2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Shamrock Theories]

Strong economy
Strong defense
Immigration that is controlled
Relatively low crime
Low inflation

Four of the five are true, so IDK where the "again" comes in.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

That's your official position then? 50% of the country wants to "Make America White Again"?

I'm so glad I don't live in the paranoid delusions of the left. You guys see boogeymen everywhere. How do you sleep at night when you know the racist white patriarchy is out there castrating gays and chaining women to ovens?

I've seen two actual instances of bigotry in this election cycle. Black Lives Matter on the left and some really nasty anti-Semitism on the alt-right.

More like 10%. Most of the rest are just republicans who have no choice but to support Trump.

It's like us ND fans who don't REALLY like Kelly. But what choice do we have?

 

[ulukinatme]

I don't formerly endorse any of the above, I just know I don't want Hillary.

 

[EddytoNow]

Wow. You were not born. You were hatched...from some kind of twisted lab somewhere

I know I'm winning the argument when you can't refute my words and you resort to personal attacks. I argued that Republicans have actively tried to restrict voting for populations that vote Democratic, primarily minorities. Here are the facts. Refute them or don't waste my time with any more character attacks.

In 22 States, a Wave of New Voting Restrictions Threatens to Shift Outcomes in Tight Races

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Restrictive_Appendix_Post-2010.pdf

 

[NorthDakota]

I know I'm winning the argument when you can't refute my words and you resort to personal attacks. I argued that Republicans have actively tried to restrict voting for populations that vote Democratic, primarily minorities. Here are the facts. Refute them or don't waste my time with any more character attacks.

In 22 States, a Wave of New Voting Restrictions Threatens to Shift Outcomes in Tight Races

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Restrictive_Appendix_Post-2010.pdf

Regarding the ID requirements, fully support that. The other stuff, not sure.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I know I'm winning the argument when you can't refute my words and you resort to personal attacks. I argued that Republicans have actively tried to restrict voting for populations that vote Democratic, primarily minorities. Here are the facts. Refute them or don't waste my time with any more character attacks.

In 22 States, a Wave of New Voting Restrictions Threatens to Shift Outcomes in Tight Races

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Restrictive_Appendix_Post-2010.pdf

Your ridiculous post didn't warrant a response, aside from all the blowback you received from me and other posters on it. Notice I wasn't the only one who called you out on it? I leave the name calling and personal attacks to others, but it's clear to everyone here that you can't look at anything in politics objectively.

 

[kmoose]

It is net.

Here is the full report.
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-07-28-The-Macroeconomic-Consequences-of-Secretary-Clintons-Economic-Policies.pdf

Perhaps you should read it more carefully:

. By the end of her term, real GDP would be 1.7% larger than it would be under current law, and there would be 3.2 million more jobs.

Less than one third of the claim previously made. And that is not taking into account that the TPP may end up killing some American industries, or that expanding social security may eat up the funds for some of those infrastructure jobs.

 

[EddytoNow]

Regarding the ID requirements, fully support that. The other stuff, not sure.

I have only mild objections to the ID requirement. It is designed to remedy a problem that, according to the courts, doesn't exist. Courts have determined that the underlying reason for these ID laws was to limit or reduce voting by minorities. ID laws disproportionately effect the poor and the elderly, groups that tend to vote Democratic. These groups are less likely to be able to take time off work to get the ID card and more likely to be without a driver's license because they can't afford a car and insurance. If you want to solve the problem, automatically register every American citizen to vote on their 18th birthday and issue every citizen 18 years of age or older a voter ID card prior to each election. They turn it in when they vote, and a new ID card is issued prior to the next election.

We should be encouraging everyone to vote, not putting obstacles in their way to discourage them from voting.

 

[IrishLax]

I know I'm winning the argument when you can't refute my words and you resort to personal attacks. I argued that Republicans have actively tried to restrict voting for populations that vote Democratic, primarily minorities. Here are the facts. Refute them or don't waste my time with any more character attacks.

In 22 States, a Wave of New Voting Restrictions Threatens to Shift Outcomes in Tight Races

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Restrictive_Appendix_Post-2010.pdf

No, that's not what you argued. You're trolling, per usual.

You said:
1. Republicans need to tone down the rhetoric. Which is tone deaf and/or just flt out stupid considering that 1) a large portion of the party and electorate is disavowing the nominee specifically because of rhetoric 2) the rhetoric at the DNC trumped anything we heard at the RNC and no one cares. So it's obviously not their problem.

