• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

*2016 US Presidential Elections* - Candidates, Statistics, Campaign Timelines, Debates

BCsSecretAlias

Closed Account
Oh well heck if your evidence is that scientific I withdraw my query.

Notice you only want to know the basis for my opinion but certain incendiary comments goes unchallenged.
Duly noted.


I haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about here :dunno:

Are you perhaps suggesting that I should have asked a question of Mayhem too, to somehow prove some kind of non bias? If so I'm sorry, but Mayhem didn't make any topic related comments I felt compelled to ask about.

I don't have a problem with you, not that you would care if I did. you are generally non combative and I believe you are a liberal with the best of intentions. My suggestion that you critique those you agree with more was unreasonable.

That said, I'm willing to bet that my basis is as scientifically sound as yours would be from your POV.
 
Right now, every poll has Donald Trump losing to Hillary, by a large margin
Trump said the election might be rigged. Most of his supporter agree with that.
He also said that 2nd Amendment might be the only way to stop Hillary. Otherwise she will nominate a liberal judge on the Supreme Court and get rid of the 2nd Amendment.
So, if she wins, what will happen. Are Trump voter gonna take arms to overthrow her ?


We're used to hear Republican nutjobs calling for an impeachment on Obama but this is totally different, it on an all new level : this is a presidential candidate calling for a coup if he loses...
 

BCsSecretAlias

Closed Account
Right now, every poll has Donald Trump losing to Hillary, by a large margin
Trump said the election might be rigged. Most of his supporter agree with that.
He also said that 2nd Amendment might be the only way to stop Hillary. Otherwise she will nominate a liberal judge on the Supreme Court and get rid of the 2nd Amendment.
So, if she wins, what will happen. Are Trump voter gonna take arms to overthrow her ?


We're used to hear Republican nutjobs calling for an impeachment on Obama but this is totally different, it on an all new level : this is a presidential candidate calling for a coup if he loses...

Hey dipshit! I was at the rally when he made the comment. The NRA mantra is "From My Cold Dead Hands!" Another expression is "Molon Labe" ( come and take them)

The one thing that will bring revolution in this country is the confiscation or strict regulation of firearms. That is what Trump meant and every NRA card carrying member in attendance knew.

He didn't threaten Pantsuit. Bunch of god damn snowflakes.

Mind your own fucked up gun laws.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Right now, every poll has Donald Trump losing to Hillary, by a large margin
Trump said the election might be rigged. Most of his supporter agree with that.
He also said that 2nd Amendment might be the only way to stop Hillary. Otherwise she will nominate a liberal judge on the Supreme Court and get rid of the 2nd Amendment.
So, if she wins, what will happen. Are Trump voter gonna take arms to overthrow her ?


We're used to hear Republican nutjobs calling for an impeachment on Obama but this is totally different, it on an all new level : this is a presidential candidate calling for a coup if he loses...

Johan you really should stop believing anything the US news media says.
1st anyone who can think knows the poll numbers they are telling us are fake.
Trump is packing houses literally everyday. Sometimes twice a day and all over the country.
HC is lucky if she gets a few hundred to see her behave like a person with a neurological disorder.
That should make it very clear that the polls are lies.
Why do they lie? Simple. " Oh look, HC is doing great. Well if so many people like her I should vote for her too. After all I want to be on the side of a winner not a loser".

BTW HC is against the 2nd amendment and she makes it very clear that she will do all she can to destroy it.
Keep in mind the reason for the 2nd amendment isn't to hunt deer, it was put there to give the people a fighting chance against a totalitarian GOV which is clearly what the US GOV is becoming.
The media is just using what Trump said to once again distract the usefull idiots from the what they really should be paying attention to for example why she has a neurologist at her side while she speaks and her bizarre behavior, the emails that unfold a serious web of corruption, and so many other things.

Don't fall for it.
And if you want to see someone actually calling for violence against another or at least implying it listen to this.

