U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Sponsored by Betty Croker's Hamburger Helper)

[ItalAussie]

I think you might need to just calm down a little.

[John Arne]

So Seb... I mean, Mert is having breakdown.

[Byron]

Aww, is the little rich boy having a meltdown?

Eat a Snickers Mert, or ten as that about seems to be your level.

[John]

Democrats do the exact same shit. Welcome to politics. Why can't Democrats put aside their political differences and take the loss for the greater good? It goes both ways as difficult as that is to comprehend for someone consumed by their own dazzling lack of perspective and awareness.

:D

I love the disconnect between these two sentences. The Democrats are the bigger shits for not passing a bill to fight a disease which affects unborn babies in horrible ways after the Republicans attached a rider which would effectively increase the number of unborn babies at risk in the meantime, and Ital is the one with a lack of perspective. Top stuff, Mert. Really.


He's 100% going to win, as I've been saying for months now. You don't know America.

The reverse here is that if he doesn't win, you don't know America. I'll take that trade.

[Bernanke]

So Gary Johnson just tanked his campaign:

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/773851435477762048

[Bartholomert]

:D

I love the disconnect between these two sentences. The Democrats are the bigger shits for not passing a bill to fight a disease which affects unborn babies in horrible ways after the Republicans attached a rider which would effectively increase the number of unborn babies at risk in the meantime, and Ital is the one with a lack of perspective. Top stuff, Mert. Really.



The reverse here is that if he doesn't win, you don't know America. I'll take that trade.

They are equally shitty, with the only difference being that the Republicans actually have a mandate to govern because they control the House and Senate.

[Bartholomert]

I think you might need to just calm down a little.

Lol pussy, I just insulted your entire self worth and that's the best you could come up with? Truth hurts I guess.

[Mazuuurk]

Mert you are the reason for the collapse of western civilization

[John]

They are equally shitty, with the only difference being that the Republicans actually have a mandate to govern because they control the House and Senate.

They're not equally shitty. If I want to give you some cake but the bakery man will only sell me the cake if I give him my eyes and legs, so you get no cake, who's the bigger arsehole? Me for not 'taking the hit' so you can have cake, or the bakery man who's attached irrelevant and unreasonable demands to what should be a universally agreeable and nice thing?

[Bartholomert]

They're not equally shitty. If I want to give you some cake but the bakery man will only sell me the cake if I give him my eyes and legs, so you get no cake, who's the bigger arsehole? Me for not 'taking the hit' so you can have cake, or the bakery man who's attached irrelevant and unreasonable demands to what should be a universally agreeable and nice thing?

If your child is starving and the baker will only give you bread if in return you have to pay a somewhat inflated but still very much affordable price for the bread, and then you refuse to pay it out of principle, you're just as much of an asshole as the baker who is using his justified leverage in the situation to make a larger profit.

See I can make metaphors too.

[Bartholomert]

Mert you are the reason for the collapse of western civilization

Yep because holding people accountable for their actions and telling the Truth is the issue in the West :rolleyes:

Ital has been exposed many times in this thread for being absolutely ignorant on the issues and yet still persists in his delusional tone of haughty authority and faux impartiality. He deserves to be called out every time he spews his nonsensical partisan bile.

[phonics]

:D

What a baby.

[7om]

Saw an interesting graphic on the news the other day, and it was polling results of Caucasian university students in swing states. They were also comparing the polls to what Romney did in 2012 and Trump is getting crushed apparently.

I've heard so many people say that they'll vote Trump because Hilary is just god awful and that's in a strong democrat state.

Can't wait for election night, personally. So many people are riled up so the fallout either way should be great viewing.

[Bartholomert]

:D

What a baby.

I know you're incapable of engaging in substantive discussion due to your severely limited intelligence, that must be tough, I'm sorry.

[John Arne]

Ital v Mert. Loser leaves the board.

[niko_cee]

I've always found the scuppering of the lifesaving treatment for babies act by tacking on riders like free stuff for nonces to be a fascinating feature of the American political system. I don't really understand the mechanics of how it happens, but does it really happen anywhere else? I assume there must be some kind of threshold to be able to do it, or you'd just have some lone crank ruining every piece of legislation ever brought in front of Congress.

[mugbull]

It's party politics. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often elsewhere, trying to shoehorn the entire opposition party platform into any old bill. Who would stop them?

[Disco]

If the only way you can get your shit enacted into law is to tack it onto something so important it just has to pass that doesn't say much about the quality of your legislation. Doubly so if you have a majority.

[Boydy]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/09/watch-donald-trump-s-terrifying-response-when-asked-about-cybersecurity


When asked about the threat of cyberterrorism, Trump responded with such excellent insights as “the cyber is so big”. Gulp.

“Well that’s it, and, you know cyber is becoming so big today. It’s becoming something that a number of years ago, a short number of years ago, wasn’t even a word. And now the cyber is so big. And, you know, you look at what they’re doing with the internet, how they’re taking recruiting people through the internet. And part of it is the psychology because so many people think they’re winning. And, you know, there’s a whole big thing. Even today’s psychology, where CNN came out with a big poll, their big poll came out today that Trump is winning. It’s good psychology.”

:lol:

[Lewis]

So Gary Johnson just tanked his campaign:

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/773851435477762048

He always looks/sounds away with the fairies, but his answer was better than what you usually hear (plus the bloke did pronounce it 'a leppo').

[John]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/09/watch-donald-trump-s-terrifying-response-when-asked-about-cybersecurity



:lol:

He just fucking rambles. It's great fun.

[Spoonsky]

He always looks/sounds away with the fairies, but his answer was better than what you usually hear (plus the bloke did pronounce it 'a leppo').

How do you pronounce it?

[John]

If your child is starving and the baker will only give you bread if in return you have to pay a somewhat inflated but still very much affordable price for the bread, and then you refuse to pay it out of principle, you're just as much of an asshole as the baker who is using his justified leverage in the situation to make a larger profit.

See I can make metaphors too.

You really can't.

[GS]

...the President is always largely a figurehead, it's his broad platform that receives a mandate from the people.

What planet do you live on where democracy doesn't work exactly how I just described it anyways?

Right, well if that's the case then why do your mob hate Obama so much? He's just a figurehead, after all.


He's 100% going to win, as I've been saying for months now. You don't know America.

Neither do you.

[bruhnaldo]

Right, well if that's the case then why do your mob hate Obama so much? He's just a figurehead, after all.

Don't blanket all people under mert. Ask mert questions about mert's opinions. mert does not speak for me.

[John]

By the way if the Republicans want to defund 'Planned Parenthood' and control both the House and the Senate, why don't they just introduce a bill to do so?

[Lewis]

How do you pronounce it?

I would say 'Ah-leppo', like how we (correctly) say 'Ah-dolf' instead of A-dolf', but I've no idea what it should be.

[Bartholomert]

You really can't.

Your metaphor doesn't work.

See I can just make pointless statements too.

[Bartholomert]

By the way if the Republicans want to defund 'Planned Parenthood' and control both the House and the Senate, why don't they just introduce a bill to do so?

It would be vetoed by Obama.

[Bartholomert]

Right, well if that's the case then why do your mob hate Obama so much? He's just a figurehead, after all.
.

Because Obama appoints his advisors.

[John]

It would be vetoed by Obama.

How common are Presidential vetoes?