2. You can't afford to offend very group but white males. True.

3. The Republicans have three options... and they've decided to actively restrict voting rights. This is one of four classic red herrings (the other two being "Republicans are racist" and "Republicans hate women" and "Republicans hate gays") that are used in identity politics by Democrats as a shame tactic to ensure that certain groups vote as blocks rather than individuals on issues.
3A. It is absolutely true that it has ALWAYS been harder to vote in urban areas for a large list of reasons, and urban areas are typically blue.
3B. It is absolutely true that voter ID laws disproportionately target Democrat voters...
3C. It is absolutely true that Democrats go out of their way to pass laws to twist voting demographics in their favor as well... has happened in my very state. So to act like it's a unilateral Republican movement to shape voting demographics in their favor is, at best, uninformed. Democrats suppress the vote when it suits them, too: How Democrats Suppress The Vote | FiveThirtyEight
3D. It's hard to fault Republicans for voter ID laws when the Democrats have both recently: Project Veritas Exposes NC Campaign Workers Encouraging Illegal Aliens to Vote - Sarah Jean Seman Rep. Moran's son resigns from father's campaign amid voter fraud scandal | TheHill and historically been embroiled in some of the most high profile voter fraud cases in this country.

4. Your list of "restriction" methods... a lot are legitimate complaints, some are hogwash. Suffice to say if you think "party line voting" is remotely responsible or acceptable... and the absence of which counts as "Republican voter suppression"... then your entire opinion is, per usual, without any merit.

 

[EddytoNow]

Your ridiculous post didn't warrant a response, aside from all the blowback you received from me and other posters on it. Notice I wasn't the only one who called you out on it? I leave the name calling and personal attacks to others, but it's clear to everyone here that you can't look at anything in politics objectively.

And it's clear to me that you haven't read the documents I provided to support my argument. Court after court is finding these Republican efforts to limit access to the voting booth unconstitutional. You can choose to ignore the facts and call my posts ridiculous, but the facts are the facts.

 

[IrishLax]

And it's clear to me that you haven't read the documents I provided to support my argument. Court after court is finding these Republican efforts to limit access to the voting booth unconstitutional. You can choose to ignore the facts and call my posts ridiculous, but the facts are the facts.

What about courts finding Democrat attempts to do the opposite aren't legal?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1d45f6-5058-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html

 

[EddytoNow]

No, that's not what you argued. You're trolling, per usual.

You said:
1. Republicans need to tone down the rhetoric. Which is tone deaf and/or just flt out stupid considering that 1) a large portion of the party and electorate is disavowing the nominee specifically because of rhetoric 2) the rhetoric at the DNC trumped anything we heard at the RNC and no one cares. So it's obviously not their problem.

2. You can't afford to offend very group but white males. True.

3. The Republicans have three options... and they've decided to actively restrict voting rights. This is one of four classic red herrings (the other two being "Republicans are racist" and "Republicans hate women" and "Republicans hate gays") that are used in identity politics by Democrats as a shame tactic to ensure that certain groups vote as blocks rather than individuals on issues.
3A. It is absolutely true that it has ALWAYS been harder to vote in urban areas for a large list of reasons, and urban areas are typically blue.
3B. It is absolutely true that voter ID laws disproportionately target Democrat voters...
3C. It is absolutely true that Democrats go out of their way to pass laws to twist voting demographics in their favor as well... has happened in my very state. So to act like it's a unilateral Republican movement to shape voting demographics in their favor is, at best, uninformed. Democrats suppress the vote when it suits them, too: How Democrats Suppress The Vote | FiveThirtyEight
3D. It's hard to fault Republicans for voter ID laws when the Democrats have both recently: Project Veritas Exposes NC Campaign Workers Encouraging Illegal Aliens to Vote - Sarah Jean Seman Rep. Moran's son resigns from father's campaign amid voter fraud scandal | TheHill and historically been embroiled in some of the most high profile voter fraud cases in this country.

4. Your list of "restriction" methods... a lot are legitimate complaints, some are hogwash. Suffice to say if you think "party line voting" is remotely responsible or acceptable... and the absence of which counts as "Republican voter suppression"... then your entire opinion is, per usual, without any merit.

