2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

Saw this...

#Bailout2016 — the election bailout plan that could save us from both Trump and Hillary

Posted that a few days ago. They seem to be settling on Brad Thor as the candidate.

 

[yankeehater]

Kerry Dougherty: Tim Kaine owes Virginians an answer | Kerry Dougherty | pilotonline.com

 

[yankeehater]

Has there been one mention of the Clinton Foundation's work during the DNC?

 

[GATTACA!]

I'm not saying its all roses. I'm saying Clinton won by nearly 4 million votes. The voters picked Hillary. Period.

3.7 mill out of a total of what 30 million votes? If they were all as rigged as bad as NY appears to have been I'm not a mathematician but 30 million X 10% closes that gap pretty quickly. Not saying every primary was as bad or even rigged but I tend to believe it was actually much closer than the 3.7 million everyone touts.

But regardless of the straight vote manipulation how can you put a number on how many people where influenced by the DNCs bias? How many vote where suppressed by the DNCs collusion with all of the MSM? How many votes where suppressed by Clinton being coronated months and months before any primary. We'll never know what would have happened in a fair race so the popular vote isn't some great proof of how popular Hillary is.

 

[Rack Em]

Posted that a few days ago. They seem to be settling on Brad Thor as the candidate.

Who the hell is that?

 

[IrishLax]

Spin spin spin spin.

The corruption and bias was so bad the chairwoman of the DNC had to resign. There was blatant collusion between the party and the Clinton campaign to launder money in order give as much as possible to Hillary at the expense of down ballot candidates in their own party, ironically something they had accused Bernie of. There appears to have been widespread voter fraud to the tune of as much as 10% in places like New York. The list goes on and on and on, but listening to you and Goirish41 you would have us believe it's all roses.

The DNC spit in your collective faces and you're smiling and saying thank you.

You're truly wasting your time. Eddy is the most entrenched, biased, and close-minded poster on the board* when it comes to politics. He refuses to even acknowledge the most basic and irrefutable warts of the Democratic party, and puts laughable spin on every topic. He's as bad as that Trump loon from months ago that was banned, just less antagonistic/trollish and more laughable/sheep-like.

*He might just be a troll.

 

[wizards8507]

Who the hell is that?

Novelist I guess.

 

[connor_in]

Who the hell is that?

Author...think Tom Clancy 2.0

TBH, I like his books

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Spin spin spin spin.

The corruption and bias was so bad the chairwoman of the DNC had to resign. There was blatant collusion between the party and the Clinton campaign to launder money in order give as much as possible to Hillary at the expense of down ballot candidates in their own party, ironically something they had accused Bernie of. There appears to have been widespread voter fraud to the tune of as much as 10% in places like New York. The list goes on and on and on, but listening to you and Goirish41 you would have us believe it's all roses.

The DNC spit in your collective faces and you're smiling and saying thank you.

3.7 mill out of a total of what 30 million votes? If they were all as rigged as bad as NY appears to have been I'm not a mathematician but 30 million X 10% closes that gap pretty quickly. Not saying every primary was as bad or even rigged but I tend to believe it was actually much closer than the 3.7 million everyone touts.

But regardless of the straight vote manipulation how can you put a number on how many people where influenced by the DNCs bias? How many vote where suppressed by the DNCs collusion with all of the MSM? How many votes where suppressed by Clinton being coronated months and months before any primary. We'll never know what would have happened in a fair race so the popular vote isn't some great proof of how popular Hillary is.

100%

 

[ACamp1900]

Who the hell is that?

His name is wizards,.. we're cool,... he's a pretty intelligent guy for the most part, but also kind of a jack ass,.. oh and he's quite fat too... I like him well enough, he knows and accepts himself for what he is, which is admirable....

 

[RDU Irish]

Or you could have just turned on your tv once in the last decade.

My wife watches E! a lot too - I tend to stick to sports and more man oriented fare.

 

[connor_in]

Regarding Author Brad Thor who is also an outspoken conservative:

“Liberty is my Litmus Test” Author Brad Thor on Why He’s Never Trump

Dear friends:

I have taken a stance, which I know is unpopular with some of you, and which I feel I owe it to you to fully explain.

Throughout history, charismatic figures have appeared at critical moments in time. Some of these figures have advanced their nations. Some have set them back. Only with the benefit of hindsight is mankind able to make the final judgment.

I have long been a fan of the saying – History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. In other words, history leaves clues; lessons that we can all benefit from.

We are stewards of our Republic and as such, our greatest responsibility is not to ourselves, or any political party, but to the next generation of Americans. We must work tirelessly to see to it that they inherit a freer, stronger, safer, more prosperous nation than was handed to us.