Because Obama appoints his advisors.

Has Trump made any changes to that economic advisory panel he put together with no economists on it?

[mugbull]

Trump must be to Putin what Gorbachev was to us, except unwittingly so. Not that I think there is destined to be some eternal struggle with the Ruskies that defines the global order, but it would be nice to keep politicking and not jizz all over their establishment.

[GS]

Because Obama appoints his advisors.

Beyond parody.

[Shindig]

Election Night shall be henceforth known as Mert Watch.

[mikem]

I've always found the scuppering of the lifesaving treatment for babies act by tacking on riders like free stuff for nonces to be a fascinating feature of the American political system. I don't really understand the mechanics of how it happens, but does it really happen anywhere else? I assume there must be some kind of threshold to be able to do it, or you'd just have some lone crank ruining every piece of legislation ever brought in front of Congress.

It has always been prevalent. In the Senate the threshold has nearly always been individual but it was primarily used to get things for your district by burying it in an appropriations bill. When Gingrich flipped running for parliamentary reelection by what have you done for party instead of district the process became weaponized. Really, this election shows the strains of the 20 odd years of Clinton / Gingrich taking over their respective parties. It has been a long cycle and hopefully the parties have to evolve.

[ItalAussie]

Lol pussy, I just insulted your entire self worth and that's the best you could come up with? Truth hurts I guess.
You did a perfectly good job of making yourself look ragged without me piling on. Your statement said nothing about me, but a great deal about you.

I didn't feel the need to add anything, because you shot yourself so perfectly in the foot; that you don't seem to have noticed is largely immaterial.

[John Arne]

Have I just heard this correctly? Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president in US history, and also immigration has pretty much dropped year-on-year since he got in power? I had a quick Google, however, it seems to be a semantic clusterfuck.

[Bartholomert]

Yeah that's not true

[John Arne]

I can't actually find decent/hard figures. I have found this;



According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.


This article suggests that it is simply down to classification terms https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/, and can be spun either way.

[Mazuuurk]

Mert man up, why are you being such a pussy? Why are you letting your bitch control you, maggot?

[Bernanke]

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-09/8/11/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane02/sub-buzz-3366-1473350189-1.png?no-auto

:drool:

[Mazuuurk]

If only Taz was here :drool:

[Lewis]

lol at #Parkinsons trending. The state of this election.

[GS]

It's grim, isn't it.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The bigger shame is how obsessed everyone here is with it (especially our political types, who should be looking at Europe). Let the yanks yank.

[GS]

There are serious articles suggesting she might have to drop out.

Sound the conspiracy theory klaxon.

775019893817303040

[Lewis]

You can't really base your campaign on temperament if you're liable to piss yourself if a meeting goes over two hours. Plus the mere notion of concealing major health issues hardly does their reputation for absolute dishonesty any favours. Either way, they need to address it.

[Shindig]

Play it up for the sympathy vote.

[GS]

They've said she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.

Presumably that explanation will be rejected by various armchair medical experts in the coming days.

[Pepe]

Bernie's comeback. :drool:

[GS]

It'd be Kaine or Biden. Bernie wouldn't get near it.

Still, Clinton is never, ever stepping down so it's all moot.

[Raoul Duke]

It's 100% some kind of Trump/Putin viral weapon. Or she's got a cold.

[Bernanke]

President Tim Kaine. :drool:

[Shindig]

Hinckley's back out. Get me Jodie Foster.

[John Arne]

How common are Presidential vetoes?



I'm a bit late on this - but it reminded me of something I had earlier read.

Although some bills later return to be signed into law, as a general overview, Obama has the least Vetoes since Harding in the 1920's.

https://gyazo.com/ebec30e7de5af00018764ec58a364e82.png

http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

edit: Is their a way to resize an image from Gyazo?

[Spoonsky]

The bigger shame is how obsessed everyone here is with it (especially our political types, who should be looking at Europe). Let the yanks yank.

Agreed, it truly mystifies me. I try my hardest to ignore it and you all are loving it. I guess it's more distressing when it's your own country (I was loving Brexit on the night as well).

[Vim]

Clinton's now taken to her website to declare that Pepe the frog is a white supremacist meme.

[Bernanke]

The fact that it's on her website. :roflol:

[niko_cee]

Jesus, that article.

:face:

I also like the fact that her website has that 'we can't risk a Trump presidency' pop-up, with only the option to agree. 'X' that one.

[Kikó]

What about Hillary's piss bag?
https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/hillary-clintons-catheter-are-these-photos-proof-that-hillary-is-using-catheter/

[Spoonsky]

Her website is a disgrace. 112 reasons (and counting!) Hillary Clinton should be our next president. I've not made that up either. She's running for President and her website is Buzzfeed.

[Pepe]

Got to get those millennials voting somehow! Nobody understands them!

[GS]

Whilst I find the whole American political scene contemptible, I've no doubt that there are some very clever people involved in her campaign who know what they're doing. They've presumably deduced that the people they need to reach are younger, more liberal and thus far more likely to be appealed to by Buzzfeed-style clickbait than reasoned debate.

[Spoonsky]

Nope. Bernie, a 73 year old white man, won the yoof 85-15, and that's partly because Hillary's attempts to pander to them with Buzzfeed-style articles come off as fucking condescending and pathetic (because they are). In fact it's exactly that deduction (the people they need to reach are younger, more liberal and thus far more likely to be appealed to by Buzzfeed-style clickbait than reasoned debate) which fucks people like me right off.

Of the people I know, the ones over 50 are approximately ten times as positive about her as people my age.

[GS]

Yes, but you're someone who is reasonably engaged in politics and will vote anyway. Most youth aren't. I can't speak for America, but youth turnout in the UK is routinely shit. Engaging them will be a key component of the Democratic campaign, largely because they should be a reliable voting bloc.

I'd note also that you shouldn't really compare the Democratic selectorate with the wider national electorate. Bernie did well with a sub-section of enthused Democratic voters, but you're not winning if they're the only people who bother.

[Lewis]

Her website is a disgrace. 112 reasons (and counting!) Hillary Clinton should be our next president. I've not made that up either. She's running for President and her website is Buzzfeed.

Everything is BuzzFeed.

[mikem]

Every generation and political demographic is the same. Remember Bernie not doing well with minority voters because he refused to reach out to them on their terms. Oh goodness, how come they all vote against their self interest! Why don't they understand what's best for them.

Politicians lose because they forget that rule 1 of big tent politics is get everyone in the fucking tent.

[bruhnaldo]

It's to the point I think I'm literally going to just write in Kanye West and be done with it when I go to the poll.

[Bartholomert]

Trump +4 Ohio; +2 Nevada; +2 Colorado; +4 Florida; +5 LATimes.

Trump is winning right now. You mad liberals?

[Spoonsky]

Trump +4 Ohio; +2 Nevada; +2 Colorado; +4 Florida; +5 LATimes.

Trump is winning right now. You mad liberals?

I don't like to be a sore winner but I'm afraid I'll have to be a massive gloating dick to you in your darkest hour if Clinton wins.

Anyways, polls aren't a problem but Hillary pissing herself might be.

[phonics]

Donald Trump on his black outreach tour

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs5lKIfXgAAm_On.jpg:large

:facepalm:

[Lewis]

This (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rfk-trump-2016-democratic-party-speechwriter-214270) is good, and basically what I think about them both.