I'll respond to the bolded statement here. I live in Michigan. Michigan recently passed a law prohibiting voters from voting a straight party-line ticket. The courts just through out the law saying its intent was to create long lines at heavily Democratic precincts in urban areas, thereby discouraging people from voting or in some cases denying people the right to vote because work and family obligations would not allow them to stand for hours in a line waiting to exercise their right to vote.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

And it's clear to me that you haven't read the documents I provided to support my argument. Court after court is finding these Republican efforts to limit access to the voting booth unconstitutional. You can choose to ignore the facts and call my posts ridiculous, but the facts are the facts.

Here, I'll do what you would do if the roles were reversed:

The Republicans aren't trying to keep people from voting. All they're doing is making a concerted effort to ensure each vote is legal, legitimate, and not compromising the cornerstone of our democratic process.

See what I did there?

 

[IrishLax]

I'll respond to the bolded statement here. I live in Michigan. Michigan recently passed a law prohibiting voters from voting a straight party-line ticket. The courts just through out the law saying its intent was to create long lines at heavily Democratic precincts in urban areas, thereby discouraging people from voting or in some cases denying people the right to vote because work and family obligations would not allow them to stand for hours in a line waiting to exercise their right to vote.

Yeah, Michigan is one of very few states that allowed you to just vote for a "party." Most states don't, because party line voting is abhorrent. It caters to low-information voters and sheep. That's not a good thing.

The federal judge who struck down the law obviously got it wrong, I'm sure he's a Democrat, and I'm sure it's going to be appealed. How can you strike a law that is concurrent with standard operating procedure for voting in 80% for decades and roundly upheld? There is no constitutional basis -- none -- for having to allow straight party line voting.

 

[IrishLax]

OK yeah I was right... he's a Democrat appointed by Obama, who gave a ridiculous ruling with no legal merit. What a shocker.

State to appeal 'bizarre' ruling that allows Michigan straight-ticket voting | MLive.com

Michigan Democratic Party, argued that the elimination of straight-party voting would likely have a larger impact on African-American voters, noting "extremely high" correlations between the size of the African-American voting population within a district, and the use of straight-party voting in that district.

There argument was literally "we have a disproportionate amount of sheep, and we want to make it easy and expedient for the herd to vote how we want"... and that somehow held up, because they got it in front of a politically partisan judge who wanted to help Democrats. But only Republicans would play games with voting mechanics...

EDIT: holy shit I'm actually reading a breakdown of his decision...

African-Americans are much more likely to vote Democrat than other ethnic groups, and many feel this is largely due to racially charged political stances taken by Republicans on the local, state and national level since the post-World War II era,” Drain wrote.

So this Democrat employee 1) gave a personal opinion with no bearing on any letter of law that Republicans are all racist 2) said he wanted to make sure it was as easy as possible for black people to monolithically vote Democrat...

...but Republicans are the the problem, right Eddy? It couldn't be that both sides play games with voting procedures as fits their political interests?

 

[pkt77242]

Perhaps you should read it more carefully:



Less than one third of the claim previously made. And that is not taking into account that the TPP may end up killing some American industries, or that expanding social security may eat up the funds for some of those infrastructure jobs.

Current law would create 7.2 million jobs over the term, her polices would add 3.2 million to it, leading to 10.4 million jobs than today. The President gets credit for all jobs created during their presidency (rightly or wrongly). So yes the analysis predicts (though hardly a fact) that during her 4 years there would be 10.4 million new net jobs.

So either you want to hold her to different standards than other Presidents, you are purposefully being ignorant or you didn't read the article closely and only picked out the part that you thought proved me wrong.

Employment also receives a lift under
the secretary’s plan. During her presidency,
the economy would create 10.4 million
jobs, 3.2 million more than under current
law. Unemployment is also lower, with the
unemployment rate falling as low as 3.7% in
the middle of her term, and ending her presi
-
dency in 2020 at 4.4%. Under current law,
the unemployment rate hovers just below
5% between now and the end of the decade.

 

[kmoose]

Current law would create 7.2 million jobs over the term, her polices would add 3.2 million to it, leading to 10.4 million jobs than today. The President gets credit for all jobs created during their presidency (rightly or wrongly). So yes the analysis predicts (though hardly a fact) that during her 4 years there would be 10.4 million new net jobs.

So either you want to hold her to different standards than other Presidents, you are purposefully being ignorant or you didn't read the article closely and only picked out the part that you thought proved me wrong.

Her plan is not the current law. It would be accurate to say that 10.4 million new jobs will be created in her first 4 years, according to projections. It's not accurate to say that her plan will create 10.4 million new jobs. 7.2 million of them are the product of someone else's plan.

