US Election 2016

[Valsuelm]

Updated Electoral College analysis from the Cook Political Report.

 

http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

Cook clearly hasn't bothered to do their homework (par for the course for a publication such as that).

 

I told you, New York is going to be solid red for the first time since '84. Bold prediction that flies in the face of conventional wisdom I know, but I stand by it.

 

You've got about 6 months now to prepare to write my praises.

[Leferd]

 

Updated Electoral College analysis from the Cook Political Report.

 

http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

Cook clearly hasn't bothered to do their homework (par for the course for a publication such as that).

 

I told you, New York is going to be solid red for the first time since '84. Bold prediction that flies in the face of conventional wisdom I know, but I stand by it.

 

You've got about 6 months now to prepare to write my praises.

 

 

I'll throw Republicans a bone: House races.

 

http://cookpolitical.com/house/charts/race-ratings

 

 

Projected Democratic gains but the GOP retains majority.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

I'm not in any sort of moral outrage regarding Trump. I find the things that come out of him to be unintentionally hilarious,

Ha!

 

I find some of the things that come out of him intentionally hilarious. The man isn't dumb.

Stefan molyneux has a good video outlining all the claims about trump and contrasting them to what he actually said that was quite good. Also quoted the art of the deal where trump talks about his media strategy being to be outrageous so people will talk about you. Free media coverage and people will be caught off guard when you are serious.

I generally watch most of Stefan's videos where a caller isn't involved, and I did see the one to which you're referring. Stefan is usually good about contrasting fact from fiction in the modern world, at least on mainstream issues.

 

And yes, Trump is a genius. Hillary's only hope is that the zombies have reached critical mass nationwide. Wo is the U.S. if they have.

I actually like some of the call in ones. The Merkel Destroying Europe one I liked, and the Objectivist one I liked. I use an app that converts the videos to audio streams and just listen at work.

[BruceVC]

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/05/email-scandal-crushed-fbi-finds-evidence-clinton-broke-law-private-email.html

 

I'm very glad it appears we can finally put the matter of " Hilary Clinton is a criminal and is going to jail " at rest 

 

 

The investigation is still ongoing but its about to wrap-up and in summary 

 

"Hillary Clinton has said from the beginning of this Republican created scandal that she did nothing wrong, and the FBI is on their way to finding that she was telling the truth " 

 

 

Lets now focus on  the substantive issues that will determine who will be the next US president ....go Hilary   

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Stefan molyneux has a good video outlining all the claims about trump and contrasting them to what he actually said that was quite good. Also quoted the art of the deal where trump talks about his media strategy being to be outrageous so people will talk about you. Free media coverage and people will be caught off guard when you are serious.

I generally watch most of Stefan's videos where a caller isn't involved, and I did see the one to which you're referring. Stefan is usually good about contrasting fact from fiction in the modern world, at least on mainstream issues.

 

And yes, Trump is a genius. Hillary's only hope is that the zombies have reached critical mass nationwide. Wo is the U.S. if they have.

I actually like some of the call in ones. The Merkel Destroying Europe one I liked, and the Objectivist one I liked. I use an app that converts the videos to audio streams and just listen at work.

 

In lieu of the app, you may be interested in this:

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com

[Oerwinde]

Bookmarked. Just finished his The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid, Bruce might be interested in it and be able to shed some more light. His anarcho-capitalist views are entirely foreign to me and I don't see it working in the real world, but I like that he is able to find the good in things he doesn't believe in and the bad in what he does.

[BruceVC]

Bookmarked. Just finished his The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid, Bruce might be interested in it and be able to shed some more light. His anarcho-capitalist views are entirely foreign to me and I don't see it working in the real world, but I like that he is able to find the good in things he doesn't believe in and the bad in what he does.

Thats a long video but I think I will watch it, thanks for the link 

 

But just to be clear can you explain what you mean by "anarcho-capitalist "..what exactly does this ?

