Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[(poco) Sforzando]

More likely he did prepare, and how! It was only being disingenuous like a kid saying he didn't prepare for a test but got an A anyway. Makes him SEEM smarter.

Didn't SEEM smart to me.

I don't know why he keeps digging his own grave every time he opens his mouth, though...

Duh . . . .

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Oh come on. How do you think Trump is going to behave the second he and a leader of another country don't see eye to eye?

[snipped]

Put that against a woman who has already negotiated international deals, and I know which one seems more likely to me to risk starting a war.

Hillary has an actual track record of promoting death, destruction, and chaos across the greater Middle East and beyond. And she seems to have learned nothing from her many experiences in this area. Just a couple of weeks ago, she was still blustering about "our duty to lead" and so forth. (Which means in plain English, "I'm gonna get us into more wars.")

Trump is grossly inconsistent, but he has made some peace-like noises, of a type I haven't heard from a corporate party candidate in ages. Beyond that, his main interests in life are making money, aggrandizing himself, and generally living the good life. The nuclear destruction of the world would seriously impinge on his hedonism, which is why I think he would show some caution in this area.

[drogulus]

     

Hillary has an actual track record of promoting death, destruction, and chaos across the greater Middle East and beyond. And she seems to have learned nothing from her many experiences in this area. Just a couple of weeks ago, she was still blustering about "our duty to lead" and so forth. (Which means in plain English, "I'm gonna get us into more wars.")

     She's not much of a peacemonger, I'll give you that. My concern is more with the war we're in than "more wars" which are the same one. Our enemy respects borders less our policy does, a point King Abdullah made on 60 Minutes. We see wars divided up by national boundaries, the people fighting us don't. Fighting this war is indistinguishable from "more wars". There will be "more war" and "more wars" in this one. We can choose to stop if you think that's wise. I don't see how we can choose our enemies to stop, though.

[PerfectWagnerite]

As much as I am not a Trump fan I have to admit these debates are setting him up to fail. He is a business man, going into a DEBATE with someone who has spent a lifetime in politics, someone used to talking in front of audiences and debating issues, someone with a law degree from YALE. I just don't see how he comes out ahead.

[Karl Henning]

As much as I am not a Trump fan I have to admit these debates are setting him up to fail. He is a business man, going into a DEBATE with someone who has spent a lifetime in politics, someone used to talking in front of audiences and debating issues, someone with a law degree from YALE. I just don't see how he comes out ahead.

He tweets that he has won!

[(poco) Sforzando]

As much as I am not a Trump fan I have to admit these debates are setting him up to fail. He is a business man, going into a DEBATE with someone who has spent a lifetime in politics, someone used to talking in front of audiences and debating issues, someone with a law degree from YALE. I just don't see how he comes out ahead.

That's a pretty piss-poor excuse, equivalent to saying, "I want this job but I'm not qualified to take the necessary steps to get it!"

Whining: "It's all so unfair. The mike didn't work. They didn't ask fair questions. She kept interrupting me. Oh wait, I kept interrupting her."

[Karl Henning]

They made me debate!  And I won!  But the system is rigged!

No matter his ultimate motivation for questioning a Clinton victory — whether he really believes that's what will happen, or because he thinks it's a good marketing strategy for securing fans' loyalty — he is (once again) idly jackhammering at the bedrock of democracy: the willingness to accept when your opponent has won.

[André]

Julian Assange promises Wikileaks revelations before Nov. 8. The man holds a massive grudge against the Obama administration and then Secretary of State Clinton.

[drogulus]

     In new blow to campaign, Trump's foundation ordered to halt fundraising

     The order followed a series of reports in The Washington Post that suggested improprieties by the foundation, including using its funds to settle legal disputes involving Trump businesses.

"The failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports required under Article 7-A with the Charities Bureau shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York," according to a letter dated on Friday that the office posted online on Monday.

     

     Is Trump getting the Clinton scandal treatment from a Dem AG, or is this a legitimate charge? First, we have to understand that Clinton scandals are far more likely to come from the media or partisan committee investigations, not from AGs. The standards are (heh!) different. An AG, regardless of party affiliation, that brings phoney charges can face prosecution, even in Red States! Where are the AGs in Clinton scandals? Are there no Repub AGs? Will no one rid me of this Hildebeast?

[PerfectWagnerite]

How much should I trust this site? Or is it another site run by the left ?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[North Star]

How much should I trust this site?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

The track record is rather impressive so far.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9662363/Nate-Silver-politics-geek-hailed-for-Barack-Obama-wins-US-election-forecast.html

[Karl Henning]

How much should I trust this site? Or is it another site run by the left ?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

My impression (FWIW) is that it is more reputable and diligent than another site run by the left.  (I appreciate your hesitancy, though;  I still cannot bring myself really to rely on the Huffington Post, e.g.    )

[PerfectWagnerite]

The track record is rather impressive so far.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9662363/Nate-Silver-politics-geek-hailed-for-Barack-Obama-wins-US-election-forecast.html

Hmmm, so Trump is basically screwed unless he has some magic bullets left.

[drogulus]

    I rate polls by the success of their methods over time. Track record is all for me. I don't give a shit if the poll is sponsored by the Daily Worker or Lesbian Stormtroopers from the 25th.Century.

[Karl Henning]

Hmmm, so Trump is basically screwed unless he has some magic bullets left.

Even if the GOP had nominated someone less loony, the electoral map would have been a challenge.  El Tupé has self-destructively made the challenge steeper.  That said, the margins in many states are too narrow for Clinton to be anything like complacent, and she is working hard.

[Karl Henning]

If El Tupé makes a great success of the second debate, we're back to biting nails, maybe.  Or, Clinton could inch closer to packing it away.

[Karl Henning]

The best new Senate race gaffe is about whether [El Tupé] is a good role model for children

[PerfectWagnerite]

Even if the GOP had nominated someone less loony, the electoral map would have been a challenge. 

Loony would be an understatement - a crazy man, couple of pliers short of a tool set would be more like it.

[Parsifal]

As much as I am not a Trump fan I have to admit these debates are setting him up to fail. He is a business man, going into a DEBATE with someone who has spent a lifetime in politics, someone used to talking in front of audiences and debating issues, someone with a law degree from YALE. I just don't see how he comes out ahead.

Maybe having no experience in government would make him incompetent to govern, not just incompetent to participate in the debates.

As far as his business acumen, the NYTimes had an interesting article about his experience in the 1980's and 1990's. Apparently when he was on the verge of personal bankruptcy his father did things like send lawyers to the Trump Casinos to buy millions of dollars worth of gambling chips and not cash them in. 

[kishnevi]

Huh?  The Clinton Foundation is a charity which gets an A rating from independent watchdog groups because of the high fraction of the money collected that goes directly to relief.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

The problem is not the outflow (although there are some questions there as to who actually recieves the money) but the inflow.

People donated to the Foundation who had direct sizeable interests in what she decided.  And she knew who they were.