Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 739734 times)

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2950 on: August 24, 2016, 09:45:36 PM »
Ha!  Excellent point.  It's bad enough when policy statements change from day to day, but one would hope for internal consistency within the same document....

It also completely ignores the astronomically large and ongoing subsidies we give to the oil and gas industries, which dwarf all subsidies to renewable energies, and which Republicans generally favor.  Apparently you're not allowed to play favorites, unless you favor established carbon extraction companies?

I'm still trying to decide if that document offends me because it is so self-righteous, or because it is so deliberately confused.
All of the above, plus the inherent cynicism of it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2951 on: August 25, 2016, 05:45:19 AM »

It also completely ignores the astronomically large and ongoing subsidies we give to the oil and gas industries, which dwarf all subsidies to renewable energies, and which Republicans generally favor.  Apparently you're not allowed to play favorites, unless you favor established carbon extraction companies?

I'm still trying to decide if that document offends me because it is so self-righteous, or because it is so deliberately confused.

Well it certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the top oil-producing states being Texas, North Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma and Alaska, nor would it have anything to do with the top oil refining states being Texas, Louisiana and Indiana (plus California)...

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23257
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2952 on: August 25, 2016, 06:34:34 AM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2953 on: August 25, 2016, 06:42:51 AM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

You're right GuitarStv... we just need to trust it will all be solved.  Isn't that what Trump's been saying about, well, everything?  "Trust me, things are going to get fixed, and they're going to get fixed fast"

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2954 on: August 25, 2016, 08:13:48 AM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

Ah, the post-factual era at it's best.

It's better if you read it in a Trump voice: "The environment is top notch, the best. It's getting better every day."

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2955 on: August 25, 2016, 11:35:07 AM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground?  (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2956 on: August 25, 2016, 12:40:49 PM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground?  (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)

OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open).  Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2957 on: August 25, 2016, 12:55:26 PM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground?  (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)

OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open).  Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.

My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end." In other words, God will either 1) magically prevent the atmosphere from warming so much that it causes a global catastrophe no matter how much CO2 we pump into it, or 2) allow the world to slip into catastrophe, thus paving the way for the Apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelation. Either way, He's got this, so there's nothing to worry about. And this is a well-educated woman who graduated in the top of her class (B.S. in Hydrology, so it's not like she's a liberal arts major, either). It's incredibly disturbing, given the consequences of being wrong. But faith ultimately requires that one spend as little time as possible pondering the possibility that one may be wrong.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2958 on: August 25, 2016, 01:03:15 PM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground?  (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)

OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open).  Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.

My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end." In other words, God will either 1) magically prevent the atmosphere from warming so much that it causes a global catastrophe no matter how much CO2 we pump into it, or 2) allow the world to slip into catastrophe, thus paving the way for the Apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelation. Either way, He's got this, so there's nothing to worry about. And this is a well-educated woman who graduated in the top of her class (B.S. in Hydrology, so it's not like she's a liberal arts major, either). It's incredibly disturbing, given the consequences of being wrong. But faith ultimately requires that one spend as little time as possible pondering the possibility that one may be wrong.
... yet God allows people to be murder other people, wars to rage on, and famine to destroy both civilizations and ecosystems.
Perhaps He will swoop in just before we annihilate our species, but shouldn't we do something before we get to that point?

(this is the argument I would make to said person, though it's unlikely to change anything. I don't subscribe to either premise).

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2959 on: August 25, 2016, 01:09:12 PM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground?  (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)

OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open).  Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.

My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end." In other words, God will either 1) magically prevent the atmosphere from warming so much that it causes a global catastrophe no matter how much CO2 we pump into it, or 2) allow the world to slip into catastrophe, thus paving the way for the Apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelation. Either way, He's got this, so there's nothing to worry about. And this is a well-educated woman who graduated in the top of her class (B.S. in Hydrology, so it's not like she's a liberal arts major, either). It's incredibly disturbing, given the consequences of being wrong. But faith ultimately requires that one spend as little time as possible pondering the possibility that one may be wrong.

I've heard this too. It's interesting how this "logic" is applied selectively. We shouldn't be concerned about climate change that we are causing because God is in control and it's part of his will. But we should totally be concerned with gay marriage because then God punishes us with hurricanes as a result. We shouldn't be concerned with all the poverty. But we should totally be freaked out about Sharia Law being implemented in the US (nevermind that the country is around Muslim so that has no chance of happening even if it weren't unconstitutional).