[Guard Dog]

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/05/email-scandal-crushed-fbi-finds-evidence-clinton-broke-law-private-email.html

 

I'm very glad it appears we can finally put the matter of " Hilary Clinton is a criminal and is going to jail " at rest 

 

 

The investigation is still ongoing but its about to wrap-up and in summary 

 

"Hillary Clinton has said from the beginning of this Republican created scandal that she did nothing wrong, and the FBI is on their way to finding that she was telling the truth " 

 

 

Lets now focus on  the substantive issues that will determine who will be the next US president ....go Hilary   

I love the DOJ comment that they believe she didn't "willfully" violate the law. I have two thoughts on that:

1. So it wasn't malice or trying to hide something, it was just incompetence. Yeah, that's much better for a potential President.
2. If a cop pulled me over for speeding and I told him I wasn't willfully speeding, do you think I'd still get a ticket?

[BruceVC]

Bookmarked. Just finished his The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid, Bruce might be interested in it and be able to shed some more light. His anarcho-capitalist views are entirely foreign to me and I don't see it working in the real world, but I like that he is able to find the good in things he doesn't believe in and the bad in what he does.

I'm not sure I can sit through this video...did you read the you tube summary..he says the video discusses topics like 

 

 

" catastrophic economic decisions, the devaluation of the S.A. Rand, rampant price inflation, affirmative action, family structure, one of the worst education systems in the world, unemployment, Eskom’s rolling power outages, white flight, rising criminality, an astronomical murder rate, horrific rape statistics, the rampant sexual abuse of children, prevalence of HIV/AIDS, white farmer genocide, police corruption, President Jacob Zuma, the “kill the Boer” song, life expectancy, road fatalities and the untold history of Apartheid."

 

 

Thats only focusing on the negative....it doesn't seem very objective ?

[Oerwinde]

 

Bookmarked. Just finished his The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid, Bruce might be interested in it and be able to shed some more light. His anarcho-capitalist views are entirely foreign to me and I don't see it working in the real world, but I like that he is able to find the good in things he doesn't believe in and the bad in what he does.

Thats a long video but I think I will watch it, thanks for the link 

 

But just to be clear can you explain what you mean by "anarcho-capitalist "..what exactly does this ?

 

 

He believes that the state should be replaced with voluntary private corporations serving the free market, Which just sounds like nonsense to me. You would essentially have competing private police forces all enforcing their own laws, competing private judiciaries. It would be like if large population centres operated like the old American West.

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/05/email-scandal-crushed-fbi-finds-evidence-clinton-broke-law-private-email.html

 

I'm very glad it appears we can finally put the matter of " Hilary Clinton is a criminal and is going to jail " at rest 

 

 

The investigation is still ongoing but its about to wrap-up and in summary 

 

"Hillary Clinton has said from the beginning of this Republican created scandal that she did nothing wrong, and the FBI is on their way to finding that she was telling the truth " 

 

 

Lets now focus on  the substantive issues that will determine who will be the next US president ....go Hilary   

I love the DOJ comment that they believe she didn't "willfully" violate the law. I have two thoughts on that:

1. So it wasn't malice or trying to hide something, it was just incompetence. Yeah, that's much better for a potential President.
2. If a cop pulled me over for speeding and I told him I wasn't willfully speeding, do you think I'd still get a ticket?

 

 

 

GD why do you always  try annihilate and discredit the dreams and aspirations of millions of Hilary Clinton supporters ...dont be  a hater  

 

But on a serious note you do raise some good points as usual but you dont have to be the cleverest or most astute person in the world to be President of any Democracy. But you do have to  have in your cabinet informed, erudite and perceptive advisers who help you make the right choices. I am confident if Hilary becomes president, which is a given for me,  she will be surrounded by those types of people who will advise her constructively and positively . So these types of mistakes, which are lets say caused by incompetence or misplaced focus,  will be much less

 

So I wouldnt worry if I was US citizen?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Bookmarked. Just finished his The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid, Bruce might be interested in it and be able to shed some more light. His anarcho-capitalist views are entirely foreign to me and I don't see it working in the real world, but I like that he is able to find the good in things he doesn't believe in and the bad in what he does.