Why does the same media which had so much contempt for her when she ran against Barry show nothing but love for her when she's running against Trump?
Think about it.
 
Johan you really should stop believing anything the US news media says.
1st anyone who can think knows the poll numbers they are telling us are fake.
Trump is packing houses literally everyday. Sometimes twice a day and all over the country.
Just like he was during the primaries. He has a strong base of hardcore supporters. But he fails to convince people out of that base to vote for him.
HC is lucky if she gets a few hundred to see her behave like a person with a neurological disorder.

Yeah, sort of...
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-IX268_0613cl_P_20150613145343.jpg

That should make it very clear that the polls are lies.
Why do they lie? Simple. " Oh look, HC is doing great. Well if so many people like her I should vote for her too. After all I want to be on the side of a winner not a loser".
BTW HC is against the 2nd amendment and she makes it very clear that she will do all she can to destroy it.
Keep in mind the reason for the 2nd amendment isn't to hunt deer, it was put there to give the people a fighting chance against a totalitarian GOV which is clearly what the US GOV is becoming.
IF it is true, well I guess the solution to avoid the country to become just like nazi germany is to vote for the candidate who vows to discriminate on religion, who want us muslilms to wear a badge indicating that they are muslim, who bans journalists who choosed to call his bs from his events, etc...
The media is just using what Trump said to once again distract the usefull idiots from the what they really should be paying attention to for example why she has a neurologist at her side while she speaks and her bizarre behavior, the emails that unfold a serious web of corruption, and so many other things.
Oh, poor Donald, the medias are just using his own quotes against him, that is so unfair...
About the neurologist (Odon't know if it is true but let's assume it is), why do you think he's here ? To use mind control on the attendance. Then, let's assume she do suffer from some neurological disorder, don't you think the medias would have found it and Fox News would run the story 24/7 ? Anyways, isn't that the reason there is a vice president, to fill in if the president is, for some reason, unable to do the job ?


Why does the same media which had so much contempt for her when she ran against Barry show nothing but love for her when she's running against Trump?
Think about it.
Easy. Trump is dangerous. He's a demagogue and probably a fascist. His policies are totally unamerican. Hillary may be a crook but a crook is better than a fascist. Dilma Roussef is better than Pinochet.
 

BCsSecretAlias

Closed Account
Just like he was during the primaries. He has a strong base of hardcore supporters. But he fails to convince people out of that base to vote for him.


Yeah, sort of...
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-IX268_0613cl_P_20150613145343.jpg

That should make it very clear that the polls are lies.
Why do they lie? Simple. " Oh look, HC is doing great. Well if so many people like her I should vote for her too. After all I want to be on the side of a winner not a loser".
IF it is true, well I guess the solution to avoid the country to become just like nazi germany is to vote for the candidate who vows to discriminate on religion, who want us muslilms to wear a badge indicating that they are muslim, who bans journalists who choosed to call his bs from his events, etc...
Oh, poor Donald, the medias are just using his own quotes against him, that is so unfair...
About the neurologist (Odon't know if it is true but let's assume it is), why do you think he's here ? To use mind control on the attendance. Then, let's assume she do suffer from some neurological disorder, don't you think the medias would have found it and Fox News would run the story 24/7 ? Anyways, isn't that the reason there is a vice president, to fill in if the president is, for some reason, unable to do the job ?


Easy. Trump is dangerous. He's a demagogue and probably a fascist. His policies are totally unamerican. Hillary may be a crook but a crook is better than a fascist. Dilma Roussef is better than Pinochet.

Hillary Clinton will set off revolution in the United States. That may be a good thing.
 
Hillary Clinton will set off revolution in the United States. That may be a good thing.
Than why would you vote fror Trump ?

Anyways, I can only notice that, even if you denies that Trump is calling for a coup if Hillary wins, you say it will happen...
 
Is Trump's Campaign Locking Him Out of Twitter?

An analysis finds the share of the candidate’s tweets sent from a phone suspected to be his in sharp decline.