Another disturbing place this pops up is in our policy towards the Middle East. A lot of Christians are in support of Israel's existence not because of any concern about there being a Jewish state. No, it's because Israel needs to exist (they think) in order for the end times and Armageddon to occur according to the prophecies in Revelation. They are in support of Israel and causing huge and widespread death in the Middle East as a result of that--in order for Israel and others in the region to be subjected to the bloodbaths in the prophecy. They want them to exist to be slaughtered so Jesus can come back again. With friends like that...

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2960 on: August 25, 2016, 01:48:42 PM »
My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end."

Politics, global warming, and religion, all within the space of a single sentence?  You've just unwittingly introduced the ultimate survival test for this heretofore-unlocked 60-page thread...

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2961 on: August 25, 2016, 01:57:24 PM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground?  (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)

OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open).  Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.

My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end." In other words, God will either 1) magically prevent the atmosphere from warming so much that it causes a global catastrophe no matter how much CO2 we pump into it, or 2) allow the world to slip into catastrophe, thus paving the way for the Apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelation. Either way, He's got this, so there's nothing to worry about. And this is a well-educated woman who graduated in the top of her class (B.S. in Hydrology, so it's not like she's a liberal arts major, either). It's incredibly disturbing, given the consequences of being wrong. But faith ultimately requires that one spend as little time as possible pondering the possibility that one may be wrong.

I've heard this too. It's interesting how this "logic" is applied selectively. We shouldn't be concerned about climate change that we are causing because God is in control and it's part of his will. But we should totally be concerned with gay marriage because then God punishes us with hurricanes as a result. We shouldn't be concerned with all the poverty. But we should totally be freaked out about Sharia Law being implemented in the US (nevermind that the country is around Muslim so that has no chance of happening even if it weren't unconstitutional).

Another disturbing place this pops up is in our policy towards the Middle East. A lot of Christians are in support of Israel's existence not because of any concern about there being a Jewish state. No, it's because Israel needs to exist (they think) in order for the end times and Armageddon to occur according to the prophecies in Revelation. They are in support of Israel and causing huge and widespread death in the Middle East as a result of that--in order for Israel and others in the region to be subjected to the bloodbaths in the prophecy. They want them to exist to be slaughtered so Jesus can come back again. With friends like that...

Am I reading correctly that you have heard Christian's support Israels existence so they can be slaughtered as part of Armegeddon?  I've been going to church all my life - heard a lot of support for Israel, but never heard that one.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2962 on: August 25, 2016, 02:44:26 PM »
Briefly stated, Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with the Israeli government, religious and secular Jewish Zionist organizations, and are particularly empowered during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Knesset. Both the secular and religious media place Christian Zionism in the Protestant evangelical movement, which claims upward of 100-125 million members in the US. However, one would more accurately categorize it as part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity, since the evangelical movement is far larger and more diverse in its theology and historical development.

 Christian Zionism grew out of a particular theological system called “premillennial dispensationalism,” which emerged during the early 19th century in England, when there was an outpouring of millennial doctrines. The preaching and writings of a renegade Irish clergyman, John Nelson Darby, and a Scotsman, Edward Irving, emphasized the literal and future fulfillment of such Biblical teachings as “the rapture,” the rise of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon and the central role that a revived nation-state of Israel would play during the latter days.

 Premillennialism is a type of Christian theology as old as Christianity itself. It has its roots in Jewish apocalyptic thought and generally holds that Jesus will return to earth before he establishes, literally, a millennial kingdom under his sovereignty. Darby added the distinctive elements of the rapture (or removal to heaven) of true, born-again Christians prior to Jesus’ return, and interpreted all major prophetic texts as having predictive value. He also marked world history according to certain periods called “dispensations,” that served to guide believers in how they should conduct themselves. The fulfillment of prophetic signs became the central task of Christian interpretation.

