Fivethirtyeight, as usual, have the most insightful coverage from a relatively neutral stance: http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog...election-2016/
The Guardian are fact-checking aggressively, which is fun, but they're also unabashedly biased in their editorializing (although their fact-checking is pretty much on the level).
Multiple sources are confirming that Pence has asked to be removed from the ticket.
Again, the status quo. Where he was fifty hours ago is a definite improvement on where he was ten hours ago.
Lol at that last question.
If he just says 'No' I'll mark out.
The Supreme Court is a good issue for Trump, in that it'll bring back some of his leaking voters.
When it comes down to it, at least half the Republican base are single-issue abortion voters, and these are exactly the deeply moralistic voters who will have been made very uncomfortable over the last week. But in the end Trump could molest someone in the street, on camera, and they'd still vote for him if he promised them Supreme Court justices. He'll do well to remind them of that fact.
At least it's not 'what would god ask you to do first.'Originally Posted by 7om
Trump is right about his daughter, though. She's incredible.
"Donald, here's a list of key swing states."Trump named Ohio and Pennsylvania as among the places where the EPA is putting energy companies out of business by being overly restrictive. There’s a 1-in-5 chance that one of those states will provide the decisive vote in the Electoral College, according to our polls-only forecast.
"Which state do you think would..."
"OHIO. PENNSYLVANIA. FLORIDA. COLORADO. OHIO. NEV(AH)DA. NEW HAMPSHIRE. OHIO AGAIN."
"Thank you, Mr Trump."
Well that was shit ( shocker)
Please God let Trump have his phone so he can spend the evening attacking the GOP that deserted him.
Nigel Farage says he 'dominated her like a silverback gorilla'. Cheers, Nige.
I've just listened to some of the foreign policy questions; when the moderator asked a question such as "what would you do about this...,", Trump just starting rambling about how bad Clinton was - to the point where the moderator bluntly asked him "what would you do", he just couldn't answer the question.
She did a lot of that too, just so we're clear
Fair enough - I switched off pretty quick - it was somewhat vomit inducing.
Isn't that how it works now? I don't remember any actual policies from the last election, but I do recall that Ed Miliband is Scottish and that David Cameron wanted to close the welfare state.
Smart choice.
Interesting how different men and women viewed the debate. Like Lewis and Pepe I would have said he won. In the two polls, CNN and YouGov he won men and lost the debate because he lost women in massive numbers. In the CNN poll, he won men by almost ten and lost the debate 57-34 because he lost women by over thirty. YouGov is smaller but same story. And white college educated women are his path to victory.
He won that debate despite what the laughably stacked mainstream media polls might tell you. He improved in the betting markets by about 10%, and I think by his standards he was good. All things considered it was an impressive fight with his back against the wall. Clinton seemed particularly uninspiring last night.
FiveThirtyEight is not neutral, Nate Silver has openly admitted his bias against Trump.
That's not particularly difficult to do. The debate was never going to be 90 minutes of accusing Trump of molestation.
Last night was all about Ken Bone. Even Bill recognised that.
Source?
I came into work lolling about Trump's line that he'll put her in prison and one lad said if he does that to Hilary then he'd also have to imprison Condoleezza Rice, George Dubya and a few others that used private emails while in office.
I also made a bet with one guy at work that Hilary will win by 5%, 46-41.
I did lol at "because you'd be in jail", to be fair.
Nate Silver may be anti-Trump himself but anyone can see that it would be against his interests to fuck his numbers about based on who he wants to win.
Conspiracy theory nutters (UKIP, Corbynistas, Scottish nationalists) always fail to realise this about pollsters/statisticians and it's the reason they are fucking morons.
Me too. It was a proper donning. Of course boring dickheads analyzing it later don't get it.
You are allowed to use private emails. You aren't allowed to send classified information over that private server and then delete said server containing all of your emails when asked to provide them by an FBI investigation (which you are required to do by law).
Your friend is an idiot.
They used to say the same thing about journalistic integrity and yet that doesn't stop the mainstream media from unapologetically promoting a particular center-left narrative in the face of declining credibility and ratings.
Here he admits he was biased against Trump:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-donald-trump/
Yep. He can't sling her in over the things she's pulled as a lawyer because .... that was her job. Holding that against her would effectively set a mandate to all lawyers that you can't win cases if your client proper, almost certainly done it. Hell, a former Secretary of State with that in her arsenal is kinda good.