To truly fulfill that obligation we must be selfless, and above all, we must be informed. We must understand the mechanics of politics, economics, and the framework that has allowed the United States to be the greatest nation in the history of the world.

As an American, my greatest allegiance is to liberty. As long as there is liberty, no task is insurmountable, no challenge too overwhelming. As long as there is liberty, anything is possible.

The true north of my compass has been, and always will be, liberty. I owe it to those who have come before me and those who will come after. I will act to safeguard liberty no matter what personal price I may be forced to bear.

Liberty is my litmus test. I weigh all actions of my government and those who seek office, against it. The ledger of freedom is incorruptible; its pages open for anyone to examine, and most importantly – to learn from.

At great personal and professional expense, I have grown more vocal over the years about the need to reduce the size of government and place in office fellow citizens guided strictly by the Founding documents.

I have spoken on television, radio, and in front of civic organizations. I have campaigned for candidates, marched in Tea Party rallies, and was the man who drove Andrew Breitbart to Madison, Wisconsin to speak alongside him on the capitol steps in defense of Governor Scott walker.

From taking back the United States House in 2010, to taking back the Senate in 2014, we have won battle after battle for liberty. In so doing, we have placed principled, limited government Americans in office. We knew the war wouldn’t be won overnight, but rather that it would be won over time. We have been steadfast, resolute, and successful.

But in the opinion of some of our fellow Americans, we have not been quick enough. Rather than continue to fight, a plurality of voters in the Republican primary has decided to drop an atom bomb on Washington, D.C. That atom bomb is Donald Trump.

And so I come to my explanation. When I apply my litmus test of liberty to Donald Trump, he fails – completely.

In fact, he has not only failed to ever stand for liberty, he has repeatedly worked to undermine it. From supporting an assault weapons ban, the seizure of private property via eminent domain, the restructuring of libel laws, and socialized medicine (just to name a few) – throughout his entire adult life, Donald Trump has repeatedly championed the power of the state.

Regardless of what he says now, Donald Trump has a history. That history is the clearest indication of how he would govern as president. No matter how badly Americans want to “blow up” Washington, they absolutely must consider who, and what, arises from the embers of that destruction.

After voters drop that atom bomb, what happens next?

Herein lies my greatest concern. What will become of liberty under a Trump administration? Will it grow? Will it recede? Will it vanish altogether?

Our Founders realized that the normal course of history is despotism – the control of the many by the few. That is why the Founding documents sought to constrain government. They also counted on Americans to choose wisely those whom we sought to install in office. Too often we have failed in selecting the best among us.

Donald Trump is not the best among us, nor is Hillary Clinton. They are both incredibly flawed human beings whom we should be equally ashamed of.

Neither would advance the cause of freedom. Both would take us – not to that shining city on a hill of which President Regan spoke – but into the murky valley below. Never have I seen America faced with having two such poor choices for president.

With the lessons of history as my guide, I see in Donald Trump the character flaws that are the hallmarks of despotism. In Hillary Clinton, I also see multiple character flaws, but I see them as a belonging not to a potential despot, but rather to a conniving, self-serving, progressive politician who believes in lining her own pockets and enlarging/increasing the state and its power.

The two are reprehensible – but completely different. One threatens to further enlarge the state, the other, potentially (a la Napoleon), to become it.

Growing up, a wonderful nun repeatedly told me that kindness could only be expected from the strong. When Donald Trump mocked the disability of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski – he showed himself to be not only weak, but also lacking in compassion.

Trump’s position that he is a Christian, but has never asked for forgiveness – coupled with his incessant bragging – not only further shows that he is weak, but that he also lacks humility.

Strength, compassion, and humility are necessary in any leader – but especially so in the person who would occupy the highest and most powerful office in the world. Just look at what the absence of those qualities has done over the last seven years.

My greatest concern about Donald Trump, though, isn’t a trait he lacks, but a dangerous one he possesses – in spades. Authoritarianism.

Confident people do not bully and demean others. That is the realm of the weak and insecure. Confident people also do not threaten others, especially not their fellow citizens.

Donald Trump has told us to just wait and see what he does to Jeff Bezos once he gets into the White House. He has told us the American military will do whatever he tells them to do no matter what their reservations. He has promised to prevent American companies from moving outside the United States, regardless of what they believe is best for their businesses.

In other words, Donald Trump has clearly told all of us that he will use the power of the presidency to force people to bend to his will. This is not liberty.

In fact, Donald Trump has never even spoken about liberty. Neither has he spoken about the Constitution and the Founding documents. This is an absolute first in the history of the United States.

Instead, Donald Trump talks about hiring the “best people” and making the “best deals.” This, though, isn’t what made America great, and it certainly isn’t what will return America to its prominence.