 Darby’s ideas became a central feature in the teachings of many of the great preachers of the 1880-1900 period, including evangelists Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, the major Presbyterian preacher James Brooks, Philadelphia radio preacher Harry B. Ironsides, and Cyrus I. Scofield. When Scofield applied Darby’s eschatology to the Bible, the result was a superimposed outline of premillennial dispensationalist notations on the Biblical text, known as the Scofield Bible. Gradually, the Scofield Bible became the only version used by most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for the next 95 years

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2963 on: August 25, 2016, 02:48:43 PM »
Briefly stated, Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with the Israeli government, religious and secular Jewish Zionist organizations, and are particularly empowered during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Knesset. Both the secular and religious media place Christian Zionism in the Protestant evangelical movement, which claims upward of 100-125 million members in the US. However, one would more accurately categorize it as part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity, since the evangelical movement is far larger and more diverse in its theology and historical development.

 Christian Zionism grew out of a particular theological system called “premillennial dispensationalism,” which emerged during the early 19th century in England, when there was an outpouring of millennial doctrines. The preaching and writings of a renegade Irish clergyman, John Nelson Darby, and a Scotsman, Edward Irving, emphasized the literal and future fulfillment of such Biblical teachings as “the rapture,” the rise of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon and the central role that a revived nation-state of Israel would play during the latter days.

 Premillennialism is a type of Christian theology as old as Christianity itself. It has its roots in Jewish apocalyptic thought and generally holds that Jesus will return to earth before he establishes, literally, a millennial kingdom under his sovereignty. Darby added the distinctive elements of the rapture (or removal to heaven) of true, born-again Christians prior to Jesus’ return, and interpreted all major prophetic texts as having predictive value. He also marked world history according to certain periods called “dispensations,” that served to guide believers in how they should conduct themselves. The fulfillment of prophetic signs became the central task of Christian interpretation.

 Darby’s ideas became a central feature in the teachings of many of the great preachers of the 1880-1900 period, including evangelists Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, the major Presbyterian preacher James Brooks, Philadelphia radio preacher Harry B. Ironsides, and Cyrus I. Scofield. When Scofield applied Darby’s eschatology to the Bible, the result was a superimposed outline of premillennial dispensationalist notations on the Biblical text, known as the Scofield Bible. Gradually, the Scofield Bible became the only version used by most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for the next 95 years


It's a big jump from that to support Israel so they can get slaughtered.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2964 on: August 25, 2016, 02:55:34 PM »
My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end."

Politics, global warming, and religion, all within the space of a single sentence?  You've just unwittingly introduced the ultimate survival test for this heretofore-unlocked 60-page thread...

... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7354
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2965 on: August 25, 2016, 02:59:05 PM »
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money.  The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do.  The document says that.

If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground?  (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)

OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open).  Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.

Hah. I love arguments like that. Because basically, the implication is, "If God didn't want us to use X, he wouldn't have made it."

Okay. So, let's apply that to marijuana. Or sexual organs. Or lots of things that religious conservatives say we shouldn't be doing. WHY DOES IT EXIST, THEN???

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2966 on: August 25, 2016, 03:07:28 PM »
... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.

Hitler made his first appearance on page 1, only 24 posts into this thread.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2967 on: August 25, 2016, 03:13:11 PM »
... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.

Hitler made his first appearance on page 1, only 24 posts into this thread.
Damn, right you are.  Well what's left, then?
Moderator?  ...Moderator??

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2968 on: August 25, 2016, 06:34:38 PM »
Briefly stated, Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with the Israeli government, religious and secular Jewish Zionist organizations, and are particularly empowered during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Knesset. Both the secular and religious media place Christian Zionism in the Protestant evangelical movement, which claims upward of 100-125 million members in the US. However, one would more accurately categorize it as part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity, since the evangelical movement is far larger and more diverse in its theology and historical development.

 Christian Zionism grew out of a particular theological system called “premillennial dispensationalism,” which emerged during the early 19th century in England, when there was an outpouring of millennial doctrines. The preaching and writings of a renegade Irish clergyman, John Nelson Darby, and a Scotsman, Edward Irving, emphasized the literal and future fulfillment of such Biblical teachings as “the rapture,” the rise of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon and the central role that a revived nation-state of Israel would play during the latter days.

 Premillennialism is a type of Christian theology as old as Christianity itself. It has its roots in Jewish apocalyptic thought and generally holds that Jesus will return to earth before he establishes, literally, a millennial kingdom under his sovereignty. Darby added the distinctive elements of the rapture (or removal to heaven) of true, born-again Christians prior to Jesus’ return, and interpreted all major prophetic texts as having predictive value. He also marked world history according to certain periods called “dispensations,” that served to guide believers in how they should conduct themselves. The fulfillment of prophetic signs became the central task of Christian interpretation.

