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

[Jagger69]

A reason not to vote for the socialist swine and bitch that is clinton:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/emails-huma-abedin-left-classified-material-unsecured-in-the-front-seat-of-her-car/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/clay-travis-hammers-hillary-clinton-voters-with-a-single-tweet/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/exclusive-condi-rice-also-has-no-recollection-of-hillarys-email-convo-with-colin-powell/

And bad news for the clinton fanboys
http://conservativetribune.com/presidential-poll-stuns-media/

- - - Updated - - -

@jagger, good luck in your vote, unless the blank vote is counted

I will not vote for Clinton and absolutely cannot vote for Trump so third party it will indeed be for me. Not sure at this point if it will be Johnson or Stein but I vote in every election and I'll vote this November for sure.

I must say that I find it absurd that you refer to sources that are nothing more than blatant conservative mouthpieces and then attempt to present them as legitimate "news" sources. They most certainly aren't so please don't waste my time with them. Show me the same information being presented from a more generally-accepted news source and I'll pay a whole lot more attention to what they have to say. Otherwise, not.

I also find it amazingly hypocritical that Mr. Trump's supporters (and not pointing the finger particularly at you Georges) blindly refuse to hold their own candidate to the same transparency and accountability standards that they have relentlessly imposed upon Secretary Clinton. Why doesn't he release his tax and financial records? What is he hiding? Both of these nominees are from the economic elite and pretend to be able to relate to the masses. How can anyone unequivocally believe one and automatically condemn the other without insisting on the same evidence criteria for both?

It would appear to this voter that both nominees are seriously flawed and fraught with the suspicion that they may have financial favors owed to those who have only their own self-interests in mind and couldn't care less about the average American citizen. Just the implication that this impropriety might be the case is a disqualifier in my view. How can either one of them live up to the fiduciary responsibility they will swear to the American people on January 20 with these questions hanging in the balance? Is that who you want occupying the Oval Office? I certainly don't. I would urge all constituents to please not let your partisanship or political bias cloud your thinking to the point where double-standards are being applied simply because they represent what you want the truth to be....whether it actually is or not being of no significant consequence as long as your guy wins.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Rasmussen Poll Shows Two-Point Race: Clinton 41 Percent, Trump 39 Percent
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

LA Times Tracking Poll: Clinton 44 Percent, Trump 43.4 Percent
http://www.latimes.com/politics/

Poll: Clinton leads Trump by 12 points nationally
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...93-poll-clinton-leads-by-12-points-nationally

Poll: Clinton has 8-point lead over Trump
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...2286-poll-clinton-has-8-point-lead-over-trump

Poll: Clinton up 14 in battleground state of Florida
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...florida-rubio-murphy-grayson-senate/89213904/

Poll: Clinton up 16 in Virginia
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/virginia-poll-clinton-over-trump/

 

[sean miguel]

I will not vote for Clinton and absolutely cannot vote for Trump so third party it will indeed be for me. Not sure at this point if it will be Johnson or Stein but I vote in every election and I'll vote this November for sure.

I must say that I find it absurd that you refer to sources that are nothing more than blatant conservative mouthpieces and then attempt to present them as legitimate "news" sources. They most certainly aren't so please don't waste my time with them. Show me the same information being presented from a more generally-accepted news source and I'll pay a whole lot more attention to what they have to say. Otherwise, not.

I also find it amazingly hypocritical that Mr. Trump's supporters (and not pointing the finger particularly at you Georges) blindly refuse to hold their own candidate to the same transparency and accountability standards that they have relentlessly imposed upon Secretary Clinton. Why doesn't he release his tax and financial records? What is he hiding? Both of these nominees are from the economic elite and pretend to be able to relate to the masses. How can anyone unequivocally believe one and automatically condemn the other without insisting on the same evidence criteria for both?

It would appear to this voter that both nominees are seriously flawed and fraught with the suspicion that they may have financial favors owed to those who have only their own self-interests in mind and couldn't care less about the average American citizen. Just the implication that this impropriety might be the case is a disqualifier in my view. How can either one of them live up to the fiduciary responsibility they will swear to the American people on January 20 with these questions hanging in the balance? Is that who you want occupying the Oval Office? I certainly don't. I would urge all constituents to please not let your partisanship or political bias cloud your thinking to the point where double-standards are being applied simply because they represent what you want the truth to be....whether it actually is or not being of no significant consequence as long as your guy wins.

Trump isn't my guy and he may be involved in some shady shit but nothing that rises to the level of HRC, nor has he compromised our national security in order to conduct said shit. The lesser of two evils? So be it. My state isn't in play so my vote means less than others, but I'm still rooting for him and will vote for him. And there's the Supreme Court which is what this ultimately comes down to.

 

[ApolloBalboa]

I will not vote for Clinton and absolutely cannot vote for Trump so third party it will indeed be for me. Not sure at this point if it will be Johnson or Stein but I vote in every election and I'll vote this November for sure.

I must say that I find it absurd that you refer to sources that are nothing more than blatant conservative mouthpieces and then attempt to present them as legitimate "news" sources. They most certainly aren't so please don't waste my time with them. Show me the same information being presented from a more generally-accepted news source and I'll pay a whole lot more attention to what they have to say. Otherwise, not.