Thats a long video but I think I will watch it, thanks for the link 

 

But just to be clear can you explain what you mean by "anarcho-capitalist "..what exactly does this ?

 

 

He believes that the state should be replaced with voluntary private corporations serving the free market, Which just sounds like nonsense to me. You would essentially have competing private police forces all enforcing their own laws, competing private judiciaries. It would be like if large population centres operated like the old American West.

 

Oh wait a minute...who are referring to when you say anarcho-capitalist "

 

Do you mean me or  Stefan Molyneux?

[Guard Dog]

 

Never mind. I don't have the energy or desire to start this up again

Edited May 6, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Oerwinde]

 

Bookmarked. Just finished his The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid, Bruce might be interested in it and be able to shed some more light. His anarcho-capitalist views are entirely foreign to me and I don't see it working in the real world, but I like that he is able to find the good in things he doesn't believe in and the bad in what he does.

I'm not sure I can sit through this video...did you read the you tube summary..he says the video discusses topics like 

 

 

" catastrophic economic decisions, the devaluation of the S.A. Rand, rampant price inflation, affirmative action, family structure, one of the worst education systems in the world, unemployment, Eskom’s rolling power outages, white flight, rising criminality, an astronomical murder rate, horrific rape statistics, the rampant sexual abuse of children, prevalence of HIV/AIDS, white farmer genocide, police corruption, President Jacob Zuma, the “kill the Boer” song, life expectancy, road fatalities and the untold history of Apartheid."

 

 

Thats only focusing on the negative....it doesn't seem very objective ?

 

 

It talks about how Apartheid is looked at entirely as a racist system, while there were many more factors at play, and how economically blacks in SA were more prosperous and were receiving better education that pretty much any other African country, a black middle class was slowly beginning to emerge because of it, and the limitations on blacks and coloureds were being slowly eliminated as wealth and education increased. He posits that the segregation laws were to prevent conflict between rich whites and poor blacks while fighting communist influence that was trying to stir up ethnic conflict, and that as communist influences decreased and black wealth increased the limitations were being pulled back. When outside forces started pressuring them to move to majority rule it harmed the economy, blacks were hurt more economically than whites were, and eventually when Apartheid was abolished it put poor illiterate people with socialist leanings in charge of the country, and policies aimed at increasing black representation hurt the education system and drove skilled whites away, crippling the economy. He claims that ending Apartheid before a black middle class had developed, which was happening, killed that emerging middle class and doomed South Africa.

 

He uses Israel as a modern example for the motivations of Apartheid, where granting Palestinians, who would make up a large majority and are largely poor, full voting rights would destroy the state of Israel, as the new majority would quickly pass laws that would redistribute wealth from the wealthy jewish population to the poor Palestinian population, create a huge welfare state, which would quickly make Palestinians reliant on the state, the economy would be crippled, and the Palestinians would blame it all on the jews, creating even more conflict and violence. So is Israel keeping Palestinians separate because they are racist, or because they don't want their country to collapse?

 

It also talks about how the Bantu were also a migrant population that immigrated from more central africa around the same time the Dutch were colonizing, and there wasn't a lot of conflict between the Dutch and the native inhabitants, while the Bantu wiped them out, yet the Bantu are seen as victims while the Dutch are horrible imperalists who don't belong there.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Oerwinde

[Zoraptor]

 

I love the DOJ comment that they believe she didn't "willfully" violate the law. I have two thoughts on that:

1. So it wasn't malice or trying to hide something, it was just incompetence. Yeah, that's much better for a potential President.
2. If a cop pulled me over for speeding and I told him I wasn't willfully speeding, do you think I'd still get a ticket?

 

 

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton.

[Elerond]

 

If a cop pulled me over for speeding and I told him I wasn't willfully speeding, do you think I'd still get a ticket?