 Darby’s ideas became a central feature in the teachings of many of the great preachers of the 1880-1900 period, including evangelists Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, the major Presbyterian preacher James Brooks, Philadelphia radio preacher Harry B. Ironsides, and Cyrus I. Scofield. When Scofield applied Darby’s eschatology to the Bible, the result was a superimposed outline of premillennial dispensationalist notations on the Biblical text, known as the Scofield Bible. Gradually, the Scofield Bible became the only version used by most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for the next 95 years


It's a big jump from that to support Israel so they can get slaughtered.

No, that's pretty literal. Supporting Israel to bring about the end times, which includes nearly everyone dying there.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2969 on: August 25, 2016, 06:45:22 PM »
I just want to apologize to John Kerry. Sir when you ran against Bush I wasn't ready for you. Your time in Vietnam has highlighted how wrong prolonged war is and you have always been for everyone having healthcare by right. I just realized not too long ago that you might be my man.

I would also like some better trade deals to protect the middle class and competitive taxes but we can't have everything can we?

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2970 on: August 25, 2016, 09:17:46 PM »
... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.

Hitler made his first appearance on page 1, only 24 posts into this thread.
Damn, right you are.  Well what's left, then?
Moderator?  ...Moderator??

Feel free to click the "report to moderator" button on any post breaking the forum rules.  :)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23257
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2971 on: August 26, 2016, 06:22:14 AM »
... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.

Hitler made his first appearance on page 1, only 24 posts into this thread.
Damn, right you are.  Well what's left, then?
Moderator?  ...Moderator??


Whoooo . . . first nazi reference goes to GuitarStv!

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2972 on: August 26, 2016, 06:36:32 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23257
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2973 on: August 26, 2016, 06:40:39 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

See, Trump was right.  There are people trying to steal the election through voter fraud!

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2974 on: August 26, 2016, 06:41:16 AM »
Last night, Hillary Clinton gave a speech on the Alt-right. Donald Trump claimed that noone has ever heard of it. However, his campaign CEO, the head of Breitbart, has described his news(ish) outlet as the "platform for the Alt-right".

These statements are at odds.

ETA link:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news
« Last Edit: August 26, 2016, 06:43:06 AM by thd7t »

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2975 on: August 26, 2016, 06:41:46 AM »
... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.

Hitler made his first appearance on page 1, only 24 posts into this thread.
Damn, right you are.  Well what's left, then?
Moderator?  ...Moderator??

I do not believe porn has been mentioned even obliquely.  According to Internet law, all threads must eventually include explicit examples or references to Nazis, religion, politics, and sex.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2976 on: August 26, 2016, 06:42:44 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2977 on: August 26, 2016, 06:45:44 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

See, Trump was right.  There are people trying to steal the election through voter fraud!

He is white, it isn't fraud, just human error.  Only black and brown people commit fraud.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2978 on: August 26, 2016, 06:48:36 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.

NO!!

Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.

He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2979 on: August 26, 2016, 07:10:12 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.

NO!!

Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.

He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.

Sorry, I spent all of my outrage months ago. Next time I'll be sure to save some for the general elections.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2980 on: August 26, 2016, 07:21:31 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.

NO!!

Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.

He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.

Sorry, I spent all of my outrage months ago. Next time I'll be sure to save some for the general elections.
In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4932
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2981 on: August 26, 2016, 07:29:20 AM »
So basically Trump's advisor thinks that the American people are too stupid to understand his tax returns....
“I will be surprised if he puts them out. I wouldn’t necessarily advise him to. It’s not really an issue for the people we are appealing to. His tax returns are incredibly complicated. I wouldn’t understand them, so how are the American people going to? The financial disclosure he put out gives the salient points,” Manafort said.
“The only people who want the tax returns are the people who want to defeat him.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-paul-manafort-general-election_us_574619eee4b0dacf7ad3e201

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2982 on: August 26, 2016, 07:36:38 AM »
So basically Trump's advisor thinks that the American people are too stupid to understand his tax returns....
“I will be surprised if he puts them out. I wouldn’t necessarily advise him to. It’s not really an issue for the people we are appealing to. His tax returns are incredibly complicated. I wouldn’t understand them, so how are the American people going to? The financial disclosure he put out gives the salient points,” Manafort said.
“The only people who want the tax returns are the people who want to defeat him.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-paul-manafort-general-election_us_574619eee4b0dacf7ad3e201
Well, he fired Manafort about a week ago ( it was his summer job). However, your argument stands, because Eric Trump said the same thing!

