|
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. |
On October 04 2016 20:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 19:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 19:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Washington (CNN)The vast majority of registered voters view paying taxes as a "civic duty," including 79% of Donald Trump's supporters, according to a new poll.
Nearly all registered voters surveyed -- 86% -- say they see paying taxes as every American's civic duty, while 12% say that they see taxes as an unnecessary burden to be avoided, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Monday.
Most of the interviews from the poll were completed before Saturday night's report from The New York Times that revealed Trump might have avoided income taxes for the last 18 years after declaring a $916 million loss in 1995.
The Times did not look at Trump's federal return. It obtained one page of his New York State resident income tax returns as well as the first page of New Jersey and Connecticut nonresident returns. CNN has not independently verified the documents' authenticity, but Trump's campaign has not challenged any of the facts reported by The Times.
Before The Times report, Hillary Clinton raised questions during the first presidential debate about whether Trump had paid income tax in some years, which Trump didn't deny.
In fact, he said: "That makes me smart."
The poll also found that 73% of registered voters surveyed think Trump should release his tax returns for public review, including about half of Republicans at 49%.
And out of the voters surveyed, 57% believe that Trump is hiding something by not releasing his tax returns while 33% believe that he's holding back due to the audit -- although Trump is allowed to release his tax returns regardless of the audit.
The findings from the leaked tax returns threatened to put the controversy over Trump's unprecedented refusal to release them as the focus of his presidential campaign with less than 40 days until the election. Source On July 11 2015 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2015 14:33 Painmaker wrote:
Ok so it wasn't really him who filed for bankruptcy... Fair enough.
It's funny, here in my country, we had articles about how Trump was losing money due to sponsors pulling out and I come here and I read he's actually making MORE money out of the thing? I'll never understand your country. Pretty sure he came out rosey as f*** from those bankruptcies. That's probably why it didn't bother him having all the people think he lost his ass. That's actually better PR than people thinking you made out like a bandit. I think his numbers are going up before they are going down. For all the righteous indignation I get, you guys gotta give me that one. How do we have to give you that one? You said his numbers would be going up and the piece says 86% (79% Trump supporters) thinks that people should pay their taxes. How does not paying taxes for 20 years make his numbers go up in light of that? I aint giving you shit lol.
Not sure if people noticed that was back in July of last year. Whatever though lol.
|
On October 04 2016 23:41 Danglars wrote:
Assange is such a tease
it's okay, you can get his book for 40% off now!
|
On October 04 2016 23:28 xDaunt wrote:Yes, I'm glad that I didn't stay up for this one. What's caught my attention isn't so much that Assange didn't drop any evidence last night, but that he seems to be severely walking back all of his prior representations about what he had.
One theory I've seen: He had the Bernie "basement dwellers" recording stuff to release, but after the entire thing got let out, he had no ammo. In the end, he lost a lot of credibility this time around. Looking at Florida polling, in conjunction with the recent 2 weeks Trump has had, there is no better time to release a big leak. If he had it, we'd have it. I think Wikileaks has finally run dry this election.
In a time where memes and populism are such driving forces in politics, it'll be a miracle when Clinton wins this year. Russia, Wikileaks, populism and a political climate that doesn't give 2 shits about policy.
|
United States42004 Posts
Looks like it's coming down to Florida as everyone said it would. If Hillary holds it, that's the ball game, even if she loses every other swing state. If Hillary loses it then it doesn't matter even if she wins Nevada. However if she can flip NC or Ohio she can afford to lose Florida.
|
I wouldn't rule out the leaks being significant. Their timing could still be effective, being closer to election day and all.
|
On October 05 2016 00:09 KwarK wrote:
Looks like it's coming down to Florida as everyone said it would. If Hillary holds it, that's the ball game, even if she loses every other swing state. If Hillary loses it then it doesn't matter even if she wins Nevada. However if she can flip NC or Ohio she can afford to lose Florida.
If she wins NH, Pennsylvania and Colorado, she won't even need Florida.
|
Clinton can afford to lose Florida (possible), Nevada (possible), NC (probable), and Ohio (likely). Which is pretty terrifying for Trump.
If she loses Florida she almost certainly loses all those states but can still hold the election with NH/PA/CO as kwizach says.
(this last batch of post-debate national and state polling makes it look very dire for Trump, I believe we are at the point where it would be among the largest poll shifts ever for him to win at this point)
|
On October 05 2016 00:10 Doodsmack wrote:
I wouldn't rule out the leaks being significant. Their timing could still be effective, being closer to election day and all.
My thought is that the leaks simply don't exist. If we can assume Wikileaks' agenda is as transparent as it has been for the past 6 months, this is do or die time. Elaborated well below:
On October 05 2016 00:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Clinton can afford to lose Florida (possible), Nevada (possible), NC (probable), and Ohio (likely). Which is pretty terrifying for Trump.