But I guess if Donald calls her Sexsextary of Rape then he might win a couple of points back. And Bill Clinton is not a rapist, Donald. He's a sexual harrasser like you. I'm interested to see the turnout, mind. I'd expect a low one if Americans weren't so pissy about non-voters.
You can refuse to try the case. Or, you can just not laugh and brag about getting a pedophile off, you knew to be guilty, on a technicality. It's monstrous.
Cab-rank rule baby.
Can we not just greenlight an inconsequential Netflix series?
The debate coverage is a number of commentators. Not just Silver.
Even if you don't trust him (despite his accurate record - his numbers are his life, so it doesn't make sense for him to chop his career off at the knees), his talking heads are a decent slice of the spectrum and give very measured analysis.
EDIT: At any rate, the live debate coverage is over now. Kind of an odd point to drill down on, given its temporal nature.
Every person, no matter how heinous, has the right to competent counsel. That's a cornerstone of the legal system.
Someone has to defend every monster, and only an idiot would hold the lawyers accountable for doing so to the best of their abilities. If they didn't, the system would break at its most fundamental level. The whole argument is desperate emotive bullshit.
She was not a court appointed lawyer. She took the case pro-bono, voluntarily and could have EASILY refused to represent the man. She chose to do it. She then laughed about it.Every person, no matter how heinous, has the right to competent counsel. That's a cornerstone of the legal system.
Someone has to defend every monster, and only an idiot would hold the lawyers accountable for doing so to the best of their abilities. If they didn't, the system would break at its most fundamental level. The whole argument is desperate emotive bullshit.
She is a monster and you are an immoral apologist.
Mert's having a 'mare
I liked her 'thirty years of public service' line. Is it still 'service' once you make more money from your association with a particular position than you do in the actual position?
When he said all the others need to be indicted I asked him if they had all sent classified or top secret emails using their personal account and he said they had. I then said that whether they did or not it's irrelevant as Hilary definitely has and then had the audacity to delete them as well.
All this was going on while we were doing a fire drill and it just so happened that after my last line we were allowed back in so I didn't get a response.
That's stupid, and I know that you know it's stupid. I don't believe for a minute that you believe what you just typed.
People accused of horrible crimes should only ever get public defenders, who are often working dozens of cases at once? And I know you know the role of criminal lawyers, the necessity that even those who are accused of heinous crimes should get a fair trial with a competent defence, and their lack of complicity by those who defend them in court.
It's a sign of how desperate you've gotten that you're willing to push what you absolutely know to one side and dive into cognitive dissonance, just to try and right the ship.
EDIT: It is worth mentioning how broken the US public defender situation is. Public defenders are desperately overworked, and in many districts are unable to put more than an hour per case in preparation. It winds up casting the whole fairness of the criminal justice system into doubt, as it becomes impossible for poor criminals to get a well-prepared counsel. It's really a problem that needs to be addressed, but there's never any resources or funding forthcoming, because politicians have to look "tough on crime".
Criminal lawyers are often scumbags with no moral compass. Clinton made a choice.
Amazing.
Is this being judged as opposed to the paragons of altruistic selflessness that are corporate lawyers? What's the baseline here?
If the roles were reversed you would be excoriating the act as a reflection of Trump's sociopath morally defective nature. At least corporate lawyers don't defend pedophiles.
Is this being judged as opposed to the paragons of altruistic selflessness that are corporate lawyers? What's the baseline here?
And yes the public defender's system is pretty broken.
I wish we could forward these posts to whichever state Bar Mert ends up applying to.
Believe it or voicing support for the nominee of one of the two major parties in a liberal democracy isn't an offense worthy of disbarring.
You freedom hating fascist.
No, but failing to understand the duty of a public defender to the court is.
I truly would not, and you can save that quote for as long as you want to. I believe that lawyers defending criminals (even criminals accused of utterly reprehensible crimes) is a key element of the criminal justice system, and I support lawyers in playing their role in this system.
Without competent criminal defenders doing their best work for all of their clients, effectiveness of the system as a test of guilt erodes. That is a dangerous path to go down.
Melania: Why haven't you done the washing up, Donald?
Donald: Bill Clinton did bad stuff too.
Melania: No but
Donald: Bill
Melania: I'll do it
Reply With Quote