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2983 on: August 26, 2016, 07:47:05 AM »

In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.

The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that.  With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.

We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months.  Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2984 on: August 26, 2016, 07:54:24 AM »

In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.

The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that.  With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.

We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months.  Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.

How much of the electorate do you believe was in play to begin with?  20% is a big number.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2985 on: August 26, 2016, 07:59:17 AM »

In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.

The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that.  With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.

We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months.  Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.

Might not affect the opinions of the electorate, but could it affect turnout? Honestly, unless something dramatic changes, I expect Clinton to win handily, but there's little doubt who has the more rabid supporters. I had always read/heard that people were more likely to turn out to vote if they strongly supported their preferred candidate, rather than strongly opposing their preferred candidate's opponent. However, I've heard conflicting reports about that this year, and I'm not sure which side, if either, is actually rooted in evidence. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-02/voters-who-oppose-politicians-are-the-most-active

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2986 on: August 26, 2016, 08:06:13 AM »

In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.

The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that.  With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.

We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months.  Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.

How much of the electorate do you believe was in play to begin with?  20% is a big number.

an interesting point.  Well, according to a Gallup poll, about 38% of eligible voters identify as "independent".  (31% are D, 29% R, and it should be noted that more independents 'lean' R than D.  If you include all 'leaners' into the party it becomes 43%D, 39%R and 18%I).

So very broad strokes here...  I'd say that only 20% of self-identified R or Ds can realistically be enticed to support someone else, plus of course that independents.  That means in theory there's ~40-50% of the electorate that might vote one way or the other.
Of course, many won't vote at all, and neither candidate here has seen individuals from across the isle flock to them... but rather they seem to be running away from the candidate from the party they normally affiliate with.

Then of course there's a big difference between people who support and people who vote.  Hard core supporters (from both parties) are more likely to vote than those that are more likely to bounce back and forth.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2987 on: August 26, 2016, 09:50:31 AM »
This election is over, and has been for a while.  Trump is such a poor, poor candidate the only question is how badly will he lose.  It's going to be a very short election evening.

irishbear99

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2988 on: August 26, 2016, 09:58:05 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.

NO!!

Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.

He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.

Sorry, I spent all of my outrage months ago. Next time I'll be sure to save some for the general elections.

Now THAT's irony...on a frugality and savings-focused forum, no less.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2989 on: August 26, 2016, 10:01:00 AM »
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.

If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.

NO!!

Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.

He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.

Sorry, I spent all of my outrage months ago. Next time I'll be sure to save some for the general elections.

Now THAT's irony...on a frugality and savings-focused forum, no less.

Hey, at least I'm not over-burdening myself with outrage debt and condemning myself to being cheerful and optimistic for months after the election :D

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3799
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2990 on: August 26, 2016, 10:02:38 AM »

In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.

The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that.  With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.

We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months.  Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.

Might not affect the opinions of the electorate, but could it affect turnout? Honestly, unless something dramatic changes, I expect Clinton to win handily, but there's little doubt who has the more rabid supporters. I had always read/heard that people were more likely to turn out to vote if they strongly supported their preferred candidate, rather than strongly opposing their preferred candidate's opponent. However, I've heard conflicting reports about that this year, and I'm not sure which side, if either, is actually rooted in evidence. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-02/voters-who-oppose-politicians-are-the-most-active

I think turnout historically is driven by a combo of voter enthusiasm and candidate ground-game. In this election, pro candidate voter enthusiasm is low on both sides, so the question is....where is the greater oppositional enthusiasm? Normally the longer a party is out of power, the greater the enthusiasm, but that didn't work out as many GOP pundits expected for Romney last time. This year, Clinton should have been beatable by any non-insane, decently centrist GOP candidate  who understood how to put together a good ground game operation (e.g., Romney) but instead we got Trump, so who knows? In terms of the candidate's ground game, it's no contest that Clinton is going to wipe the floor with Trump there.  My best guess is this will be a moderate to low turnout election (esp among Millennials) with a pretty good third-party showing and Clinton will win handily.  And if it is close, I think Clinton would still win, because of her ground game. But it is a weird weird year.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2991 on: August 26, 2016, 10:04:29 AM »

In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.

The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that.  With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.

We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months.  Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.