I also find it amazingly hypocritical that Mr. Trump's supporters (and not pointing the finger particularly at you Georges) blindly refuse to hold their own candidate to the same transparency and accountability standards that they have relentlessly imposed upon Secretary Clinton. Why doesn't he release his tax and financial records? What is he hiding? Both of these nominees are from the economic elite and pretend to be able to relate to the masses. How can anyone unequivocally believe one and automatically condemn the other without insisting on the same evidence criteria for both?

It would appear to this voter that both nominees are seriously flawed and fraught with the suspicion that they may have financial favors owed to those who have only their own self-interests in mind and couldn't care less about the average American citizen. Just the implication that this impropriety might be the case is a disqualifier in my view. How can either one of them live up to the fiduciary responsibility they will swear to the American people on January 20 with these questions hanging in the balance? Is that who you want occupying the Oval Office? I certainly don't. I would urge all constituents to please not let your partisanship or political bias cloud your thinking to the point where double-standards are being applied simply because they represent what you want the truth to be....whether it actually is or not being of no significant consequence as long as your guy wins.

It's really unfair that I can't rep you when you really deserve it (not to say that you haven't earned it other times, but this hits all points).

 

[Jagger69]

Trump isn't my guy and he may be involved in some shady shit but nothing that rises to the level of HRC....

Never said he was "your guy" so not sure what that emphasis is all about. Also, you conclusions are based on opinion, not fact. I have no objection to whomever you are supporting and for whatever reason so by all means vote your conscience. However, due to the lack of data from Trump, you simply cannot make a direct comparison.

Both candidates are substandard to say the least....in my opinion.

 

[sean miguel]

Both candidates are substandard to say the least....in my opinion.

And one has compromised national security. Not to belabor the point. But vote for Gary Johnson or whomever and assuage your conscience. Who gives a shit. It's as irrelevant as that candidate.

 

[Jagger69]

But vote for Gary Johnson or whomever and assuage your conscience. Who gives a shit. It's as irrelevant as that candidate.

I give a shit, that's who. Call it irrelevant if you wish but it's really the only choice I have aside from none at all.

 

[BoboBrowne]

Have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. Trump is the most dangerous, idiotic, narcissistic candidate in American presidential history.

America needs some kind of change, but you don't just accept the first insulting blowhard who appeals to your lowest senses you can find.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Hillary is the most dangerous, idiotic, narcissistic candidate in American presidential history. .

^ Fixed that for you:

More than half of the people outside the government with whom Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met were also donors to the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/


Dangerous, idiotic and narcissistic about sums up Hillary.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. Trump is the most dangerous, idiotic, narcissistic candidate in American presidential history.

America needs some kind of change, but you don't just accept the first insulting blowhard who appeals to your lowest senses you can find.

Great! Another genius.

Bernie Madoff is doing time for far less than what that Pantsuit wearing, lying cunt has done.

If you can vote for that crook then you deserve the government you get.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Trump within 1 point

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016...main-within-1-percentage-point/1751472050339/

Florida Atlantic University poll:

Trump holds narrow lead in Florida

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292499-poll-trump-holds-narrow-lead-over-clinton-in-florida

 

[Jack Davenport]

Trump closing in on Clinton in North Carolina.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-in-tight-race-in-north-carolina/

 

[ApolloBalboa]

If Donald Trump's campaign slogan from the get-go was "What the Hell Do You Have to Lose?", I can almost guarantee you he'd be doing better.

 

[sean miguel]

If Donald Trump's campaign slogan from the get-go was "What the Hell Do You Have to Lose?", I can almost guarantee you he'd be doing better.

good point.

 

[Supafly]

Oh Ann, another man stabs you in the back.

Ann Coulter fumes as Donald Trump floats massive immigration flip-flop

The Republican nominee is now suggesting he might not want to deport America’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

...

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...ump-floats-massive-immigration-flip-flop.html

 

[sean miguel]

Oh Ann, another man stabs you in the back.



https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...ump-floats-massive-immigration-flip-flop.html

what did she expect? That Donald Trump was principled? He contradicts his own positions in the same breath.

But as that wise man Thomas Sowell says, "compared to what?"

 

[Supafly]

Don't worry. I will start a thtead about our Chancellor elections 2017, and welcome your thoughtful opinions and insights, of course.

There is talk about Merkel getting tird. And our variation of the Democrats, the SPD, has their own trouble deciding on the candidate. Wait for my thread

 

[ApolloBalboa]

good point.

A year ago, I said Cruz's campaign slogan should have been or included "Cruz Control". I have no doubt that if he'd taken my advice, he'd be the one with the nomination.

 

[Straight Shooter]

 

[meesterperfect]

More proof of HC's health problems:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...hillarys-health-truth-revealed/#ixzz4IIVGdepf

actual email
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/25404

Why would a Foreign policy advisor be writing HC with detailed info on a drug used to treat Parkinsons Disease?
To be fair it's also used a alternative to amphetamines.

No smoking gun here but just a little more proof she is sick.

Btw today she made a speech referring to Trump multiple times as a racist, neo nazi, and KKK supporter.
This coming from a person who's staff refers to the Mexicans vote as " The Taco Bowl Engagement".
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5492
The Race card. Can she get any lower?