 

 

I have done this couple times and both times cop let me go without ticket, just recommending to watch my speed more carefully    

[Meshugger]

 

 

I love the DOJ comment that they believe she didn't "willfully" violate the law. I have two thoughts on that:

1. So it wasn't malice or trying to hide something, it was just incompetence. Yeah, that's much better for a potential President.
2. If a cop pulled me over for speeding and I told him I wasn't willfully speeding, do you think I'd still get a ticket?

 

 

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton.

 

 

"Willfully broke the law" sounds like lawyer-speak. You can probably twist and turn it depending on the level of accountability involved.

[Volourn]

I thoguht ignorance wasn't an excuse.

 

 

Then again, I think that is silly too because the amount of actual laws is ridiculous. There is a reason why big law firms have tons of people on their payrolls JUST to do research for their  front lawyers who don't have time to do it... yet we expect everybody to not be ignorant of every silly law - espicially since there are a lot of old fashion no longer relevant laws still on the books.

 

 

I'd say the difference between 'willfully' and 'unwillfully' brekaing the law shouid only matter depending on what laws are broken and the reaosnableness of expecting the eprosn to know/not know they were breaking the law. Hialry Clinton is not some ignoramous.  She is a long time politican who has tons of preusmably knowledgeable people sourrounding her, AND is she not a former lawyer? LMAO

 

 

That said, Hialry Clinton is a scumbag who loves to laugh in the face of rape victims.  So she is  a piece of crap.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Volourn

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I love the DOJ comment that they believe she didn't "willfully" violate the law. I have two thoughts on that:

1. So it wasn't malice or trying to hide something, it was just incompetence. Yeah, that's much better for a potential President.
2. If a cop pulled me over for speeding and I told him I wasn't willfully speeding, do you think I'd still get a ticket?

 

 

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton.

 

 

"Willfully broke the law" sounds like lawyer-speak. You can probably twist and turn it depending on the level of accountability involved.

 

Well the article cannot be considered " worthless spin " if the FBI decides she has no charges to face, in fact to suggest the legal outcome of this whole incident is just spin is a pointless comment because the whole outcome was " would she be charged " 

 

 

But also guys of course there is a difference between someone who knows they breaking the law and someone who may not be aware that there behavior is illegal ?

 

It reminds me of the numerous times I have said things like " Trump is responsible for the level of violence and protests at his rallies ".....but I cannot say with certainty that Trump actually expected this outcome and many of you guys feel he should not feel responsible at all

 

So back to Hilary, I dont believe she thought she was doing anything illegal, I'm not sure if any of the FBI findings will become available for public scrutiny  so this entire debate is very subjective as it really depends on how you view her

 

So then if we have no way to see the real evidence then surly we need to trust the FBI has investigated this case and made a fair finding 

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

I love the DOJ comment that they believe she didn't "willfully" violate the law. I have two thoughts on that:

1. So it wasn't malice or trying to hide something, it was just incompetence. Yeah, that's much better for a potential President.
2. If a cop pulled me over for speeding and I told him I wasn't willfully speeding, do you think I'd still get a ticket?

 

 

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton.

 

 

"Willfully broke the law" sounds like lawyer-speak. You can probably twist and turn it depending on the level of accountability involved.

 

Well the article cannot be considered " worthless spin " if the FBI decides she has no charges to face, in fact to suggest the legal outcome of this whole incident is just spin is a pointless comment because the whole outcome was " would she be charged " 

 

 

But also guys of course there is a difference between someone who knows they breaking the law and someone who may not be aware that there behavior is illegal ?

 

It reminds me of the numerous times I have said things like " Trump is responsible for the level of violence and protests at his rallies ".....but I cannot say with certainty that Trump actually expected this outcome and many of you guys feel he should not feel responsible at all

 

So back to Hilary, I dont believe she thought she was doing anything illegal, I'm not sure if any of the FBI findings will become available for public scrutiny  so this entire debate is very subjective as it really depends on how you view her

 

So then if we have no way to see the real evidence then surly we need to trust the FBI has investigated this case and made a fair finding 

 

 

1. I'll wait for the report to be concluded and an official announcement from FBI.

2. As i have pointed out before, it doesn't matter when an elected official or someone holding public office does something willfully or not in terms work procedures. They are accountable either way and that's when the lawyers step in.