If she loses Florida she almost certainly loses all those states but can still hold the election with NH/PA/CO as kwizach says.
(this last batch of post-debate national and state polling makes it look very dire for Trump, I believe we are at the point where it would be among the largest poll shifts ever for him to win at this point)
There's no sign of this reversing. Hell, there's no sign that this is as bad as it will get for Trump. Polls keep looking worse and worse post-debate.
Edit: If I may be an armchair campaign manager for a moment,
Does anyone else agree that Trump is best off dropping Ohio, assuming he can squeeze out a victory there, and going ape shit on Florida? Getting both Ohio and Florida is of course ideal. I don't think he can win Florida at this point while splitting resources in Ohio. I think his best bet is to go all-in on Florida and assume Clinton is incapable of flipping Ohio. Which I would say is accurate right now.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 05 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone else agree that Trump is best off dropping Ohio, assuming he can squeeze out a victory there, and going ape shit on Florida?
Drop a state he's winning in for a state he's basically tied in?
|
On October 05 2016 00:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone else agree that Trump is best off dropping Ohio, assuming he can squeeze out a victory there, and going ape shit on Florida? Drop a state he's winning in for a state he's basically tied in?
Well, assuming he doesn't need to do anything in a state he's winning in and thus starting pouring resources into the one he's tied in makes some sense.
That said, no amount of campaigning in specific states will win him the election without a shift in national polls. He just needs too many to flip. He needs his campaign to dig up Clinton's Alicia Machado's of its own and plug them into the debates-he can't rely on Wikileaks or anyone else to do it for him. But he lacks the infrastructure for that.
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 05 2016 00:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:09 KwarK wrote:
Looks like it's coming down to Florida as everyone said it would. If Hillary holds it, that's the ball game, even if she loses every other swing state. If Hillary loses it then it doesn't matter even if she wins Nevada. However if she can flip NC or Ohio she can afford to lose Florida. If she wins NH, Pennsylvania and Colorado, she won't even need Florida.
How do you get that? 538 has her at 298 with Florida being 29. Although it does look like there might be some rounding so she could really be at 299, at which point she can lose Florida but get 270 if it's her only loss. That's assuming she wins NH, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Nevada.
Trump cannot win without going 3/3 on North Carolina, Florida and Ohio.
Not sure why you're mentioning New Hampshire, it's one of the least relevant both in terms of how competitive it is and how m any electoral college votes it has.
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 05 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:10 Doodsmack wrote:
I wouldn't rule out the leaks being significant. Their timing could still be effective, being closer to election day and all. My thought is that the leaks simply don't exist. If we can assume Wikileaks' agenda is as transparent as it has been for the past 6 months, this is do or die time. Elaborated well below: Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Clinton can afford to lose Florida (possible), Nevada (possible), NC (probable), and Ohio (likely). Which is pretty terrifying for Trump.
If she loses Florida she almost certainly loses all those states but can still hold the election with NH/PA/CO as kwizach says.
(this last batch of post-debate national and state polling makes it look very dire for Trump, I believe we are at the point where it would be among the largest poll shifts ever for him to win at this point) There's no sign of this reversing. Hell, there's no sign that this is as bad as it will get for Trump. Polls keep looking worse and worse post-debate. Edit: If I may be an armchair campaign manager for a moment, Does anyone else agree that Trump is best off dropping Ohio, assuming he can squeeze out a victory there, and going ape shit on Florida? Getting both Ohio and Florida is of course ideal. I don't think he can win Florida at this point while splitting resources in Ohio. I think his best bet is to go all-in on Florida and assume Clinton is incapable of flipping Ohio. Which I would say is accurate right now.
He needs to win both, and NC, and the polls are looking very close in all three of them. Clinton is currently ahead in NC. He can't afford to give ground in any of them, he needs to win 3/3 to stand a chance.
|
On October 05 2016 00:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone else agree that Trump is best off dropping Ohio, assuming he can squeeze out a victory there, and going ape shit on Florida? Drop a state he's winning in for a state he's basically tied in?
So long as he wins by a single vote, it doesn't matter. My point is that Clinton has really struggled in Ohio and the demographics do not favor her. I would argue that Ohio has pretty much crystallized at this point. Florida seems a lot more up in the air. I think it would be "risky" to ditch Ohio, but I would think it is more risky to lose Florida. Getting 269 is the same as getting 0. He needs 270 and he needs both Ohio and Florida for that.
|
On October 05 2016 00:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:18 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2016 00:09 KwarK wrote:
Looks like it's coming down to Florida as everyone said it would. If Hillary holds it, that's the ball game, even if she loses every other swing state. If Hillary loses it then it doesn't matter even if she wins Nevada. However if she can flip NC or Ohio she can afford to lose Florida. If she wins NH, Pennsylvania and Colorado, she won't even need Florida. How do you get that? 538 has her at 298 with Florida being 29. Although it does look like there might be some rounding so she could really be at 299, at which point she can lose Florida but get 270 if it's her only loss. That's assuming she wins NH, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Nevada. Trump cannot win without going 3/3 on North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Not sure why you're mentioning New Hampshire, it's one of the least relevant both in terms of how competitive it is and how m any electoral college votes it has.