[Pepe]

I can agree on the Democrat side, but he (and you I guess) must be havin' a lol on the Trump side.


And yet it is his independence, his willingness to name facts however unpleasant


Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politician of our day.

Seriously?

[Lewis]

Well, yeah; but the war stuff is about right.

[Pepe]

Even the war stuff, all we really know is that Trump likes Putin or something. He is happy to criticize China all day long, so I'm not sure where the peace with China thing comes from. Then there's the whole killing terrorists' family etc., which I'm sure bodes well for world peace. Fuck the current war-loving democratic lot, that I can agree with.

'Trump, Trump, Trump!'

[GS]

The west in general has long been far too bent on intervention in shit countries because a) they can and b) it makes them look important. I'm fully on board leaving these countries to achieve regional-led solutions.

[Spoonsky]

This (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rfk-trump-2016-democratic-party-speechwriter-214270) is good, and basically what I think about them both.

I don't know why Trump doesn't push foreign policy more (or maybe he does, I'm just trying to block it all out). Sure, she knows about a thousand times as much as he does, but he can lol any comparisons off by pointing out what a disaster she was as secretary of state, and anti-interventionism will appeal to a lot of borderline liberals and libertarians.

[ItalAussie]

Trump doesn't get to claim any high ground on interventionism when he plans to "massively expand the military".

The day a candidate comes up and says they're going to contract the military because they won't be using it overseas, then they can be considered credible. Otherwise it's just pandering to a base who still want big guns/war-penises, but don't like the fact that some of the latest misadventures didn't go so good, because it hits them right in the patriotism.

[GS]

Having a strong national defence isn't the same as sending it across the globe to bomb people because you've espied an opportunity to impose liberal democracy on other people.

[Lewis]

You could hold a series of rallies on blowing the Moon up for a laugh and still claim the high-ground on interventionism against anybody involved with the last five years of American foreign policy.

[ItalAussie]

Having a strong national defence isn't the same as sending it across the globe to bomb people because you've espied an opportunity to impose liberal democracy on other people.

America's military isn't just "strong". It spends as much on defence as the next seven countries combined, and has for a long enough time to build up massive reserves. Unless the whole world attacks America tomorrow, they have plenty enough for self-defence.

The whole point of non-intervention is to discourage wasteful spending on the military, surely. Claiming to be non-interventionist (and that's giving Trump way more credit than he deserves for consistency in political positions) and then also claiming a dramatic military expansion is defeating the entire purpose. It's trying to play two mutually-inconsistent sides of the Republican base (angry and confused because Iraq/Afghanistan weren't the slam dunk wins their nationalism demanded, while also sporting a raging erection for the military, guns, soldiers, and apple pie). It's not consistent political philosophy - it's pandering.

[Shindig]

At some point its not self-defence, is it? Its about the corporate interest.

[GS]

America spends the money it does because a) it's been acting as the world's policeman since about 1941 b) its military power gives strong credibility to its foreign policy decisions and thus needs to be maintained c) it's basically propping up the entire NATO defence structure in Europe and d) it's actively engaged in other theatres e.g. Korea.

It's not a case of national self-defence for the Americans. They're effectively maintaining a global deterrence, particularly in south-east Asia (engagement in South Korea and Japan), eastern Europe (NATO) and the Middle East (although probably using Israel as a conduit). You can question whether that's worth their time or not, but American withdrawal from these theatres would immediately embolden some right wankers. Armies are needed, and armies cost a lot of money.

[ItalAussie]

This is the most petty, pedantic point ever, but Korea and Japan are nowhere near South-East Asia.

I agree that the US has a number of military roles which it really needs to keep up, for the sake of all our stability. You list Korea/Japan, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Trump has, of course, explicitly stated that he wants to withdraw from all three of those roles.

It's possible to have a coherent non-interventionist policy, and perhaps even one that won't reduce the need for military spending. Trump doesn't, because his positions are incoherent, reactionary, and largely philosophically unrelated.

[Lewis]

You don't have to be a non-interventionist (like Ron Paul) to correctly position yourself against the on-going Syrian idiocy.

[GS]

This is the most petty, pedantic point ever, but Korea and Japan are nowhere near South-East Asia.

I agree that the US has a number of military roles which it really needs to keep up, for the sake of all our stability. You list Korea/Japan, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Trump has, of course, explicitly stated that he wants to withdraw from all three of those roles.

It's possible to have a coherent non-interventionist policy, and perhaps even one that won't reduce the need for military spending. Trump doesn't, because his positions are incoherent, reactionary, and largely philosophically unrelated.

It wouldn't be like you to be petty - let's call them east Asia instead lest you seethe yourself senseless. Not that it alters the fundamental point, which is that the Americans have to spend a shit load of money and if they're spending as much as the next seven countries combined then fucking good.

You won't find me agreeing with Trump's views on NATO and the like, but we need to move away from the idea that a strong military and a high defence spend is somehow code for nationalist dick-waving.

[mikem]

Wait, what?

That article is so bemusing. When did the Kennedys stop being the architects of Vietnam? Or when did we start believing the isolationists who have no clue what is happening in the world? They always stay non-interventionist.

[ItalAussie]

It wouldn't be like you to be petty - let's call them east Asia instead lest you seethe yourself senseless. Not that it alters the fundamental point, which is that the Americans have to spend a shit load of money and if they're spending as much as the next seven countries combined then fucking good. Easy there, tiger. It was light-hearted.


You won't find me agreeing with Trump's views on NATO and the like, but we need to move away from the idea that a strong military and a high defence spend is somehow code for nationalist dick-waving.If you're expanding for expansion's sake, rather than having an actual reason for doing it, it's dick-waving. Given that Trump is essentially talking about reducing US military activities, he clearly doesn't have a plan that desperately needs more troops. It's dick-waving.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Korea is on the same latitude as Tunisia, and yet it goes down to minus 30 in winter. Not many people know that. But I do.

[Spoonsky]

The whole point of non-intervention is to discourage wasteful spending on the military, surely.

I don't really think that's true. Americans at large don't really take issue with the amount we spend on the military. What they do take issue with is the utter clusterfuck we've made of the Middle East in recent times - and, particularly, the extremism which has been produced thereof. ISIS was more or less created in an American prison. It doesn't really matter whatever else Trump says, about expanding the military or withdrawing from China, because he's never had and never will have a cohesive political philosophy; what matters is that, on the point of foreign policy in the Middle East, he's better than Clinton.

[ItalAussie]

Korea is on the same latitude as Tunisia, and yet it goes down to minus 30 in winter. Not many people know that. But I do.

I'm always surprised at how far north Europe is.

[elth]

Korea is on the same latitude as Tunisia, and yet it goes down to minus 30 in winter. Not many people know that. But I do.

TIL.

I've always liked that the UK is as far north as Alaska and Siberia.

[GS]

Easy there, tiger. It was light-hearted.

If you're expanding for expansion's sake, rather than having an actual reason for doing it, it's dick-waving. Given that Trump is essentially talking about reducing US military activities, he clearly doesn't have a plan that desperately needs more troops. It's dick-waving.

I'm talking about the concept generally - more investment in the military and ensuring a strong national defence doesn't mean you have to have a penchant for sending them all over the world, nor that you're appealing to some sort of primitive patriotism tied up in military strength.