3. Trump is not an elected official who has been handling sensitive and confidential government information on a private server. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

I love the DOJ comment that they believe she didn't "willfully" violate the law. I have two thoughts on that:

1. So it wasn't malice or trying to hide something, it was just incompetence. Yeah, that's much better for a potential President.
2. If a cop pulled me over for speeding and I told him I wasn't willfully speeding, do you think I'd still get a ticket?

 

 

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton.

 

 

"Willfully broke the law" sounds like lawyer-speak. You can probably twist and turn it depending on the level of accountability involved.

 

Well the article cannot be considered " worthless spin " if the FBI decides she has no charges to face, in fact to suggest the legal outcome of this whole incident is just spin is a pointless comment because the whole outcome was " would she be charged " 

 

 

But also guys of course there is a difference between someone who knows they breaking the law and someone who may not be aware that there behavior is illegal ?

 

It reminds me of the numerous times I have said things like " Trump is responsible for the level of violence and protests at his rallies ".....but I cannot say with certainty that Trump actually expected this outcome and many of you guys feel he should not feel responsible at all

 

So back to Hilary, I dont believe she thought she was doing anything illegal, I'm not sure if any of the FBI findings will become available for public scrutiny  so this entire debate is very subjective as it really depends on how you view her

 

So then if we have no way to see the real evidence then surly we need to trust the FBI has investigated this case and made a fair finding 

 

 

1. I'll wait for the report to be concluded and an official announcement from FBI.

2. As i have pointed out before, it doesn't matter when an elected official or someone holding public office does something willfully or not. They are accountable either way and that's when the lawyers step in.

 

And if the lawyer steps in  and the legal process finds them innocent....do we now accept that?

 

So who is the final arbiter when it comes to apparent wrong doings by any politicians ?

Edited May 6, 2016 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

IIRC, the FBI can only give a report of their investigation and its recommendations. The Attourny General then makes the decision based on the report to press charges or not.

 

But lets say that the report is a bit vague and there's a whole lot of "willfully nots" and the Attourney General does not press charges, followed by the chief of FBI immidiately resigning from his post in protest. That would be an interesting scenario to say the least.

[BruceVC]

IIRC, the FBI can only give a report of their investigation and its recommendations. The Attourny General then makes the decision based on the report to press charges or not.

 

But lets say that the report is a bit vague and there's a whole lot of "willfully nots" and the Attourney General does not press charges, followed by the chief of FBI immidiately resigning from his post in protest. That would be an interesting scenario to say the least.

 

Yeah that would be a little controversial if the FBI chief resigned ....imagine if he just vanished, that would be even worse  

[Guard Dog]

Bruce, let me pose a serious question to you. It is pretty much settled that Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server to conduct State Dept. business. Even she admits that. The dispute is if she sent classified information that was later compromised. But put that aside for the moment. Have you wondered WHY she used a private server rather than the government's secure server? Why do that? Why even invite a problem that way? She is not stupid. She knows what server is for what.

 

Have you at least wondered about that? I believe I know the answer but I'd like to hear from you first.

[Volourn]

"It reminds me of the numerous times I have said things like " Trump is responsible for the level of violence and protests at his rallies ".....but I cannot say with certainty that Trump actually expected this outcome and many of you guys feel he should not feel responsible at all"
 

The situations aren't even remotely similiar.   One is trying to link Trump to the behaviour of others who are responsible for their own actions and the other is  holding Clinton responsible for her own actions. How cna you not see the difference? Also, why are you pretending that Clinton is some ignoramous. Afterall, one of the things her supporters brag about her is all her experience and years in politics. She is no newb.