Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

No mention of the company sicing dogs on the protestors, though.

[misko27]

It's interesting that the Clinton bump finally wavered, and that it really was true that Trump could just stop screaming at national heroes for a little while and his polls would recover. Although... from what I've heard, its not so much that Trump has gained (he hasn't), but that Clinton has fallen. Clinton's biggest advantage is that she has a much higher ceiling of support (not an amazing ceiling by any standard, but she's been over 50% at least) then Trump, but she can also lose a lot more than Trump probably could at this stage (I mean, anyone still supporting Trump at this point will probably continue to support him unless he manages to reach some new low).

When is the first debate? I'm willing to bet that whatever happens there will dramatically shake up the race (or just lower opinions of all involved).

[Ghills]

Noted warlock Nate Silver

Noted indeed.

Needless to say, I don't have much faith in any odds he's providing. Petty as it is, I still can't help but chuckle when I see him referred to as Nate Bronze.

Do you think his methodology is flawed, or do you think he's overlooking factors that make this election season unpredictable?

[Ghills]

If you place all the scandals of the Clinton family on her, rather than taking a look at which one's are Bill's, you can find some. Sorta. Squint a little.

The whole issue that makes this thing contentious is a lack of hard evidence. Basically everything is circumstantial or hearsay.

And she's been investigated SO MUCH.  There's whole groups dedicated to digging up dirt on her.  The fact that the worst they can find is "She did some stupid but common stuff with email, for which she had understandable reasons and which was even suggested by other politicians (i.e. Colin Powell)" is pretty telling. 

If there really was worse stuff than 'doesn't understand IT all that well' and 'has fundraisers with large corporations like every other politician currently running or serving", it would have been found.  Nothing has been found. Which isn't to say that Clinton's a hardcore ethicist - she's a politician, no worse or better than anyone else including all the presidents.

Well, probably better than some presidents, no one has even suggested she's illegally sending weapons to our enemies.

[Baffler]

And despite what some people might say, she isn't a literal traitor. That isn't saying much, but it's more than can be said for Richard Nixon and there are still people who like him.

[Zangi]

Trump 2016 intensifies.

[RedKing]

Noted warlock Nate Silver

Noted indeed.

Needless to say, I don't have much faith in any odds he's providing. Petty as it is, I still can't help but chuckle when I see him referred to as Nate Bronze.

"OMG guyz he was wrong about something, so therefore he's wrong about everything after that" 


Somehow I think if he was predicting a Trump victory, you'd be touting his track record.
Or linking tweets like this.

[PTTG??]

I think Hillary is playing the long con -- she's letting Trump get ahead a bit so that democrats are more and more committed to stopping him, and therefore voting down ballot. I expect that with a week or two to go, she'll pull out all the stops and release two or three big Trump scandals just in time for them to hit their height on election day.

If she does it right, that's a Democrat sweep of all three branches. That's worth a summer of being called a monster, from her perspective.

[RedKing]

I don't think the problem is Democrats not voting down ballot, it's that they might potentially fail to vote *up* ballot.

I know a considerable number of Dems and independents who are planning to vote straight ticket (or nearly-straight ticket) at state and local races, but still haven't decided what to do on the Presidential race. Yes, you can argue that letting Trump "catch up" scares people into voting for her, but if she was already set to win a state anyways, I don't that it helps. Victories are based on electoral college votes, not popular vote. Popular vote margins are like "style points".

[mainiac]

If there really was worse stuff than 'doesn't understand IT all that well' and 'has fundraisers with large corporations like every other politician currently running or serving", it would have been found.  Nothing has been found. Which isn't to say that Clinton's a hardcore ethicist - she's a politician, no worse or better than anyone else including all the presidents.

Actually I would say it does show that she is a hardcore ethicist.

Hillary Clinton has a lot of conflicts of interest.  But thanks to the endless investigations we know that she has never in all these conflicts of interests ever dabbled in corruption.  The Clinton foundation takes money from a Saudi prince is a conflict of interest.  What makes it corruption is if the Saudis get any quid pro quo.  If any corruption existed they would be printing that instead of printing about how Clinton thought it would be in US foreign interests to help a nobel peace prize winning humanitarian keep working (not that they put it that way).

I think Hillary is playing the long con -- she's letting Trump get ahead a bit

What concrete steps would she be taking if that were here plan?

It's interesting that the Clinton bump finally wavered, and that it really was true that Trump could just stop screaming at national heroes for a little while and his polls would recover.

Well that and front page coverage of a new "scandal".

[Folly]

So Trump's latest plan to defeat ISIS is to give his generals a 30-day deadline to come up with a plan.

What exactly is he implying? Is he going to kick generals out of the military when they fail to deliver in 30 days a war-ending strategy they've been trying to come up with for more than a decade?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If we're giving Trump credit, it's a way to force more and more extreme scorched earth tactics. The "kill everybody" option is always on the table, and will therefore be selected by default if a time limit is established.

[Baffler]

We technically have a war-ending strategy already, if ending the war is defined as "ISIS no longer controls any territory." It consists mostly of letting the kurds and the governments of Iraq and Syria (also Turkey now, though they're mostly attending to their own objectives, namely "wipe out the kurds along the border") fight them on the ground while we give them air support, and isn't likely to finish for another year at the very least, but barring ISIS suddenly getting Chinese sponsorship it will eventually lead to their defeat.

[martinuzz]

Yeah, and then we can get to deal with Kurds taking their place, desillusioned by the treachery of it's US allies who left them to die to the Turks.

TBH I rather have IS terrorism to fear. Kurds are way more organized.

[Rolepgeek]

Dunno, Kurds will probably be pretty content if they can have their own country.