Trump is clearly not a serious thinker on these issues, so I won't bother considering his scattergun 'policies'.

[McAvennie]

Isn't this just the equivalent of massive infrastructure investment, but instead of roads and railways, it's aircraft carriers and big missiles.

It's genius really, economic stimulus, reduced foreign policy impact and making the punters feel more secure behind their walls all wrapped up in one line of the stump speech.

[Spoonsky]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/09/22/daily-202-hillary-clinton-is-taking-the-black-vote-for-granted-says-america-s-first-elected-black-governor/57e30625e9b69b3019a1e031/

Quite right.

[Lewis]

'Hillary' speaking to trade unionists via video link like a senile grandmother (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EyoKB3ZHSc) is pretty lol.

[Bernanke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4bmJmeNux4&feature=youtu.be

*airhorn*

These Vic Berger-vids are the best thing about the election.

[Lewis]

Ted Cruz has BOTTLED IT. Does that make 'Jeb' the principled one?

[Shindig]

So 'The Face of VR' Palmer Luckey chucked some money towards some right-wing meme site and then allegedly went all 1% on reddit. At one time he was listed as their vice president.

I miss the days when bullying was something you physically had to do. And now I know where mert gets his material from.

[Lewis]

Sky are using their penalty camera angle, presumably to get the best view of 'Hillary' when she collapses.

[Lewis]

He isn't even complete crap. Unbelievable, George.

[Spoonsky]

Trump rolls out with "No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your whole adult life" and she responds to go to her website.

:face:

[Lewis]

If he keeps this up for another hour then he deserves to win.

[Lewis]

He's basically talking to himself. This is ace.

[Spoonsky]

She still doesn't get that she can't let it be a referendum about Trump. Everyone who will be put off by Trump already has been; she's got to offer something to the people (probably the majority) who think they're both terrible.

[Spoonsky]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/780579923295600640

The leader of the free world will soon be... the Saint.

[Lewis]

I reckon he has won this quite easily so far. There has obviously been a bit of bollocks, but he hasn't shown himself up, and all of her scripted lines have been shit.

[Lewis]

Which I say as he ballses up his birth certificate answer.

[Spoonsky]

Clinton's been better this past half, but I think the media consensus will be that Trump's won. Luckily, the media consensus seems to mean absolutely fuck all this election so who knows what it means.

[Spoonsky]

Turned around there, I thought, Trump sort of reverted to his mean. I'd call it a score draw with penalties to Clinton but, again, I really have no idea how it will have gone down with the AMERICAN PEOPLE so who the fuck knows.

[Spoonsky]

And the media will give it to Clinton.

[Spoonsky]

Twitter dragged this one up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmKpA30Xeo

Stone-cold killer. :drool: Term limits are for cucks.

[ItalAussie]

Early debate results are a swing to Clinton in the election odds.

The biggest single hit to either candidate on the night was Trump's rambling, unfocused response to the nuclear weapon question. Clinton's (obviously prepared, but well-delivered) response really hammered it home. There's a good chance that either that or the "temperament" laughter are going to be the big takeaways from the debate.

538 noticed that Clinton managed to pick up and correct several Trump falsehoods without using the phrase "lie" or "liar". That doubles as helping her seem more likeable. It's an awful double-standard that she needs to do it, but she did, and it was clearly pre-mediated. They also reckon she should have gone in harder on the birth certificate stuff, but I'm not sure I agree with that. You don't need to do anything to make that sound sillier than it was, and nobody's forgotten that it happened.

Clinton needs to follow up with something more concrete, but it's a decent part one of three. I mean, we all essentially know that her policy is "more of the same please and thank you", but she at least needs to sound a little bit proactive. That said, both candidates must have noticed that whoever gets the most media in a given week loses ground in the polls. It must be a weird situation to manage.


EDIT: 538 on the outcome



As the debate winds down, I’d like to go back to the question from earlier — who’s the audience for this debate?

Given the unfavorable ratings for both candidates, it seems like one important audience is the type of voter who would like to vote for a major-party candidate but who doesn’t like Trump or Clinton. My sense is that this probably matters more for Trump than for Clinton. She’s a more conventional candidate, and we all know that there are a bunch of ways in which Trump is not — support from some party leaders has been hesitant (or nonexistent), and his policy positions, his history and his path to nomination have all been unusual.

By this measure, Trump did pretty well. He interrupted a lot and made lots of statements that his opponents won’t like, but he didn’t do anything outrageous or different from what he’s done in the past. His statements were fluid. There was no steak salesmanship. It’s probably too early to say, but for a voter who doesn’t want to stay home or vote for a party they don’t normally support, this seems like the kind of performance that would allow you to pull the “R” lever.



My editor tells me that readers want my subjective impressions of the debate, knowing full well that they’re subjective. And my impressions are that Clinton became a more plausible president tonight and Trump became a less plausible one.

Can't really argue with either of those conclusions. Sad that the bar for Trump is so low, mind.

[ItalAussie]

The peso strengthened over the course of the debate. :D

EDIT: Trump sounding off about Bill's affair in the spin room. Classy stuff.
EDIT II: Or more precisely, not sounding off. The good old "I could talk about [DETAILS ABOUT THE THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT], but I won't". A Trump special.

[elth]

Trump's theme is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it" so you'd have to say this debate was perfectly on message today.

Not going to remotely bother any of his support.

[phonics]

'The cyber' has to be my favourite Trump meme of the election so far. I thought it was good the other day but claiming his 10 year old was on his way to being Anonymous with his 1337 skills was top, top stuff.

Although pretty much inferring that he hasn't paid federal tax the last few years has to be high up there.

P.S.

http://i.giphy.com/11ziErSEWbAlXi.gif

[Pepe]

That was spectacularly boring. I was at least expecting some lulz but even those failed to arrive.

[Kikó]

I feel that way reading most of Phonics posts tbh.

[phonics]

That hurt.

[John Arne]

That hurt.

God... you sound just like your mum.

[Vim]

It was quite boring, I was expecting a bit more energy from Trump. Clinton did what she had to do, it's hard to watch her call out anyone on honesty given her record though. It's also hard to watch him deciding which of the ridiculous statements he's made in the past he wants to stick to and which he wants to backtrack on.

[mugbull]

She's such an unconvincing speaker and so unfunny too. Reptilian tier for sure.

[niko_cee]

Then deal me in!

:sick:

[Bartholomert]

Trump was underwhelming and missed a lot of opportunities, but overall he was what his supporters wanted him to be: Trump. Clinton I thought did well and was as boringly poised, full of platitudes and focus group tested double speak as always.

Hillary probably edged it, but I don't think undecideds are looking for debate skills so maybe on the whole neutral to slightly in favor of Trump in the grand scheme of the election.

Of course the establishment media will fall over themselves declaring Hillary the winner, but nobody listens to them anyways.

[Magic]

Just seen some polls and Trump owned it according to MURICANS.

He's going to fucking walk it, isn't he.

[Bernanke]

Just seen some polls and Trump owned it according to MURICANS.

He's going to fucking walk it, isn't he.

Did they happen to be online polls?

[John]

I haven't watched the debate yet, but there was an air of West Wing 'if the thing is that he can't tie his shoes and it turns out he can, that's the ball game' in the build up to it so presumably by not saying 'nigger' or throwing his glass of water at Hillary, Trump will have won in the eyes of many.

