to be far more telling than his mouth. http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/09/07/breaking-u-s-senate-moves-to-investigate-donald-trump-for-human-trafficking-details/ When all else fails, the guy you don't like is a human trafficking child rapist. "When all else fails" is a phrase used only for when other things are failing. Trump is already incredibly guilty in plenty of other scandals. I would recommend replacing "When all else fails-" with "And on top of all the other immoral and illegal bullshit that Trump has done, it might be the case that-". I mean exactly what I said, we've been spammed with the fact that he's a broke, sexist, racist bully for a year but he still manages to be a viable candidate who keeps the polls tight. The reaction is always to just keep heaping more outlandish stuff. I'm told he's only a viable candidate because the voting population is too dumb to evaluate Trump's scandals as worse than Clinton's, and too misanthropic to care about his hate. It's a very tight philosophy: It shouldn't be so close because he's so evil, but it is so close because his voters are so despicable.
Honest question here...
If the candidates right here and now were George Washington vs a literal rock, what would the voting percentages look like?
From what I can tell with the entrenched party lines in the US, the only thing needed to have a close election is for the Democrat and Republican labels to be attached to two individuals.
|
Obama vs Trump, for example, would be a landslide. The issue here is that Hillary is terrible too and it shows in the polls.
|
On October 03 2016 05:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2016 02:34 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2016 02:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 03 2016 01:31 oBlade wrote:On October 02 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:From firsthand accounts of Trump's models and financial and immigration records... Trump may very well be a human trafficker: BREAKING: U.S. Senate Moves To Investigate Donald Trump For Human Trafficking (DETAILS)
A United States senator just sent the Department of Homeland Security a letter asking for the immediate investigation of Donald Trump’s modeling agency after an August 30th publication by media outlet, Mother Jones, in which Trump’s company was accused of trafficking illegal immigrants willing to work as models. The investigation by Mother Jones uncovered countless cases of Trump ignoring immigration laws by employing illegal immigrants to work for Donald Trump’s Model Management. Mother Jones reported that: “Trump Model Management, has profited from using foreign models who came to the United States on tourist visas that did not permit them to work here, according to three former Trump models, all noncitizens, who shared their stories with Mother Jones. Financialand immigration records included in a recent lawsuit filed by a fourth former Trump model show that she, too, worked for Trump’s agency in the United States without a proper visa.” By law, people visiting the United States from a foreign land are not allowed to attain employment via an American company. Trump, however, is known for not only hiring illegals, but hiring them for the specific reason of not having to follow US labor laws. Models hired by Donald Trump’s Model Management have come out against the mogul, saying they were barely able to making ends meet after paying the high cost of rent and fees bestowed on them by the company. Trump profited $2 million dollars in the 17 years the company has been in existence. In response to the investigation, senator Barbara Boxer sent the following letter to US Citizenship and Immigration’s Leon Rodriguez: The openly anti-immigrant candidate is being accused of “illegally importing” women to work as models in his agency, and while this makes him look like a giant fool, it could also hold legal ramifications that would leave Trump paying a hefty fine, and possibly even serving jail time for human trafficking. Along with her letter, Boxer also tweeted out: Trump: tough on illegal immigration unless he’s importing foreign models to exploit. https://t.co/eahs6srlDE— Barbara Boxer (@BarbaraBoxer) August 31, 2016 This isn’t the first time that Trump has been accused of shipping immigrants in with the sole intention of exploiting them for near slave wages. One woman, in particular, was set to be on Trump’s cancelled MTV show “Girls of Hedsor Hall.” Earlier this summer, she spoke out against Trump, saying that he brought her here for no reason other than to be able to pay her less than minimum wage. Unfortunately for Republicans, they didn’t know the anti-immigrant Republican they nominated to lead their party was nothing more than a phony, showboating, trafficker of women. Despite the illusions Trump has cast out about his strict immigration policies, his past has proven to be far more telling than his mouth. http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/09/07/breaking-u-s-senate-moves-to-investigate-donald-trump-for-human-trafficking-details/ When all else fails, the guy you don't like is a human trafficking child rapist. "When all else fails" is a phrase used only for when other things are failing. Trump is already incredibly guilty in plenty of other scandals. I would recommend replacing "When all else fails-" with "And on top of all the other immoral and illegal bullshit that Trump has done, it might be the case that-". I mean exactly what I said, we've been spammed with the fact that he's a broke, sexist, racist bully for a year but he still manages to be a viable candidate who keeps the polls tight. The reaction is always to just keep heaping more outlandish stuff. I'm told he's only a viable candidate because the voting population is too dumb to evaluate Trump's scandals as worse than Clinton's, and too misanthropic to care about his hate. It's a very tight philosophy: It shouldn't be so close because he's so evil, but it is so close because his voters are so despicable. Honest question here... If the candidates right here and now were George Washington vs a literal rock, what would the voting percentages look like? From what I can tell with the entrenched party lines in the US, the only thing needed to have a close election is for the Democrat and Republican labels to be attached to two individuals.