The blueprint for America’s success is the ideas of the Framers – limited, Constitutional governance – an area in which Donald Trump is criminally ignorant.

Let me be clear that I don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I also don’t want to vote for Donald Trump. My preference is to write-in or vote third party. I think they are both terrible for our future.

But between a big government progressive and a potential despot – every American must ask themselves where liberty has the greatest chance to survive over the next four years.

As a Constitutional conservative, I take solace in, and guidance from the words of Alexander Hamilton, who in the election of 1800 said, “If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.”

I value all of you as friends, readers, and fellow patriots. There is much at stake for our Republic. Be informed, be selfless, and vote your conscience. I will not hold your decisions against you.

None of us knows the future. But I ask that all of us look to the past. Only by doing so can we safeguard liberty and chart the most well-reasoned course forward.

 

[Bubbles]

You're truly wasting your time. Eddy is the most entrenched, biased, and close-minded poster on the board* when it comes to politics. He refuses to even acknowledge the most basic and irrefutable warts of the Democratic party, and puts laughable spin on every topic. He's as bad as that Trump loon from months ago that was banned, just less antagonistic/trollish and more laughable/sheep-like.

*He might just be a troll.

There are quite a few people in this thread who are thoroughly entrenched up their own asses. I have enjoyed many of the informative posts, but it has become about 90% confirmation bias and name calling. My two year old has a better grasp of reason, logic and evidence-based opinions.

The net gain here is that I think they have helped convince me to vote for NEITHER Trump or Hillary.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think we both know Hillary was getting pushed through no matter who ran against her in the primaries, that decision was made way before Bernie started making waves.

You're probably right, but we'll never know for sure. If the GOP had coalesced early around a candidate like Rubio who would have neutralized many of Clinton's natural advantages, I think they would have given Bernie much more serious consideration. Even now, all of the energy on the Left is with his supporters.

Or, they are as blind and as indifferent to their voters as the republicans are, and will give you what they want and not what the people want..

Never argued otherwise. I'm just comparing what happened with the DNC to the GOP. The former engaged in a massive coordinated campaign of fraud, propaganda, and other dirty tricks to undermine the more popular candidate in favor of the corrupt mandarin that their Establishment wanted to elect, while the latter's dysfunction induced institutional paralysis and prevented it from stopping a hostile takeover by a candidate who's likely going to destroy the party. Which of those is a more desirable outcome for the country?

It's a real shame the parties' fortunes weren't reversed. Had the DNC been powerless to stop Bernie, while the GOP cut the legs out from Trump early in favor of Rubio, we'd be in a much better position right now.

 

[kmoose]

...they have helped convince me to vote for NEITHER Trump or Hillary.

My work here is done....

 

[GATTACA!]

You're probably right, but we'll never know for sure. If the GOP had coalesced early around a candidate like Rubio who would have neutralized many of Clinton's natural advantages, I think they would have given Bernie much more serious consideration. Even now, all of the energy on the Left is with his supporters.



Never argued otherwise. I'm just comparing what happened with the DNC to the GOP. The former engaged in a massive coordinated campaign of fraud, propaganda, and other dirty tricks to undermine the more popular candidate in favor of the corrupt mandarin that their Establishment wanted to elect, while the latter's dysfunction induced institutional paralysis and prevented it from stopping a hostile takeover by a candidate who's likely going to destroy the party. Which of those is a more desirable outcome for the country?

It's a real shame the parties' fortunes weren't reversed. Had the DNC been powerless to stop Bernie, while the GOP cut the legs out from Trump early in favor of Rubio, we'd be in a much better position right now.

Agreed, on both fronts.

 

[ACamp1900]

It's a real shame the parties' fortunes weren't reversed. Had the DNC been powerless to stop Bernie, while the GOP cut the legs out from Trump early in favor of Rubio, we'd be in a much better position right now.

This whole situation feels so much like Notre Dame football over the last 20 years... so close, yet so frustratingly far away...

 

[ACamp1900]

Jerry Doyle just passed away apparently, sucks... his level of discontent with the whole system was usually something I could relate to and he was one of the few personalities left I could ever stand to listen to for more than a few minutes at a time.

 

[wizards8507]

You're probably right, but we'll never know for sure. If the GOP had coalesced early around a candidate like Rubio who would have neutralized many of Clinton's natural advantages, I think they would have given Bernie much more serious consideration. Even now, all of the energy on the Left is with his supporters.

Never argued otherwise. I'm just comparing what happened with the DNC to the GOP. The former engaged in a massive coordinated campaign of fraud, propaganda, and other dirty tricks to undermine the more popular candidate in favor of the corrupt mandarin that their Establishment wanted to elect, while the latter's dysfunction induced institutional paralysis and prevented it from stopping a hostile takeover by a candidate who's likely going to destroy the party. Which of those is a more desirable outcome for the country?