[Magic]

Did they happen to be online polls?

Yeah why?

[Pepe]

Lol at the concept of 'winning the debate.'

[Raoul Duke]

From what I've seen so far, who 'won' depends on the editorial slant of the source you're reading

[Magic]

Americans are generally even more stupid than us (see BREXIT) and their number one reaction to difficult questions (ala Brian Cox paradox theory this morning) is to completely regress and look to some fucking stupid shouty cunt that offers simple answers that to the enlightened will make everything worse. Humankind is doomed.

[Pepe]

I'm sure whoever supports Trump will still support Trump, same for 'Hillary.' Those who haven't decided yet don't watch debates.

[Jimmy Floyd]

From initially thinking he was the worst candidate ever (which he is), I now really strongly want Trump to win. It doesn't matter to me what happens in America, so I'll go for the most entertaining option.

[Shindig]

Trump sacked after two months to be replaced by Gareth Southgate.

[Pepe]

From initially thinking he was the worst candidate ever (which he is), I now really strongly want Trump to win. It doesn't matter to me what happens in America, so I'll go for the most entertaining option.

Exactly.

[Lewis]

Americans are generally even more stupid than us (see BREXIT) and their number one reaction to difficult questions (ala Brian Cox paradox theory this morning) is to completely regress and look to some fucking stupid shouty cunt that offers simple answers that to the enlightened will make everything worse. Humankind is doomed.

That sounds like your marriage.

[Spoonsky]

I'm sure whoever supports Trump will still support Trump, same for 'Hillary.' Those who haven't decided yet don't watch debates.

Stunning insight.

[Lofty]

From initially thinking he was the worst candidate ever (which he is), I now really strongly want Trump to win. It doesn't matter to me what happens in America, so I'll go for the most entertaining option.

What if he starts WW3 and this time next year we're all conscripts digging in for a hellish winter in the Russian hinterlands?

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtY4NPxUkAA1vj1.jpg:large

:facepalm:

http://imgur.com/FDegQvc.png

:facepalm: :facepalm:

http://imgur.com/eT7lOHs.png

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

[Pepe]

Stunning insight.

So who won? What are the polls saying?

[elth]

Only half decent poll so far post debate has Clinton ahead by 3 points in a 4 way race, vs. Trump being ahead by 1 pre-debate.

[Spoonsky]

So who won? What are the polls saying?

You're suggesting that the debate is pointless and won't change anything. It was the most-watched debate ever, and 38% (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/09/26/debates-will-influence-third-voters.html) of voters say that the debate will influence their decision, so -- you're wrong.

[Pepe]

You're suggesting that the debate is pointless and won't change anything.

Not exactly what I said but I will say it now: That debate was pointless and won't change anything.


It was the most-watched debate ever

When you have a clown as one of the protagonists, people will come to watch the show.


38% (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/09/26/debates-will-influence-third-voters.html) of voters say that the debate will influence their decision, so -- you're wrong.

'Influence their decision.' Not sure we could get much more vague than that. There is fuck all chance that 38% of the people who will show up to vote are still undecided. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

Now, I am not saying that debates are pointless, but that one most certainly was.

[Spoonsky]

Not exactly what I said but I will say it now: That debate was pointless and won't change anything.

When you have a clown as one of the protagonists, people will come to watch the show.

But, but... you said...


Those who haven't decided yet don't watch debates.

Anyways.


'Influence their decision.' Not sure we could get much more vague than that. There is fuck all chance that 38% of the people who will show up to vote are still undecided. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

Now, I am not saying that debates are pointless, but that one most certainly was.

According to the article, "about 11% of voters are considered "debate persuadables" -- that is, they think the debates are important and are either third-party voters or only loosely committed to either major-party candidate." It won't decide the election but it will certainly have an impact.

[Pepe]

Well, if the article says so...

In a world where the candidates are covered 24 hours a day for a full year before the election, it is unlikely that a debate will add any information which has not yet been discussed to death by the media beforehand. It could be done but that would require actual moderators and not someone just asking generic questions and then letting the candidates recite their identikit speech over and over, without ever questioning them even if they are blatantly lying/BSing/not even answering the question.

[Pepe]

'I'll make the rich pay their fair share' she says.

How could anyone ever disagree with such a statement? Completely empty, meaningless. Yet that's what passes for 'actual policy' in these so called debates.

[Spoonsky]

It's not according to the article, it's according to a recent poll. Unless you think that polls are equally pointless. Everything's pointless.

[Pepe]

Polls are not pointless. They are ruining the democratic process.

[Lewis]

lol at this (http://i.imgur.com/BL4oKao.gifv).

[ItalAussie]

Would make more sense the other way, given the debate. :cab:

[Queenslander]

Im surprised how many extreme right plebs are going hard for Trump in Australia.

[ItalAussie]

Trump and Tony Abbott have both done a particular thing which I find creepy and a touch bizarre.

If you're against taking refugees into your country, fine. It's not something I agree with, but whatever. But they've both criticised other countries for taking in refugees. Trump took a bit of a swing at Merkel on the topic today, and Abbott went on a speaking tour where he went around telling countries they shouldn't be taking in refugees at all.

At that point, it's no longer about perceived national interest or anything like that, surely? It seems like it's just an honest-to-goodness hatred of refugees on general principle.

[Queenslander]

That Abbot tour was so dumb because he had a bloody ocean to work with and got to pay off 3rd world countires. The guy feeds off hate and fear.

Surely his time should be used in the outback being a champion of the indigenous people he so dearly cares for?

[Shindig]

Trump losing $800m in a single year might explain why he's not releasing his tax returns.

[ItalAussie]

That Abbot tour was so dumb because he had a bloody ocean to work with and got to pay off 3rd world countires. The guy feeds off hate and fear.
Abbott's fundamentally broken. His idea of a win is pissing off people he disagrees with, rather than finding consensus, or even pleasing his ideological fellow travellers. This is why he functioned well in opposition, but dropped the ball so badly when he found himself in charge.

It's like the knight/dame thing. A profoundly unpopular decision that even his own allies thought was stupid. But it really irked the people he didn't like, and he sees that as a win for him. I'm pretty sure that the refugee thing for him was deciding that refugees were in the "enemies" basket, and therefore anything they disagree with is a solid win.

Politicians (on either side) who see making their opposition unhappy for its own sake are the worst kind of political backbiters.

[GS]

Trump and Tony Abbott have both done a particular thing which I find creepy and a touch bizarre.

If you're against taking refugees into your country, fine. It's not something I agree with, but whatever. But they've both criticised other countries for taking in refugees. Trump took a bit of a swing at Merkel on the topic today, and Abbott went on a speaking tour where he went around telling countries they shouldn't be taking in refugees at all.

At that point, it's no longer about perceived national interest or anything like that, surely? It seems like it's just an honest-to-goodness hatred of refugees on general principle.

Having a go at Merkel, assuming it's sensible language, is reasonable enough. It involved a unilateral suspension of the Dublin regulation and massively exacerbated the crisis. Given you had hundreds of thousands of migrants marching through Europe, it was a big problem for other countries. Her reasons are her own, but it seems generally accepted in Germany that it was a mistake and some of the recent elections, including the rise of this Neo-Nazi party reflect that.

It was a national decision with profound international implications and she didn't have a clear plan for any of it.