Donald Trump's plan calls for a new shuttle to be developed, to land on the moon.

DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO PUT A MAN ON THE MOON! Hillary Clinton has no such bold proposals.

 

[pkt77242]

Her plan is not the current law. It would be accurate to say that 10.4 million new jobs will be created in her first 4 years, according to projections. It's not accurate to say that her plan will create 10.4 million new jobs. 7.2 million of them are the product of someone else's plan.

Donald Trump's plan calls for a new shuttle to be developed, to land on the moon.

DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO PUT A MAN ON THE MOON! Hillary Clinton has no such bold proposals.

LOL. You are ridiculous. The President always get credit for all of the jobs created under them (rightly or wrongly), Also I never said that (and even the article states Clintons economy will add 10.4 million which is true), so I find it completely baffling and finally you can't admit when you are wrong and it is laughable.

ETA: Who gives a shit about the Trump part? Why even include that?

 

[GoIrish41]

Her plan is not the current law. It would be accurate to say that 10.4 million new jobs will be created in her first 4 years, according to projections. It's not accurate to say that her plan will create 10.4 million new jobs. 7.2 million of them are the product of someone else's plan.

Donald Trump's plan calls for a new shuttle to be developed, to land on the moon.

DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO PUT A MAN ON THE MOON! Hillary Clinton has no such bold proposals.

We already know we can put a man on the moon. Hillary is trying to get equal pay for women, an end to institutional discrimination, and universal health care -- you know, things that have eluded this country for its entire existence. Oh yeah, and she is calling for a massive renewal of aging infrastructure and working to quell the rapid warming of the planet that will result in world wide calamity. That is not only bold, but it constructive and purposeful. What purpose is there for landing a shuttle on the moon that is greater than pulling families out of poverty or preventing Atlanta from becoming Atlantis?

 

[dshans]

DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO PUT A MAN ON THE MOON!

Yawn.

Been there, done that.

Does he plan on building a casino there? "Why ride a bus when you take a space shuttle?"

A golf course? "Drive the crater the on this yuge 6,000 yard par three with your pitching wedge!"

Has he exhausted all his Earth bound tax havens?

 

[GoIrish41]

Yawn.

Been there, done that.

Does he plan on building a casino there? "Why ride a bus when you take a space shuttle?"

A golf course? "Drive the crater the on this yuge 6,000 yard par three with your pitching wedge!"

Has he exhausted all his Earth bound tax havens?

Can't provide the reps this deserves right now.

 

[EddytoNow]

Here, I'll do what you would do if the roles were reversed:

The Republicans aren't trying to keep people from voting. All they're doing is making a concerted effort to ensure each vote is legal, legitimate, and not compromising the cornerstone of our democratic process.

See what I did there?

And court after court has found against them when they make these claims. I thought Republicans were all about law and order. Well, law and order includes respecting the decisions of our courts, including court decisions that find Republicans are in the wrong on this issue.

 

[EddytoNow]

Her plan is not the current law. It would be accurate to say that 10.4 million new jobs will be created in her first 4 years, according to projections. It's not accurate to say that her plan will create 10.4 million new jobs. 7.2 million of them are the product of someone else's plan.

Donald Trump's plan calls for a new shuttle to be developed, to land on the moon.

DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO PUT A MAN ON THE MOON! Hillary Clinton has no such bold proposals.

A little late with that plan, it was accomplished in 1968. Hillary's plan is a little more down to earth. Sorry, Donald, the country has to pay its bills and can't go bankrupt over and over until they get it right. What worked for you in private business isn't an option for the greatest country in the world.

 

[kmoose]

LOL. You are ridiculous. The President always get credit for all of the jobs created under them (rightly or wrongly), Also I never said that (and even the article states Clintons economy will add 10.4 million which is true), so I find it completely baffling and finally you can't admit when you are wrong and it is laughable.

ETA: Who gives a shit about the Trump part? Why even include that?

I find it hysterical that the Progressive sheep want to claim credit for stuff that HRC isn't really doing, like creating 7.2M jobs, because "the President gets credit, right or wrong".....but it is blasphemous to say that the SecState is responsible for the deaths of US Diplomatic personnel at an inadequately secured facility overseas. Apparently; sheep can have their cake and eat it, too. Who knew?

