US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Blakk Metal]

Trump's Nowcast is down to 4.7%. What happened?

[PaNTuXIa]

She tried to atheist-shame Bernie to lower his chances in Kentucky and WV. This election was decided from Day 1. Her leaked emails showed cooperation between DWS and key members of the media and DNC staff in order to favor Hillary. They had editors come in and edit Reuters articles. I'd call that a rigged election.

No member of the media ever asked Sanders about his religious beliefs or lack thereof. There was no public attempt to play gotcha with his religious beliefs. What there was is one email exchange between two lower-level staffers having a conversation about beliefs they are politically entitled to, but which were professionally unethical in this context. Those people are all now fired, it should also be noted.

As for the alleged coordination between the DNC and the media, that doesn't demonstrate that outcomes were changed. Bernie Sanders was never in striking distances of winning the a majority of pledged delegates, therefore never in striking distance of winning the nomination. This was true, incidentally, even after he overwhelmingly blew Clinton out in New Hampshire and the media/DNC didn't swoop in to save her campaign. Sanders did that himself, by choosing to largely write off the south.

Finally even if your allegations here were proven true, that still wouldn't be evidence that Clinton rigs elections. It would, at most, be evidence that DWS ineffectively tried to put her thumb on the scale in one election.

Now, if you want to complain about DNC bias, which was certainly present, but not in the fundamentally illegal way you've suggested, complain about Larry Lessig who tried running for president for a few weeks, was told he would get the accreditation to get on the debate stage and then never gotten back to.

Bernie was asked many times what his religious beliefs were. Perhaps "rigging elections" was inaccurate. But high-level members of her staff did cooperate with the media and DNC.

[PaNTuXIa]

Trump's Nowcast is down to 4.7%. What happened?

Khan. If Khan's dead son had just been another soldier, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, but Khan's son died while protecting his fellow soldiers. That is truly honorable, and I usually hesitate to call the military honorable.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And in a turn of events, even top GOP national security officials do not like Donald Trump's approach to Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy.

Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”

The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”

“None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” the letter states, though it notes later that many Americans “have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us.”

Among the most prominent signatories are Michael V. Hayden, a former director of both the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency; John D. Negroponte, who served as the first director of national intelligence and then deputy secretary of state; and Robert B. Zoellick, another former deputy secretary of state, United States trade representive and, until 2012, president of the World Bank. Two former secretaries of homeland security, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, also signed, as did Eric S. Edelman, who served as Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser and as a top aide to Robert M. Gates when he was secretary of defense.

Robert Blackwill and James Jeffrey, two key strategists in Mr. Bush’s National Security Council, and William H. Taft IV, a former deputy secretary of defense and ambassador to NATO, also signed.

The letter underscores the continuing rupture in the Republican Party, but particularly within its national security establishment. Many of those signing it had declined to add their names to a similar open letter released in March. But a number said in recent interviews that they changed their minds once they heard Mr. Trump invite Russia to hack into Mrs. Clinton’s email server — a sarcastic remark, he said later — and say that he would check to see how much NATO members contributed to the alliance before sending forces to help stave off a Russian attack.

Yet the signatories are unlikely to impress Mr. Trump or the largely lesser-known foreign policy team he has assembled around him: He has said throughout his campaign that he intends to upend Republican foreign policy orthodoxy on everything from trade to Russia. And many of the aides who signed the letter were active in developing the plan to invade Iraq or managing its aftermath, which Mr. Trump has described as a “disaster.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Missing from the signatories are any of the living Republican former secretaries of state: Henry Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

Mr. Trump met with Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Baker several months ago, and “I came away with a lot of knowledge,” he told The New York Times in a July 20 interview. But neither of the two — who represent different foreign policy approaches within the party — has said if he will endorse Mr. Trump.

[Saiwania]

Trump's Nowcast is down to 4.7%. What happened?

It is South Carolina and Missouri getting close to turning blue in addition to Arizona and Georgia being in jeopardy.

[Eol Sha]

Trump's Nowcast is down to 4.7%. What happened?

Donald Trump.

Seriously, though, since 538 generally gives recent polls more weight than older polls, it could be any number of things that Trump has said and done. And as he piles one controversy on top of another, his chances of winning get lower and lower. Especially since the Clinton campaign is starting to pump out more and more ads that excoriate Trump and praise her now that the conventions are past.

Death by a thousand cuts, really.

[Blakk Metal]

Trump's Nowcast is down to 4.7%. What happened?