Criticism of that is fine, but extending that to more 'traditional' scenarios, eg. Granting asylum when they're already in the country or taking them from the refugee camps themselves, is clearly a non starter.

[mikem]

It is not like Merkel had a well crafted plan that included all possible contingencies, a direct plan to action, and a waterfall series of checklists to mark and grade progress.

You know, a proper plan, like Brexit.

[ItalAussie]

Also, let's not pretend that Trump even had unreasonable objections beyond "foreign refugee muslims raaaaarggh". He can't hold a train of thought for two minutes, so I doubt he cares deeply about German foreign policy.

See also: Tony Abbott.

[Lewis]

Comparing our decision to leave a customs union with the decision to invite well over a million migrants into Europe is one way to demonstrate having lost all sense of perspective.

[GS]

Comparing our decision to leave a customs union with the decision to invite well over a million migrants into Europe is one way to demonstrate having lost all sense of perspective.

Indeed.

[mikem]

The point is that for a lot of government work there is no clear plan. As soon as you start acting things change and you are left dealing with contingencies. There is no good result for a humanitarian crisis. Complain about the response not being quick enough but a clear plan?

It is just adding unrealistic bars to acting.

[GS]

You can't just decide to open the borders in response to something like that without thinking it through. Turning up for selfies with foreigners and saying "Wir schaffen das" isn't sufficient, as they're now realising to their considerable cost.

[Lewis]

No plan survives contact with the enemy (or whatever it is). I get that. But all but the most craven wannabe Belgians would be able to find some positives in Brexit, even if they still think that the negatives out-weigh them. It's harder to know where to start with the German response to the migrant business, in which case planning should probably not have advanced beyond 'Don't do it, mate'.

[mikem]

Any choice in a bad situation involves negative consequences. Judge them on their lack of response management. Business works off iteration all the time and government is seldom allowed to. It is why government led outcomes are often so poor because we demand a clear plan.

I'm not actually worried about the specifics of the case.

[Lewis]

Those negative consequences did not necessarily have to be felt by Germany (and the rest of Europe) though.

[mikem]

Sure, they would have been felt by refugees. It is how you frame the question. But we should allow that to be the question of public governance.

Are you willing to suffer to reduce the suffering of others is a question that should be put to people. We'd have better governance. Or at least governance that reflected our will better.

Instead we insist on being lied to. It is how we got Trump.

[GS]

It didn't reduce the suffering of others. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, will have died because they were encouraged to get on rafts with holes in them. It gave succour to people smuggling operations the world over and it's not as if the people who most need the west's help (children, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled) were the ones who got it. They're still in the camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan et al - it was almost entirely young men who reached Germany, because it was they who were fit enough to walk hundreds of miles through Europe whilst every country between Greece and Germany waved them straight through.

Still, I suppose it continues to suit someone's narrative that it be presented as a 'humane' gesture, rather than the travesty it was.

[mikem]

Ah yes, everyone fled due to the encouragement of the west. That's clearly what the prime motivating factor was.

My point is that a clear plan is often not a possibility for national events and that you use it selectively rule out actions you don't like. Scots are foolish about independence because they have no clear plan; dealing with a wave of refugees is wrong because there was not an exhaustive study done on events in realtime, but Brexit?

[GS]

You'll note that numbers are considerably lower this year owing to the EU-Turkey deal which basically returns everyone who arrives in Europe on a boat back to Turkey. It's removed the incentive to chance it.

Merkel's pronouncement meant a) 'guaranteed' asylum made hazarding the boat journey and trek through Europe a worthwhile risk b) that people smugglers could wave this about as a valid 'inducement' to hazard the trip and give them all of your savings to do so and c) it meant the Greek / Balkan / central European states absolved themselves of any blame and just waved people through, exacerbating the crisis. It was a disastrous policy decision, which the Germans are now dealing with. It didn't require a 'clear plan' on Germany's part - "I wouldn't be doing that, Angela" would have been sufficient.

On the subject of Brexit, I'm fully behind the balls out option of just repealing the 1972 European Communities Act, telling the Europeans we're going to trade with them on existing terms (i.e. no tariffs) and daring them to unilaterally impose them. If they do, you'll have the much-cited German car manufacturers go absolutely apeshit and we can enjoy the fallout from our position with WTO rules.

[mikem]

Or the initial wave and rush that overwhelmed the situation is over?

[GS]

There are still millions of people in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and more coming every day. I suspect not.

[mikem]

And the camps are more stable and the authorities have learned better how to deal with bottlenecks.

But really, you are right. I'm sure most refugees conversations are:

"Abdullah, have you read paragraph C subsection B on the latest rules for refugees.

Ah yes, let's exploit the Merkel rule. Have you downloaded the latest version of the Refugee finder app? It checks your GPS coordinates to determine if you are an economic or political refugee."

[ItalAussie]

Merkel could turn up on GS' doorstep with cake and he'd find a way to see it as emblematic as everything that's wrong with Europe.

Clinton seems to have firmed strongly after the first debate, but I'm worried about the second and third debates. If someone can coach Trump enough to at least hold a thought in his head for two minutes, he'll be seen as a massive success because the bar is now so insanely low. And if it's immigration or healthcare (which didn't feature in the first debate), then he just has to spit incoherent rage for two minutes straight and it'll appeal to the base.

EDIT: Also, someone needs to take Twitter away from him at night. :D
EDIT II: But if he follows his baser instincts and targets Bill's infidelities, he'll lose the election there and then. And he'll have been told that, so it'll be fascinating to see if he can stop himself.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Merkel is grand, just you wait until the German social democrats get in and start airdropping boxes of pumpernickel into Athens.

[Shindig]

It amazes me that either his advisors are letting Trump do any of this or that he's hired advisors he has no intention of listening to. What does anyone get out of that aside from some of Donald's cash?

You've hired advisors you either don't need or a bunch of yes men whose career are dead as soon as they mention on their resume "2015-2016: Worked on Trump campaign."

[ItalAussie]

You've hired advisors you either don't need or a bunch of yes men whose career are dead as soon as they mention on their resume "2015-2016: Worked on Trump campaign."
While I hate to defer to television on these things, in Veep one of the characters takes on a candidate with similar personal failings to Trump, after someone tells him that "if you win, you're a genius, and if you lose, nobody will blame you". Could be that some of the senior campaign staff are thinking the same way.

[Raoul Duke]

They can also get some immense book deals out of it.

[Shindig]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37533263

Suddenly that $800m loss reported by Forbes is SUSPICIOUS AS FUCK!

[ItalAussie]

They can also get some immense book deals out of it.

Someone is going to publish the definitive book on this campaign and make more money than Trump finagled away in 1995.

[GS]

And the camps are more stable and the authorities have learned better how to deal with bottlenecks.

But really, you are right. I'm sure most refugees conversations are:

"Abdullah, have you read paragraph C subsection B on the latest rules for refugees.

Ah yes, let's exploit the Merkel rule. Have you downloaded the latest version of the Refugee finder app? It checks your GPS coordinates to determine if you are an economic or political refugee."

Yes, by making it clear that there's no point risking the journey and by putting the money into the camps instead. It's not hard.


Merkel could turn up on GS' doorstep with cake and he'd find a way to see it as emblematic as everything that's wrong with Europe.

Mate.