The rock might win, there would be plenty of dirt to dig up on Georgie, meanwhile the rock is beyond reproach and gets all of the coveted ironic vote.
|
Norway28707 Posts
On October 03 2016 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
Obama vs Trump, for example, would be a landslide. The issue here is that Hillary is terrible too and it shows in the polls.
What is a landslide though? Would Trump get less than 35% vs Obama?
Like, I do wonder what the vote would look like if it was Trump vs 'BEST DEMOCRAT' (I dunno who this would be) or hillary vs 'BEST REPUBLICAN' (in the same way, no idea who). I'd assume both running candidates would lose, but would either vote be changed more than 5%?
|
If trump is a child rapist human trafficking failure of a business man who has temperament issues, ask yourself why the polls are so close. The answer has something to do with the opposing party and their candidate, yeah she is a lot worse than this thread would have you believe.
|
On October 03 2016 05:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
Obama vs Trump, for example, would be a landslide. The issue here is that Hillary is terrible too and it shows in the polls. What is a landslide though? Would Trump get less than 35% vs Obama? Like, I do wonder what the vote would look like if it was Trump vs 'BEST DEMOCRAT' (I dunno who this would be) or hillary vs 'BEST REPUBLICAN' (in the same way, no idea who). I'd assume both running candidates would lose, but would either vote be changed more than 5%?
60-35 would be feasible, though 55-40 would be a more likely final tally. There is definitely a partisan lower bound for political support but there's more going on here.
|
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- In a humble church with a familiar name, Little Rock A.M.E. Zion, Hillary Clinton on Sunday made a passionate case for police reform and a direct appeal to the city's black voters, whose support she needs to win this swing state.
Less than two weeks after the death of Keith Lamont Scott, a black man killed by police, Clinton arrived here Sunday morning with a message of sympathy for a grieving community and political promises, including “end to end reform in our criminal justice system — not half measures, but full measures.”
She acknowledged that when it comes to understanding the plight of black families in America, she will never be able to replicate the symbolic empathy of Barack Obama. “I’m a grandmother, but my worries are not the same as black grandmothers who have different and deeper fears about the world that their grandchildren face,” Clinton said. “I wouldn’t be able to stand it if my grandchildren had to be scared and worried, the way too many children across our country feel right now."
Clinton’s visit to Charlotte was critical — she was so eager to visit that the campaign announced a trip last Sunday, when the city was still grappling with violent protests and looting. The trip was ultimately delayed by a week at the request of local lawmakers.
On Sunday, she was accompanied by her senior policy adviser Maya Harris, longtime aide Capricia Marshall and senior staffer Marlon Marshall, who is overseeing the campaign’s African-American outreach.
Clinton’s challenge in North Carolina, where current polls put her trailing Donald Trump by about three points, is boosting the African-American vote that landed Obama a victory in 2008, when he won a state that had gone to the Republican nominee in the previous seven presidential elections cycles. The key was Mecklenburg County, which includes the city of Charlotte, where Obama beat John McCain by more than 100,000 votes.
That massive showing help boost him to a slim margin of victory statewide. Four years later, however, Mitt Romney won North Carolina by two points.
Source
|
On October 03 2016 05:29 biology]major wrote:
If trump is a child rapist human trafficking failure of a business man who has temperament issues, ask yourself why the polls are so close. The answer has something to do with the opposing party and their candidate, yeah she is a lot worse than this thread would have you believe.
It says just as much about the American population and how badly we all underestimated its ignorance and how racist and anti fact\science it is.
|
United States43219 Posts
On October 03 2016 05:29 biology]major wrote:
If trump is a child rapist human trafficking failure of a business man who has temperament issues, ask yourself why the polls are so close. The answer has something to do with the opposing party and their candidate, yeah she is a lot worse than this thread would have you believe.
Two things.
Firstly, if?