People love @RealDonaldTrump as much as they love the real Donald Trump. Just like the candidate himself, the Twitter account is entertaining, coarse, rude, doting, blunt, fiery, cloying, politically incorrect, and superbly meme-ready. More importantly, it’s real. You get the sense that each tweet shoots straight from Trump’s amygdala, typed furiously, rat-a-tat-tat—sad! It’s such a refreshing change from the stale fare you get everywhere else on campaign Twitter, where politicians literally sign their tweets to let their constituents know that, yep, it’s really them, not the social-media staffer, like it usually is.

That’s why I loved this text analysis of Trump’s tweets by David Robinson, a data scientist at the coding site StackOverflow. Robinson tests a well-circulated hypothesis: If a @RealDonaldTrump tweet is marked as being sent from an iPhone, it’s from a staffer. But if it’s sent from an Android phone—Trump’s Samsung Galaxy?—it might be from the candidate himself. Folks have noted that the Android tweets are a bit, uh, Trumpier.

Robinson took this theory and tested it empirically, downloading more than 1,000 of Trump’s tweets and running them through a language parser. Even with a limited sample, the results were pretty conclusive:

My analysis, shown below, concludes that the Android and iPhone tweets are clearly from different people, posting during different times of day and using hashtags, links, and retweets in distinct ways. What’s more, we can see that the Android tweets are angrier and more negative, while the iPhone tweets tend to be benign announcements and pictures.

Tweets from the Android phone tend to come earlier in the day, while the iPhone’s pace picks up in the afternoon and the early evening. The Android account is also a bit of a grandpa when it comes to retweeting people, copying their tweets into its own and surrounding them in quotes, which the savvier iPhone account doesn’t do. The iPhone account loves to tweet pictures; the Android almost never does.

Most juicily, the Android phone—oh, let’s just call it “Trump”—is much, much angrier. By Robinson’s calculations, it uses 40-80 percent more negative words in tweets than the iPhone, including Trump mainstays like “badly,” “crazy,” and “weak.” Tweets from that device frequently evoke sadness, fear, anger, and disgust, according to Robinson’s language processing, while the iPhone is more likely to express anticipation, trust and joy.

Plus, the iPhone tweets out event times. That’s a staffer job. C’mon.

So I got curious. If tweets from the Android phone represent Trump’s contributions to his Twitter account, and the iPhone signals his staff’s input, how much is the New York billionaire actually tweeting these days? As the stakes grow higher—and flubs more damaging—has Trump’s campaign locked him out of his account for his own safety?

To figure this out, I needed to grab as many of Trump’s tweets as I could, preferably from the start of his campaign. Turns out this is pretty hard: Twitter clamps down on your ability to download tweets programmatically after 3,000 or so, which only took me back to December. I gave the social media company a call, but was told it would probably cost thousands to extract the data I needed.

So I turned to Oren Tsur, a visiting scholar at Harvard and associate professor at Ben Gurion University in Israel. He’s written about Trump’s Twitter account before and has been scraping the candidate’s tweets since 2015. With his help, I scanned his archive and matched it with more current data—resulting in some 6,000 tweets—and counted the number of times @RealDonaldTrump tweeted from each device, grouping by month.

If the Trump-Android proxy holds true, the Republican nominee’s participation in his own Twitter account has dropped sharply over the past year. From July 2015 to October, Trump largely ruled the account, with up to three-quarters of @RealDonaldTrump tweets coming from the Android phone. The staff takeover began in November, growing to around 50 percent of tweets before plateauing through the early primary months. But the last month has seen another major shakeup. So far in August, almost two-thirds of his tweets have been sent from an iPhone, suggesting a serious crackdown by the campaign staff.

(Note: A number of readers have asked whether the Android phone is actually tweeting less, or if the iPhone is just tweeting more, diluting Trump’s share. Perhaps Trump is just being out-talked by an effective campaign staff? Answer: Trump is indeed sending fewer tweets from the Android device. He posted an average of 371 tweets per month from July through December; that average is down to 200 per month in 2016, not counting August. The iPhone’s tweeting has also ticked up substantially.)