[igor_balis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zorJ4cClLU4

[Shindig]

Merkel could turn up on GS' doorstep with cake and he'd find a way to see it as emblematic as everything that's wrong with Europe.

Seems like a waste of public funding. Unless its to offer him an option out of London.

Trump's response to his tax fiddling is such an open goal for Hilary. Just work out an approximation of how much he's dodged, quantify it with some examples (schools it could fund, policemen it could train) and just lay waste to him. He'll say it's brilliant whilst Hilary can just say its dishonest and ironic that a man going for the purse strings won't pay tax of his own. Finish off with the $800m loss of this year to say how he'll continue. Even his own supporters weren't thrilled with his response. There was a really, really mild cheer amid the stunned silence. :D

[Byron]

'I've dodged tax for twenty years so that makes me S-M-R-T!'

Tell you what Mert, you've always gone on about how the media is biased and we don't know America and how Trump will win. How about some money on it? $50 says Clinton will win the election.

[John Arne]

Current odds have Hilary 2/5 with Trumpo at 7/4.

Ted Cruz at 500/1....

Latest odds have changed a wee bit since the last debate.

Clinton in to 4/11, Trump out to 11/4.

Interestingly Paul Ryan in to about 100/1 with some bookies.

[Bartholomert]

'I've dodged tax for twenty years so that makes me S-M-R-T!'

Tell you what Mert, you've always gone on about how the media is biased and we don't know America and how Trump will win. How about some money on it? $50 says Clinton will win the election.

What odds are you giving me? Happy to take your money especially after the cucking Pence gave Cain tonight.

[Shindig]

Ah, the penultimate stage of grief: 'Pretend you're voting for the VP'.

[elth]

Clinton's 3-4 points up on the poll aggregates. VP debate historically meaningless in the absence of a shocking gaffe.

Trump needs to get out of the headlines and get Clinton back in them.

[Byron]

What odds are you giving me? Happy to take your money especially after the cucking Pence gave Cain tonight.

Simple, I will bet you $50 that Clinton will win the election at whatever exchange rate we end up at on the night.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Senator, you're no Mert Arkan.

[ItalAussie]

What odds are you giving me? Happy to take your money especially after the cucking Pence gave Cain tonight.

The VP debate? You're relying on Mike Pence to drag you over the line? The man that Trump didn't even want to pick? God.

VP debates have about as much impact on elections as the phases of the moon. Short of one of the candidates shooting themselves in the face, the seventeen people who watch it will have forgotten it by the next day. The next time Trump opens his mouth and grabs back the news cycle, that'll be it for that.

[ItalAussie]

The disadvantage Trump has is that he can't avoid being in the news now. Every week that Clinton dominates the news cycle, Trump's numbers improve. Every week he gets the headlines, his numbers drop.

His ideal election run-in would be absolutely no news headlines whatsoever. But with two debates to go, that's a big ask.

[Bartholomert]

The VP debate? You're relying on Mike Pence to drag you over the line? The man that Trump didn't even want to pick? God.

VP debates have about as much impact on elections as the phases of the moon. Short of one of the candidates shooting themselves in the face, the seventeen people who watch it will have forgotten it by the next day. The next time Trump opens his mouth and grabs back the news cycle, that'll be it for that.

Cope harder cuck.

[Bartholomert]

Simple, I will bet you $50 that Clinton will win the election at whatever exchange rate we end up at on the night.

Naw it'll be closer towards the election. Give me odds.

[John Arne]

Bottle job.

[Byron]

Naw it'll be closer towards the election. Give me odds.

Give you odds? I'm not a fucking bookmaker.

Considering you've been harping on about Trump winning four months, I'd have thought you'd have taken this up easily, it's $50, nothing more or less.

Unless you're not confident that you 'know' America and in fact you think Trump will lose.

[Bartholomert]

I want you to pay the maximum amount possible for your desperate delusions. Give me odds pussy.

[Kikó]

His odds are 1/1.

[Byron]

As Kiko says, 1/1.

It's quite hilarious you calling me a pussy when you won't accept a simple $50 bet. It's almost like you're worried Trump won't win.

Besides, don't you have a job worth $180k guaranteed? This sort of bet should mean nothing to you.

[ItalAussie]

Cope harder cuck.

Trump's slid in polls taken since yesterday. :sorry:

We both know VP debates are a diversion. If Trump's going to beat Clinton, he's going to have to do it himself.

[Yevrah]

Pathetic from mert here.

If he won't take Byron's 1/1 odds, at least post some proof of taking the bookies 7/4.

[7om]

How does 12 years of Democrats in the White House make you feel, mert? Because it's going to happen.

[Spoonsky]

Not to pile in, Mert, but if I was you I'd be putting my eggs in the Pence 2020 basket.

[Shindig]

I mean, the silver lining of a potential Trump victory is how short-lived it will be when the IRS bum-rush him. Leaving Pence to be sworn in.

[GS]

783758773256986624

A somewhat effective attack ad, I would suggest.

[GS]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/?utm_source=atltw

This is quite good. The only two times they've previously endorsed a candidate were Lincoln in 1860 and LBJ in 1964.

[Bartholomert]

783758773256986624

A somewhat effective attack ad, I would suggest.

Kaine: 'Trump said Putin was a better leader'
What Trump actually said: 'Putin is a STRONGER leader'

Kaine: 'Trump didn't know that Russia had invaded Ukraine'
What Trump actually said: '[Putin] will not go into Ukraine' in reference to the remaining area that makes up Ukraine

Kaine: 'Donald Trump is going to have a deportation force which goes door to door'
What Trump actually said: We are going to have a deportation force'- nothing about going door to door and such a force already already exists under Obama, it's called ICE.

Etc...

I'm legitimately curious, do these distinctions make a difference to you? Or do you not view the characterizations made in that video as deliberately misleading? I feel like there are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump without being dishonest about what he's said / meant.

[Bartholomert]

As Kiko says, 1/1.

It's quite hilarious you calling me a pussy when you won't accept a simple $50 bet. It's almost like you're worried Trump won't win.

Besides, don't you have a job worth $180k guaranteed? This sort of bet should mean nothing to you.

Lol why would I bet 1/1 when you could literally take those odds, put it $25 on Trump and Hillary, and make money both ways?

[Bartholomert]

How does 12 years of Democrats in the White House make you feel, mert? Because it's going to happen.

How will it feel when the entire Establishment and globalist status quo is upended by a true outsider?

[Byron]

Lol why would I bet 1/1 when you could literally take those odds, put it $25 on Trump and Hillary, and make money both ways?

As much as it would be immature to make chicken noises it is properly lol that for the months of bluster about Trump winning, you are backing out of a simple bet.

Basically, I'm lolling at the bottle job from you (or in your words, beta behaviour)

Either take the bet or don't, I'm not desperate for the money but the lolling and multi quoting on election night will be superb. Considering you've said the media is wrong and Trump's supporters don't pay attention to the media, you've backed yourself into a corner you'll only get out if Trump wins, which is looking increasingly unlikely.

[ItalAussie]

The trend in this election that's got me curious is that at some point, North Carolina slipped to being bluer than Ohio. Given that before 2008, the Democratic Party hadn't won it since 1976, it's an interesting trend worth keeping an eye on in future elections.