 

[kmoose]

We already know we can put a man on the moon. Hillary is trying to get equal pay for women, an end to institutional discrimination, and universal health care -- you know, things that have eluded this country for its entire existence. Oh yeah, and she is calling for a massive renewal of aging infrastructure and working to quell the rapid warming of the planet that will result in world wide calamity. That is not only bold, but it constructive and purposeful. What purpose is there for landing a shuttle on the moon that is greater than pulling families out of poverty or preventing Atlanta from becoming Atlantis?

Are you really this blind to sarcasm? I feel sorry for you, man. What a miserable lot in life....

 

[EddytoNow]

OK yeah I was right... he's a Democrat appointed by Obama, who gave a ridiculous ruling with no legal merit. What a shocker.

State to appeal 'bizarre' ruling that allows Michigan straight-ticket voting | MLive.com



There argument was literally "we have a disproportionate amount of sheep, and we want to make it easy and expedient for the herd to vote how we want"... and that somehow held up, because they got it in front of a politically partisan judge who wanted to help Democrats. But only Republicans would play games with voting mechanics...

EDIT: holy shit I'm actually reading a breakdown of his decision...
So this Democrat employee 1) gave a personal opinion with no bearing on any letter of law that Republicans are all racist 2) said he wanted to make sure it was as easy as possible for black people to monolithically vote Democrat...

...but Republicans are the the problem, right Eddy? It couldn't be that both sides play games with voting procedures as fits their political interests?

If you go back to my original argument that the Republicans need to be more inclusive, then efforts directed at limiting the voting of particular voting blocks (Blacks, Hispanics, etc.) are exactly what is preventing them from being more inclusive. I'll grant you that Donald Trump does not represent the entire Republican party with his racist comments, but Donald Trump is not spear-heading these efforts to keep Democratic voting blocks from the polls. That is being done by Republican state legislatures and Republican governors.

If Democrats are trying to limit or hinder the ability of Republicans to vote, I condemn those actions as well. There should be no tolerance for either party's efforts to inhibit people from exercising their constitutional right to vote. But the overwhelming evidence is that this is a concerted Republican effort to minimize the effect of changing demographics that favor the policies of Democrats. The Democrats have no motivation for restricting voting. Smaller turnouts benefit the opposition.

Every American citizen should be encouraged to vote: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, Independent, etc. And obstacles should not be placed in their way. Do you have a problem with every American citizen exercising their voting rights?

The evidence is pretty compelling. Democrats benefit from large voter turnouts. Republicans benefit when turnout is smaller. In presidential election years when the turnout is larger, Democratic candidates do much better. In the off-election years, when the turnout is relatively small, the Republican candidates do much better. Now tell me, who benefits when voting rights are inhibited?

 

[kmoose]

Yawn.

Been there, done that.

Does he plan on building a casino there? "Why ride a bus when you take a space shuttle?"

A golf course? "Drive the crater the on this yuge 6,000 yard par three with your pitching wedge!"

Has he exhausted all his Earth bound tax havens?

He couldn't get the Carpenters Lunar Local #1842 to take the contract. Something about nonpayment to a brother union on Earth. It appears that his reputation precedes him....

 

[pkt77242]

I find it hysterical that the Progressive sheep want to claim credit for stuff that HRC isn't really doing, like creating 7.2M jobs, because "the President gets credit, right or wrong".....but it is blasphemous to say that the SecState is responsible for the deaths of US Diplomatic personnel at an inadequately secured facility overseas. Apparently; sheep can have their cake and eat it, too. Who knew?

You lost the argument and now you are name calling, what are you 4?

 

[ACamp1900]

You lost the argument and now you are name calling, what are you 4?

Sounds like a certain left leaning political party...

 

[kmoose]

You lost the argument and now you are name calling, what are you 4?

Child please. You have done nothing but LOL, whine, and throw out logic that my 7 year old niece could do better than, in this thread.

You're a sheep because you can't stand a single criticism of your party's candidate. A candidate that I doubt you even supported, at the start of the Primary cycle. But because she has a D next to her name, you are going to defend her against every single criticism, real or imaginary. I called you a sheep not because you think I lost an argument. I called you a sheep because you are acting like one. You're defying every single valid criticism of your candidate. But then again, you can find racism in every nook and cranny, too. So maybe my personal bar for you is set too high. I'll lower my expectations to meet your inadequacies. See! I can be a Democrat, too!!!

kmoose = ambidextrous! Wait, that makes me bi........... so any criticism you level at me is just further evidence of your bigoted sexual hate speech!! You are a TERRIBLE person!

Why do you hate puppies?