Khan. If Khan's dead son had just been another soldier, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, but Khan's son died while protecting his fellow soldiers. That is truly honorable, and I usually hesitate to call the military honorable.

No, I mean what happened between yesterday and today. Yesterday it was 8.2%.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump's Nowcast is down to 4.7%. What happened?

Khan. If Khan's dead son had just been another soldier, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, but Khan's son died while protecting his fellow soldiers. That is truly honorable, and I usually hesitate to call the military honorable.

The Kahn story, for sure.

Also, the difference in quality between the two major parties' conventions, Trump's initial refusal to endorse McCain and Ryan, the tide of Republican defections from Trump, and the ties between Trump and Russia.

Trump is crashing and burning under the weight of his own bigoted idiocy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Khan. If Khan's dead son had just been another soldier, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, but Khan's son died while protecting his fellow soldiers. That is truly honorable, and I usually hesitate to call the military honorable.

No, I mean what happened between yesterday and today. Yesterday it was 8.2%.

More Republican defections and some new polls coming in, maybe?

[Ngelmish]

No member of the media ever asked Sanders about his religious beliefs or lack thereof. There was no public attempt to play gotcha with his religious beliefs. What there was is one email exchange between two lower-level staffers having a conversation about beliefs they are politically entitled to, but which were professionally unethical in this context. Those people are all now fired, it should also be noted.

As for the alleged coordination between the DNC and the media, that doesn't demonstrate that outcomes were changed. Bernie Sanders was never in striking distances of winning the a majority of pledged delegates, therefore never in striking distance of winning the nomination. This was true, incidentally, even after he overwhelmingly blew Clinton out in New Hampshire and the media/DNC didn't swoop in to save her campaign. Sanders did that himself, by choosing to largely write off the south.

Finally even if your allegations here were proven true, that still wouldn't be evidence that Clinton rigs elections. It would, at most, be evidence that DWS ineffectively tried to put her thumb on the scale in one election.

Now, if you want to complain about DNC bias, which was certainly present, but not in the fundamentally illegal way you've suggested, complain about Larry Lessig who tried running for president for a few weeks, was told he would get the accreditation to get on the debate stage and then never gotten back to.

Bernie was asked many times what his religious beliefs were. Perhaps "rigging elections" was inaccurate. But high-level members of her staff did cooperate with the media and DNC.

Not in a high profile debate. Not in most of the interviews that he gave. Not by Clinton staffers, DNC staffers or unethical journalists with a political outcome in mind and an axe to grind.

I understand that you have a particular objection to the way that Bernie Sanders and his candidacy was treated at times in this primary, but he successfully gained each and every time something improper, or with the appearance of impropriety happened, to the extent that many of his supporters are to this day insisting that a conspiracy to "atheist-shame" him actually happened rather than being discussed by two people and never acted on.

I would be more impressed by your skepticism towards the DNC if you were outraged on the behalf of the candidacies of Larry Lessig, Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee all of whom undeniably took a much bigger hit from any of the bias at the DNC than the Sanders campaign ever did.

[Neutraligon]

You must give a source for this.

Her DNC rigging? She may have not rigged it herself, but DWS did.

DWS is not Clinton.

[Neutraligon]

No member of the media ever asked Sanders about his religious beliefs or lack thereof. There was no public attempt to play gotcha with his religious beliefs. What there was is one email exchange between two lower-level staffers having a conversation about beliefs they are politically entitled to, but which were professionally unethical in this context. Those people are all now fired, it should also be noted.

As for the alleged coordination between the DNC and the media, that doesn't demonstrate that outcomes were changed. Bernie Sanders was never in striking distances of winning the a majority of pledged delegates, therefore never in striking distance of winning the nomination. This was true, incidentally, even after he overwhelmingly blew Clinton out in New Hampshire and the media/DNC didn't swoop in to save her campaign. Sanders did that himself, by choosing to largely write off the south.

Finally even if your allegations here were proven true, that still wouldn't be evidence that Clinton rigs elections. It would, at most, be evidence that DWS ineffectively tried to put her thumb on the scale in one election.

Now, if you want to complain about DNC bias, which was certainly present, but not in the fundamentally illegal way you've suggested, complain about Larry Lessig who tried running for president for a few weeks, was told he would get the accreditation to get on the debate stage and then never gotten back to.

Bernie was asked many times what his religious beliefs were. Perhaps "rigging elections" was inaccurate. But high-level members of her staff did cooperate with the media and DNC.