The issue for Trump is that, even in his best scenarios, he has to win one of Colorado, New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania. While they're not dead certs, he's got a lot of catching up to do in all three states. It's interesting trying to figure out what his best "path to victory" is likely to be.
On numbers alone, his best option is probably running through:

Iowa (51.6%)
Ohio (46.9%)
North Carolina (40.8%)
Florida (36.5%)
Nevada (36.5%)
Colorado (21.6%)

If he fails to get Colorado but flips New Hampshire (23.2%, but I reckon that's it's actually more likely than Colorado, given NH's more contrarian tendencies), he'll want to be absolutely certain of getting one of the Maine or all of the Nebraska special districts (60.3% and 55% respectively, but I'd guess that there's more statistical noise there because it's a one-district sample), otherwise it's an electoral college tie.

[Bartholomert]

As much as it would be immature to make chicken noises it is properly lol that for the months of bluster about Trump winning, you are backing out of a simple bet.

Basically, I'm lolling at the bottle job from you (or in your words, beta behaviour)

Either take the bet or don't, I'm not desperate for the money but the lolling and multi quoting on election night will be superb. Considering you've said the media is wrong and Trump's supporters don't pay attention to the media, you've backed yourself into a corner you'll only get out if Trump wins, which is looking increasingly unlikely.

Why would I just choose to give you free money you idiot.

[Byron]

But it's not free money is it? Taking your posts over the last few months then this bet represents free money for you right? Because Trump is definitely and absolutely going to win.

Unless.....

[Shindig]

He knows, man. He knows. 4chan can't save him.

[John]

Serious collapse from Mert. It's almost as if he doesn't believe his own bluster.

[niko_cee]

Good job Mert isn't a professional gambler.

[Byron]

He knows, man. He knows. 4chan can't save him.

Oh I know, but I want to see him admit it.

[phonics]

On the Veterans PTSD thing, Biden killed it.

"I don't think he was trying to be mean, he's just so thoroughly, completely uninformed."

which could sum up a huge amount of this campaign.

[elth]

Mert collapsing like a hot air balloon hit by a flamethrower.

[ItalAussie]

Trump's going to get a polling rebound after the second debate, where to improve his standing all he has to do is not urinate himself publicly.

I reckon he's going to flip out in the final debate though. Could play either way of course, but he'll do and say anything that pops into his head.

[Bartholomert]

Are you guys actually retarded or do you not understand how math works?

[Bartholomert]

On the Veterans PTSD thing, Biden killed it.

"I don't think he was trying to be mean, he's just so thoroughly, completely uninformed."

which could sum up a huge amount of this campaign.

Read the entire quote. Just another non-gaffe invented by the media that nobody is offended by, even McCain had Trumps back on this one.

[phonics]

784031314399887360

Poor ol' Lyin' Ted. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't such an almighty thundercunt :drool:

[Pepe]

I imagined Mert to be more of the take the bet and then 'lol I wasn't serious I won't pay' kind rather than the shit his pants kind. Odd.

[Bartholomert]

I imagined Mert to be more of the take the bet and then 'lol I wasn't serious I won't pay' kind rather than the shit his pants kind. Odd.

Current odds for Trump is +250. If I bet Byron $50 that Trump wins at 1:1, and Byron keeps $25 and bets $25 on Trump winning that means that...

Trump wins: Byron makes $12.50 / Mert makes $50 (where he could have made $125)
Hillary wins: Byron makes $75 / Mert loses $50

Why would any sane individual take that bet? I am happy to lay down however much money you want, but you need to give me real odds.

[Lewis]

It's a 'friendly' bet you unbalanced wank.

[Magic]

I imagined Mert to be more of the take the bet and then 'lol I wasn't serious I won't pay' kind rather than the shit his pants kind. Odd.

But he's on €180k p/a.

[Byron]

It's a 'friendly' bet you unbalanced wank.

It's almost as if he doesn't want to admit that his bluster over the last few months is absolute bollocks.

[Spikey M]

Current odds for Trump is +250. If I bet Byron $50 that Trump wins at 1:1, and Byron keeps $25 and bets $25 on Trump winning that means that...

Trump wins: Byron makes $12.50 / Mert makes $50 (where he could have made $125)
Hillary wins: Byron makes $75 / Mert loses $50

Why would any sane individual take that bet? I am happy to lay down however much money you want, but you need to give me real odds.

:D This kid

[Disco]

Current odds for Trump is +250. If I bet Byron $50 that Trump wins at 1:1, and Byron keeps $25 and bets $25 on Trump winning that means that...

Trump wins: Byron makes $12.50 / Mert makes $50 (where he could have made $125)
Hillary wins: Byron makes $75 / Mert loses $50

Why would any sane individual take that bet? I am happy to lay down however much money you want, but you need to give me real odds.

Do both then you big fanny.

[leedsrevolution]

Current odds for Trump is +250. If I bet Byron $50 that Trump wins at 1:1, and Byron keeps $25 and bets $25 on Trump winning that means that...

Trump wins: Byron makes $12.50 / Mert makes $50 (where he could have made $125)
Hillary wins: Byron makes $75 / Mert loses $50

Why would any sane individual take that bet? I am happy to lay down however much money you want, but you need to give me real odds.


The fact you don't understand how bets between mates work doesn't surprise me. Bottle job this.

[niko_cee]

Isn't gambling illegal in murica?

[Disco]

They play for matchsticks in Vegas I've heard.

[Pepe]

Mert, do you have any friends? Proper friends, not frat bros.

[niko_cee]

They play for matchsticks in Vegas I've heard.

Indian burial ground.

[mugbull]

Mert, do you have any friends? Proper friends, not frat bros.

I'm sure you're a fun person with lots of friends too. Can't imagine the kind of good times you enjoy having!

[phonics]

Pepe's part of a Mexican rapist biker gang. They do misty flips over The Wall and high five each other while the Spanish translation of Top Gun plays in the background.

[Bernanke]

Pepe's part of a Mexican rapist biker gang. They do misty flips over The Wall and high five each other while the Spanish translation of Top Gun plays in the background.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCfZq4F2a_I

That actually exists.

[Pepe]

I'm sure you're a fun person with lots of friends too. Can't imagine the kind of good times you enjoy having!

What is wrong with you?


Pepe's part of a Mexican rapist biker gang. They do misty flips over The Wall and high five each other while the Spanish translation of Top Gun plays in the background.

What he said.

[Spoonsky]

What is wrong with you?

Frat bros are sensitive.

[mugbull]

The best part is, 5)343's nothing wrong with me, I'm optimized in most ways. You, you shit on everything because you can't handle it. Be a man

[Disco]

How old are you?

[mugbull]

Take a guess, hit me with a confidence interval

[Spammer]

Mokbull donning proceedings :cool:

[Disco]

I don't really care, just wondering how much to lol at 'be a man'

[Spammer]

As much as comes naturally, I guess.

[Magic]

Mokky is as far away from the definition of 'man' as Baz is.

[mugbull]

Time to suck your wife's bitch dick magic om nom nom there it goesss

[Spammer]

Mok continues to cane it

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/dancing_marge_simpsons.gif

[John Arne]

Apologies for going off-topic, but I've only just discovered that Pence doesn't believe in evolution.

Potential VP of the US.....

[Jimmy Floyd]

The Vice President doesn't have to evolve things. Or indeed do things, so far as I can tell after 8 series of The West Wing. Besides, The Donald is the healthiest man ever to run for President, so there's no chance of him needing to step up.