It's a real shame the parties' fortunes weren't reversed. Had the DNC been powerless to stop Bernie, while the GOP cut the legs out from Trump early in favor of Rubio, we'd be in a much better position right now.

I think you're glossing over the impact of the size of each party's field of candidates and assigning too much credit (or blame) to the party national committees. Even if neither national party exerted any influence whatsoever, I still think HRC would have beaten Bernie head to head and Donald would have beaten the field with a plurality of support. Bernie's supporters have the energy because of who they are, not how many of them there are. Students, revolutionaries, and millennials are simply more energetic than blue-collar workers.

 

[RDU Irish]

Just had the horrible thought of Bob Dole, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, John Kerry, John McCain and Mitt Romney.... wouldn't most of us kill to have any of those tools as an option this year?

 

[RDU Irish]

I think you're glossing over the impact of the size of each party's field of candidates and assigning too much credit (or blame) to the party national committees. Even if neither national party exerted any influence whatsoever, I still think HRC would have beaten Bernie head to head and Donald would have beaten the field with a plurality of support. Bernie's supporters have the energy because of who they are, not how many of them there are. Students, revolutionaries, and millennials are simply more energetic than blue-collar workers.

Maybe Bernie didn't get the memo that running against Hillary might subject you to a multiple gunshot to the back of the head suicide spree in your neighborhood.

 

[gkIrish]

<iframe width="540" height="340" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lXk4E_LS33Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[EddytoNow]

Spin spin spin spin.

The corruption and bias was so bad the chairwoman of the DNC had to resign. There was blatant collusion between the party and the Clinton campaign to launder money in order give as much as possible to Hillary at the expense of down ballot candidates in their own party, ironically something they had accused Bernie of. There appears to have been widespread voter fraud to the tune of as much as 10% in places like New York. The list goes on and on and on, but listening to you and Goirish41 you would have us believe it's all roses.

The DNC spit in your collective faces and you're smiling and saying thank you.

Really? Launder money? More charges of voter fraud? I state Hillary was rewarded for her years of service over Bernie who has no history of being a Democrat, and you just make stuff up? Shouting longer and louder doesn't make your charges true.

DWS did what political parties do. The Republicans were doing the same thing to prevent Trump from being their candidate. They just weren't very successful at it. I personally voted for Bernie, but I can accept the fact that Hillary won more votes than Bernie and move on from there.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think you're glossing over the impact of the size of each party's field of candidates and assigning too much credit (or blame) to the party national committees. Even if neither national party exerted any influence whatsoever, I still think HRC would have beaten Bernie head to head and Donald would have beaten the field with a plurality of support. Bernie's supporters have the energy because of who they are, not how many of them there are. Students, revolutionaries, and millennials are simply more energetic than blue-collar workers.

^this.

 

[wizards8507]

<iframe width="540" height="340" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lXk4E_LS33Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You can't be serious, George.

Stephanopoulos Fails to Disclose Donations in Clinton Interview

 

[BGIF]

<iframe width="540" height="340" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lXk4E_LS33Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Interesting clip from ABC News

$200,000 for a dinner with Hillary.

Ah the life of a One Percenter.

 

[EddytoNow]

You're truly wasting your time. Eddy is the most entrenched, biased, and close-minded poster on the board* when it comes to politics. He refuses to even acknowledge the most basic and irrefutable warts of the Democratic party, and puts laughable spin on every topic. He's as bad as that Trump loon from months ago that was banned, just less antagonistic/trollish and more laughable/sheep-like.

*He might just be a troll.

I'll refrain from attacking your character and encourage you to discuss the issues. Perhaps, if you didn't believe everything you hear from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin we could have a reasonable discussion based on facts, rather than mud-slinging.

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BLM activists told white media to get to the back today. <a href="https://t.co/r1wyNHwgM0">pic.twitter.com/r1wyNHwgM0</a></p>— Jillian Melchior (@JillianKayM) <a href="https://twitter.com/JillianKayM/status/758077214084698112">July 26, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Watch with audio.

 

[connor_in]

Interesting clip from ABC News

$200,000 for a dinner with Hillary.

Ah the life of a One Percenter.

Well it probably would last as long as one of her Wall Street speeches.

 

[wizards8507]

I'll refrain from attacking your character and encourage you to discuss the issues. Perhaps, if you didn't believe everything you hear from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine we could have a reasonable discussion based on facts, rather than mud-slinging.

First of all, it's Mark Levin. Second of all, he's an actual genius. Earned his bachelor's degree summa cum laude at age 19.

If you promise to read it, I'll send you a copy of Plunder and Deceit or Ameritopia at my cost.