Secondly, Trump supporters live in their own reality in which Hillary literally killed Ben Ghazi and would do the same to you in a heartbeat. It comes down to what Newt explained at the RNC. The facts don't matter to the Trump supporters, it's all about how they feel and they feel that Hillary is a lot worse. As baffling as the idea may be the RNC has taken a stance against reality and doubled down on voter perception. That does not mean that the perception is the new reality, even if Trump insists that that is how it works.
|
On October 03 2016 04:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:These people are shitty. Got it
To be fair, I wouldn't classify anyone who's in the camp of "both choices are shitty but I'm begrudgingly picking Trump because I think he's less shitty than Clinton" as part of the voter base Trump is appealing to. If he was actively appealing to them, said people wouldn't be so begrudging about their choice.
Given the general shittiness of all candidates involved this year, I expect "voters that Trump appeals to" is a rather small subset of "voters who will vote for Trump". And, well, that small subset probably does contain quite a few genuinely shitty people.
|
On October 03 2016 05:29 biology]major wrote:
If trump is a child rapist human trafficking failure of a business man who has temperament issues, ask yourself why the polls are so close. The answer has something to do with the opposing party and their candidate, yeah she is a lot worse than this thread would have you believe.
Because most of the country always votes along party lines regardless of the candidates?
Aside from a few outliers most elections only have between 3-10 point difference.
|
Prediction: Juanita Broaddrick and Wikileaks are gonna make this a bad week for Hillary.
|
On October 03 2016 05:29 biology]major wrote:
If trump is a child rapist human trafficking failure of a business man who has temperament issues, ask yourself why the polls are so close. The answer has something to do with the opposing party and their candidate, yeah she is a lot worse than this thread would have you believe.
Lot of appeal to the masses in this thread. Which is weird, because if you accept the logic of "more people think it --> it must be true" then by current polling Hillary is the better candidate.
|
On October 03 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 05:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 03 2016 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
Obama vs Trump, for example, would be a landslide. The issue here is that Hillary is terrible too and it shows in the polls. What is a landslide though? Would Trump get less than 35% vs Obama? Like, I do wonder what the vote would look like if it was Trump vs 'BEST DEMOCRAT' (I dunno who this would be) or hillary vs 'BEST REPUBLICAN' (in the same way, no idea who). I'd assume both running candidates would lose, but would either vote be changed more than 5%? 60-35 would be feasible, though 55-40 would be a more likely final tally. There is definitely a partisan lower bound for political support but there's more going on here.
He has 81% of Republicans in the latest HRC+5 FOX Poll. Issues voters keep all national candidates at a 40% floor.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/fox-25819
|
On October 03 2016 05:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
Obama vs Trump, for example, would be a landslide. The issue here is that Hillary is terrible too and it shows in the polls. What is a landslide though? Would Trump get less than 35% vs Obama? Like, I do wonder what the vote would look like if it was Trump vs 'BEST DEMOCRAT' (I dunno who this would be) or hillary vs 'BEST REPUBLICAN' (in the same way, no idea who). I'd assume both running candidates would lose, but would either vote be changed more than 5%?
It's worth noting that neither candidate has seen 50%+ support for quite a while now (according to RCP avg.)
|
On October 03 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 05:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 03 2016 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
Obama vs Trump, for example, would be a landslide. The issue here is that Hillary is terrible too and it shows in the polls. What is a landslide though? Would Trump get less than 35% vs Obama? Like, I do wonder what the vote would look like if it was Trump vs 'BEST DEMOCRAT' (I dunno who this would be) or hillary vs 'BEST REPUBLICAN' (in the same way, no idea who). I'd assume both running candidates would lose, but would either vote be changed more than 5%? 60-35 would be feasible, though 55-40 would be a more likely final tally. There is definitely a partisan lower bound for political support but there's more going on here.
So I guess when you punch in the numbers...
With ~120million people actually voting, about 96 million entrenched in their party, 6 million roughly voting neither major party. So, for a US election to be considered "close", you only have to attract 5-6 million people outside your core base for the election to be statistically interesting.
Which, realistically, means you will never have an election which isn't close.
|
A landslide in a modern election would probably be more represented in the electoral college than in the popular vote. Losing Georgia etc.
|
If it was anyone else on the ballot, trump would have no chance. I'm convinced this is exactly what the country needs, a wake up call. Such a failure of a candidate who is somehow made to appear normal by trump standards should never be in this position.
I agree with the wall, and I agree with the immigration ban. Could any reasonable republican have suggested such things and gotten away with it? I doubt it, I think trump is a unique individual who was able to propose such radical ideas which would initially make anyone say "Ok, he just lost by saying that" but nope, he somehow he stays afloat. It takes a ridiculously anti-pc/unhinged human to suggest such radical ideas for it to be palatable. Imagine if Romney tried to propose similar plans, he would have instantly lost IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