Granted, it’s still early in the month. But in the past two weeks , Trump has already picked a fight with a Gold Star mother, repeatedly misled supporters about an Iranian money transfer, and problematically joked that the “Second Amendment people” could stop Clinton before she appoints new justices. With that in mind, it’s hard to view this uptick as anything other than campaign manager Paul Manafort firmly taking the reins and changing the account password.

That is, if you accept my premise at all. This analysis comes with caveats, and it’s worth noting some inconsistencies between Robinson’s analysis and other published literature on Trump’s tweeting habits.

Trump has said he dictates tweets to staffers. “During the day, I’m in the office, I just shout it out to one of the young ladies,” he said in a CNN town hall. “I’ll just shout it out, and they’ll do it.” So some of the iPhone tweets might actually be Trump’s own words, even if he didn’t type them out.
Trump says he does his own tweeting after 7 p.m. But Robinson’s analysis shows the iPhone tweets spike at around 8 p.m., well past Trump’s supposed deadline. By my knowledge, you can’t schedule tweets with an iPhone, so that means a staffer is manually tapping them out. That said, the Android tweets typically pick up a fair amount around 9 p.m. And I’d bet those 8 p.m. tweets often relate to rallies, when Trump is onstage and can’t handle his phone.
It’s entirely possible Trump has handed off his Twitter account entirely. Robinson’s analysis suggested the users of the two phones had distinctly different styles. But that doesn’t mean Trump is one of them. The Android phone could be in the hands of a trusted aide—perhaps his anger translator?

Please understand that I recognize the ridiculousness of all this. I've expended a great deal of time and coding effort—enlisting a literal Harvard scholar—to figure out how often a presidential campaign tweets on an iPhone. But that’s a testament to the central role Twitter plays in Trump's campaign. In a recent interview with the Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker, Trump said he didn’t need the media, because he has mastery of social media. “I’m head and shoulders above everybody else,” he said. “I’ve read now 22 million people on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. More than 22 million people. Nobody else is even close.” He’s right. And when a candidate has the biggest megaphone around, it’d be nice to know if he’s actually using it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/donald-trump-twitter-iphone-android/495239/


The GOP candidate might be locked ou from Twitter by his own staffers. Wow ! Sound's like a toddler who's favorite toy is taken away by his parents 'cause he's be naughty...
 

BCsSecretAlias

Closed Account
Than why would you vote fror Trump ?

Anyways, I can only notice that, even if you denies that Trump is calling for a coup if Hillary wins, you say it will happen...
He didn't advocate her assassination.
My opinions on revolution are my own...

lol at taking away his Twitter. Fat chance.
There is misinformation being disseminated that is on a level that indicates desperation.

Why? He's getting killed in the polls.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Ok Johan I can't change the way you feel but one thing- The USofA is pretty much a fascist state already.
The GOV doesn't control big business here but they are in bed with them. It is owned by them.
The system is setup to protect big business and make it near impossible for the average person to prosper.

And if the elections are rigged then we don't have a PREZ anymore, we have a dictator.
The same goes if we have a political system controlled by Big Business, big banks, and of course a Central bank.
And the fact that these same few powerful people own the entire communication industry is a cherry on top.
That is actual fascism and we are already there.


If you listen to what Trump says about finance (assuming he is sincere), he says Peace through Commerce.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Back on topic! The debate dates are set, as it seems, and we can look forward as how they will go:

...

This year’s debate schedule is as follows:

Sept. 26: Hofstra University — Hempstead, N.Y.

Oct. 4: Vice Presidential Debate at Longwood University — Farmville, Va.

Oct. 9: Washington University in St. Louis — St. Louis, Mo.