I don't think she needs Nevada. At least according to the 538 snake back before the debate:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-leading-in-exactly-the-states-she-needs-to-win/
I could be misreading it though.
Trump needs NC/FL/OH/NV +1 (which could be NH) to win if I'm reading it correctly.
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 05 2016 00:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:
That said, no amount of campaigning in specific states will win him the election without a shift in national polls.
This isn't true. The national polls aren't really relevant at this point, the electoral system makes the popular vote less important than the location of those voters. Having 100% support in a state is no better than having 51% support, once you win you've won.
There are just a handful of states this comes down to.
|
On October 05 2016 00:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:18 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2016 00:09 KwarK wrote:
Looks like it's coming down to Florida as everyone said it would. If Hillary holds it, that's the ball game, even if she loses every other swing state. If Hillary loses it then it doesn't matter even if she wins Nevada. However if she can flip NC or Ohio she can afford to lose Florida. If she wins NH, Pennsylvania and Colorado, she won't even need Florida. How do you get that? 538 has her at 298 with Florida being 29. Although it does look like there might be some rounding so she could really be at 299, at which point she can lose Florida but get 270 if it's her only loss. That's assuming she wins NH, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Nevada. Trump cannot win without going 3/3 on North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Not sure why you're mentioning New Hampshire, it's one of the least relevant both in terms of how competitive it is and how m any electoral college votes it has.
From 538:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d6MNlWF.jpg)
|
On October 05 2016 00:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:
That said, no amount of campaigning in specific states will win him the election without a shift in national polls. This isn't true. The national polls aren't really relevant at this point, the electoral system makes the popular vote less important than the location of those voters. Having 100% support in a state is no better than having 51% support, once you win you've won. There are just a handful of states this comes down to.
He needs significant swings in like 4 states to reverse his 3-4% national loss after the debate. You can't accomplish that with his existing infrastructure by campaigning in those states alone, it's just not practical.
|
United States42004 Posts
On October 05 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:47 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2016 00:18 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2016 00:09 KwarK wrote:
Looks like it's coming down to Florida as everyone said it would. If Hillary holds it, that's the ball game, even if she loses every other swing state. If Hillary loses it then it doesn't matter even if she wins Nevada. However if she can flip NC or Ohio she can afford to lose Florida. If she wins NH, Pennsylvania and Colorado, she won't even need Florida. How do you get that? 538 has her at 298 with Florida being 29. Although it does look like there might be some rounding so she could really be at 299, at which point she can lose Florida but get 270 if it's her only loss. That's assuming she wins NH, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Nevada. Trump cannot win without going 3/3 on North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Not sure why you're mentioning New Hampshire, it's one of the least relevant both in terms of how competitive it is and how m any electoral college votes it has. I don't think she needs Nevada. At least according to the 538 snake back before the debate: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-leading-in-exactly-the-states-she-needs-to-win/I could be misreading it though. Trump needs NC/FL/OH/NV +1 (which could be NH) to win if I'm reading it correctly.
Trump has a solid red base of 200 that isn't going anywhere.
Then the competitive states are Iowa (6), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18) and Florida (29).
Trump needs to get 70 electoral college votes out of those five to win.
I'm not seeing NH as competitive in the polls and even if it is, it's low electoral college votes. If we add it to the above list then he needs to get 5 of the 6, including the 4 highest in electoral college votes.
Pennsylvania is a much better bet but even then it's a far safer state for Hillary than most of the five listed above are for Trump. He's in bad shape.
|
I find it interesting Donald brings up some of Bill's women but not Juanita Broaddrick. If there's any last-ditch Clinton bombshell, it's her. But maybe Donald is vulnerable to rape accusations himself.
Could be a shitshow of a final month.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 05 2016 00:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:43 LegalLord wrote:On October 05 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone else agree that Trump is best off dropping Ohio, assuming he can squeeze out a victory there, and going ape shit on Florida? Drop a state he's winning in for a state he's basically tied in? Well, assuming he doesn't need to do anything in a state he's winning in and thus starting pouring resources into the one he's tied in makes some sense. That said, no amount of campaigning in specific states will win him the election without a shift in national polls. He just needs too many to flip. He needs his campaign to dig up Clinton's Alicia Machado's of its own and plug them into the debates-he can't rely on Wikileaks or anyone else to do it for him. But he lacks the infrastructure for that.
Problem is that the bolded is very far from a reasonable assumption. Very recent polls have him losing to Hillary, but in general he seems to be ahead there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jzc9UkS.gif)