I am unsure what is wrong with cooperating with the media and the DNC. Please be specific as to what is wrong with that.

[Eol Sha]

Trump's Nowcast is down to 4.7%. What happened?

Donald Trump.

Seriously, though, since 538 generally gives recent polls more weight than older polls, it could be any number of things that Trump has said and done. And as he piles one controversy on top of another, his chances of winning get lower and lower. Especially since the Clinton campaign is starting to pump out more and more ads that excoriate Trump and praise her now that the conventions are past.

Death by a thousand cuts, really.

538 has an explanation.

[Galloism]

This Black Church endorsed Donald Trump

I'm pretty sure both of these are against the law. But are they? I have mixed feelings about churches being tax exempt, but I don't know that they shouldn't be able to endorse a candidate if they want to. Religion is inherently political.

If they wish to be involved in politics by directly endorsing a candidate they cannot be tax-exempt; to do otherwise would be to violate the first amendment.

No, it's not a violation of the first amendment. Wrong. Bad Neutraligon, bad!

It's a violation of the requirements laid out in section 501(c)3 subpart b of the internal revenue code.

[Galloism]

Her DNC rigging? She may have not rigged it herself, but DWS did.

DWS is not Clinton.

Have you ever seen them both at the same place at the same time?

[Neutraligon]

If they wish to be involved in politics by directly endorsing a candidate they cannot be tax-exempt; to do otherwise would be to violate the first amendment.

No, it's not a violation of the first amendment. Wrong. Bad Neutraligon, bad!

It's a violation of the requirements laid out in section 501(c)3 subpart b of the internal revenue code.

And the reason that code exists for churches is due to the first amendment. To allow a church to support a specific candidate while allowing them tax exempt status would be the government supporting a religion.

[Vassenor]

DWS is not Clinton.

Have you ever seen them both at the same place at the same time?

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN

[USS Monitor]

No untoward changing of outcomes occurred, so calling that a rigged election is simply wrong.

She tried to atheist-shame Bernie to lower his chances in Kentucky and WV. This election was decided from Day 1. Her leaked emails showed cooperation between DWS and key members of the media and DNC staff in order to favor Hillary. They had editors come in and edit Reuters articles. I'd call that a rigged election.

While that stuff is problematic, and it did make me more comfortable with my choice to switch parties, there is still a meaningful difference between that and actually tampering with ballots or voting machines.

[Galloism]

If 538's Nowcast is really accurate, then South Carolina and Missouri are on the verge of getting flipped.

Missouri's been a swing state basically forever. Obama barely lost it in 2008, Bush won it both times, Bill Clinton won it both times, George HW Bush won it in 1988, reagan won it both times, etc.

Heck, before Barack Obama, Missouri had voted for the actual president every single time from statehood to 2004 with the exception of once - in 1956.

[Kelinfort]

538's now cast has Trump at 4.6%

So much blue...

[Hurdergaryp]

Have you ever seen them both at the same place at the same time?

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN

Is it time already to sprint to the nearest fallout shelter?

[Galloism]

No, it's not a violation of the first amendment. Wrong. Bad Neutraligon, bad!

It's a violation of the requirements laid out in section 501(c)3 subpart b of the internal revenue code.

And the reason that code exists for churches is due to the first amendment. To allow a church to support a specific candidate while allowing them tax exempt status would be the government supporting a religion.

Probably not, no, unless they made only certain religions tax exempt. If it was all religions, there's no argument to be made that the government is supporting a particular religion.

[Implacable Death]

So apparently Hillary's health is terrible.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpTYqCPUkAI4Hdz.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpUTFRfVUAA_ETM.jpg

What happens if her health falls to such a depth that she can't run anymore? Does her running mate automatically take over? Or does the democratic vote go bye bye?

[Eol Sha]

So apparently Hillary's health is terrible.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpTYqCPUkAI4Hdz.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpUTFRfVUAA_ETM.jpg

What happens if her health falls to such a depth that she can't run anymore? Does her running mate automatically take over? Or does the democratic vote go bye bye?

What?

Anyway, I imagine the decision on who takes over is the responsibility of the DNC.

[Ashmoria]

I guess someone ought to look into that

as soon as they start looking into the white megachurches politicking for republicans.

.....

or catholic churches. my niece and her husband changed churches because their old one started spending too much time talking politics during sermons.

I think the IRS should look into it regardless. Really shouldn't be contingent on partisan preference.

the irs should look into it in general. there are hundreds of churches in this country violating that rule. I don't think it would be fair to focus on one demographic over another.