Oct. 19: University of Las Vegas, Nevada

...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...-hillary-clinton-20160809-snap-htmlstory.html

As Trump says, at least two dates seem to conflict with major football games.Yet I don't think that those two crowds are conflicted as what to watch. Your opinions?

I think a key element is if Trump will be able to dbate rationally or if he will go full galloping elephant, playing his "crooked Hillary" and "Hillary wants to take away the second amendment" etc.

I think he will do so, and after the debates, there will only be his very hardcore believers left, and many more republicans will then - given he does as I think he will - come forward and shun him.

Of course, he might outshine her, or finally make her loose her nerves and flip the script. That would be great entertainment, but then the cards would be totally mixed up
 
^

Are these really "major" football games:

Sept 26 Falcons at Saints

Oct 9 Giants at Packers Sunday Night Football

Yes the first is a division rivalry game and the second is an interesting matchup that may feature prominently in the NFC playoff race but these are still games played in the first half of the season. These are not week 17 matchups that will decide divisions or playoff seeding.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Thank you!

Well, I think it's safe to assume that until then, a LOT of things will happen, as right now, Trump shoots himself in the foot every other day
 

Clinton Running the Table in Key Battlegrounds
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/polls-clinton-running-table-key-battlegrounds-n629136

FLA: 44% to 39%
NC: 48% to 39%
VA: 46% to 33%
CO: 46% to 32%

Donald Trump is now doing worse with Hispanic voters than any Republican since 1996
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...spanic-voters-than-any-republican-since-1996/
 

BCsSecretAlias

Closed Account
Those polls sampled registered voters not likely voters.

She needs to enjoy her polling numbers now, they're not gonna be so good when the Clinton Foundation shit hits the fan.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Clinton Running the Table in Key Battlegrounds
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/polls-clinton-running-table-key-battlegrounds-n629136

FLA: 44% to 39%
NC: 48% to 39%
VA: 46% to 33%
CO: 46% to 32%

Donald Trump is now doing worse with Hispanic voters than any Republican since 1996
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...spanic-voters-than-any-republican-since-1996/

Thank you for helping to take this discussion back on actual facts.

I have been watching a lot in the news in the last days about how the polls really look worse and worse for the GOP. Even states that were considered quasi automatic red states are swing states now or seem to have flipped.

I am curious if the debates will do some more or if they might swing back.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Is Trump deliberately throwing the election to Clinton?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...s-trump-deliberately-throwing-the-election-to

In August 2015, I wrote a column for The Hill titled "Is Trump a Clinton plant?" At the time, I wrote that I was not seriously suggesting that Donald Trump is running as a Hillary Clinton plant for the purpose of bringing a second Clinton to the White House, but noted some facts.


For many years Trump, has heaped high praise on both Bill and Hillary Clinton throughout their tenures at every major office they have held since the 1992 campaign. I also noted that Trump has offered praise and campaign donations that continued for many years to prominent liberals and Democratic leaders such as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
A year after my tongue-in-cheek column asking whether Trump is running as a plant to elect Hillary Clinton, I will now raise the possibility, much more seriously, that one way to explain Trump's repeatedly self-destructive behavior could be that deep down Trump does not want to win the election and is clumsily throwing the game.

I am not stating that I believe that Trump wants to lose to Clinton, but I am suggesting there is at least some possibility that this is the case.

Why might Trump, in theory, want to lose the election?

Perhaps Trump originally decided to run to get some publicity for his business, or satisfy his ego, but never expected he had a real chance to win. Perhaps it suddenly dawned on Trump that he did have some chance to win, and was petrified at the thought of filing the detailed financial disclosures that presidents are required by law to file, for the same reason he is hiding his tax returns and which, I predict, he will never willfully release. Perhaps Trump suddenly realized he did not really want his finger on the nuclear button. Perhaps he just concluded that he did want to do the work that the presidency requires.

Think about it. If a candidate genuinely wants to become president, would he repeatedly insult the giant wave of Hispanic voters? Would he insult veterans who were heroic prisoners of war by saying that he "like people who weren't captured"? Would he repeatedly insult the 2008 GOP nominee and great war hero, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)?

If a candidate actually wants to become president, would he and his advisers plan a strategy that includes praising the mass-murdering communist dictator of North Korea? Which voters did Trump believe he would win with that one? If a candidate truly wants to become president, would he and his foreign policy advisors plan a strategy that repeatedly praises Vladimir Putin, the strongman dictator of Russia, and say he is not sure he would defend Europe nations from a Russian invasion? Does Trump believe there is a pro-Putin vote in America?

Or, as Trump often says, perhaps there is something happening here. Some people might say he does these things because he wants to lose the election and is throwing the game to Clinton.

I have been to many rodeos in national politics, and literally every single major player in politics that I know expected Trump to "pivot" after the conventions to appear to take more responsible positions and say fewer irresponsible and self-destructive things. Republicans believed Trump would pivot with hope; Democrats believed he would pivot with dread.

Nobody I know believed that Trump would pivot in the opposite direction, becoming even more irresponsible and self-destructive after the conventions.

Did Trump and his campaign managers develop a strategy to attack a Gold Star mother and father? Could any presidential candidate who wants to be elected seem to publicly support Russian espionage against America, and take positions so extreme that a former acting CIA director calls him "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation"? Would any candidate who actually wants to win make comments about the Second Amendment and a political opponent so that the Secret Service is not happy, the same kind of comments that helped Harry Reid pulverize his Republican opponent into dust in his last reelection campaign?

I predict that Trump will never release his tax returns because there is something in those returns he intensely fears being revealed. Shall we speculate about what could be so devastating in his undisclosed tax returns? Is it not possible, possibly even likely, that he might dread the thought, for similar reasons, of filing his financial disclosure papers if he is elected president?

There has been some speculation in GOP circles about whether Trump might drop out of the campaign. This is possible, but I doubt it. The more likely scenario, if Trump does not want to be elected president, is that he will keep saying and doing things that any freshman political science student in college would know will doom his candidacy, and that after he loses a potential landslide to Hillary Clinton, will shout from the rooftops: "I was robbed!"

I am not saying that I believe Donald Trump is trying to throw the election to Hillary Clinton, but I am saying this is a prospect that is now worth seriously considering if the endless series of Trump blunders and gaffes continues.


I would like to thank the author for providing a bold highlighters wet drea m. One pass and BAM, done. No clumping, good even spread, just enough italics to keep one riveted. I say thee, Bravo good sir....indeed, Bravisimo. :clap:
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Back on topic! The debate dates are set, as it seems, and we can look forward as how they will go:



http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...-hillary-clinton-20160809-snap-htmlstory.html

As Trump says, at least two dates seem to conflict with major football games.Yet I don't think that those two crowds are conflicted as what to watch. Your opinions?

I think a key element is if Trump will be able to dbate rationally or if he will go full galloping elephant, playing his "crooked Hillary" and "Hillary wants to take away the second amendment" etc.

I think he will do so, and after the debates, there will only be his very hardcore believers left, and many more republicans will then - given he does as I think he will - come forward and shun him.

Of course, he might outshine her, or finally make her loose her nerves and flip the script. That would be great entertainment, but then the cards would be totally mixed up

Good luck with that. And for those of you who believe the fake poll numbers from the fake news.....please wake up.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Good luck with that. And for those of you who believe the fake poll numbers from the fake news.....please wake up.

Well, it ultimately comes down to which sources one finds credibkle, in the long run, and which impession one gets from the majority of his personal social contact.

For myself and the likes of me, we seem to share the same impression on the whole, that is documented in the news stories we share here.

Of course, we have to be aware, that they can be just that "stories". But they cover what very much appears to be what is going on.

A big problem is that the both sides not just in this discussion only rely on their choice of sources, and this we have two realities. Is one the absolutely true one and the other absolutely false? That is very much unlikely, too. But it makes our discussion so near impossible most of the time
 
Top