How much of the electorate do you believe was in play to begin with?  20% is a big number.

an interesting point.  Well, according to a Gallup poll, about 38% of eligible voters identify as "independent".  (31% are D, 29% R, and it should be noted that more independents 'lean' R than D.  If you include all 'leaners' into the party it becomes 43%D, 39%R and 18%I).

So very broad strokes here...  I'd say that only 20% of self-identified R or Ds can realistically be enticed to support someone else, plus of course that independents.  That means in theory there's ~40-50% of the electorate that might vote one way or the other.
Of course, many won't vote at all, and neither candidate here has seen individuals from across the isle flock to them... but rather they seem to be running away from the candidate from the party they normally affiliate with.

Then of course there's a big difference between people who support and people who vote.  Hard core supporters (from both parties) are more likely to vote than those that are more likely to bounce back and forth.

Clinton and Trump were neck and neck 3 weeks ago until Trump imploded.  Both candidates remain awful and Trump has had his act more together for the last week. 

I believe Trump lost both typical republicans and independents in the last 3 weeks.  Will those people actually vote for Hillary or Johnson?  Who knows.  If yout 20% is still really in play (I think a lot of people are still in play), this election isn't over.

If Hillary was a decent candidate (and human being), I might consider voting for her.  She's a habitual liar.  I think a lot of independents and wishy washy republicans won't pull the lever for her because of her character flaws.  Many people feel the same (character flaws) about Trump.  I think he may be the lesser of 2 evils.  In any case, I won't be voting for Hillary.

If I were betting, Hillary still has a substantial edge but these 2 are so bad who knows.

To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week.  I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy.  The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2016, 10:06:27 AM by Midwest »

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2992 on: August 26, 2016, 10:28:08 AM »
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week.  I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy.  The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.

I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2993 on: August 26, 2016, 10:33:01 AM »
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week.  I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy.  The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.

I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.

Fair enough.  Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump.  I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent.  Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17595
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2994 on: August 26, 2016, 10:37:53 AM »
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week.  I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy.  The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.

I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.

Fair enough.  Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump.  I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent.  Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.

Could you clarify the bolded part for me?  I'm guessing what you mean is that Democrats are less critical of Clinton than Republicans are of Trump, though it could be spun many different ways.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2995 on: August 26, 2016, 10:48:28 AM »
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week.  I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy.  The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.

I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.

Fair enough.  Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump.  I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent.  Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.
I haven't seen polls showing Johnson at that level of support, yet, except in a couple of Western states. Even at 7% (which I see a lot), he is polling above any third party candidate in 20 years.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2996 on: August 26, 2016, 10:50:27 AM »
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week.  I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy.  The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.

I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.

Fair enough.  Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump.  I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent.  Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.

Could you clarify the bolded part for me?  I'm guessing what you mean is that Democrats are less critical of Clinton than Republicans are of Trump, though it could be spun many different ways.

You read correctly.  A few examples - 

a) The democratic leadership was in the bag for Clinton.  That clearly wasn't the case with Trump. 

b) MSNBC has been Clinton's pawn.  Fox was at war with the Trump campaign.

c) Several prominent republicans and/or former republicans have said they won't vote for Trump.  Haven't seen this on the democratic side.

You can interpret this to mean Trump is more flawed than Clinton or that Republicans are being more honest about their concerns about the candidate.  If it's the latter (I believe it is), I think many will vote for Trump in the end because they believe the alternative is worse.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2997 on: August 26, 2016, 10:54:14 AM »
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week.  I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy.  The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.

I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.

Fair enough.  Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump.  I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent.  Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.
I haven't seen polls showing Johnson at that level of support, yet, except in a couple of Western states. Even at 7% (which I see a lot), he is polling above any third party candidate in 20 years.

These are a month old, are close to my numbers - http://heatst.com/politics/gary-johnsons-polling-numbers-reach-all-time-high 

My point was he's polling really well.  Will people vote that way in the end especially in swing states.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2998 on: August 26, 2016, 11:53:34 AM »
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week.  I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy.  The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.

I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.

Fair enough.  Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump.  I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent.  Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.
I haven't seen polls showing Johnson at that level of support, yet, except in a couple of Western states. Even at 7% (which I see a lot), he is polling above any third party candidate in 20 years.

These are a month old, are close to my numbers - http://heatst.com/politics/gary-johnsons-polling-numbers-reach-all-time-high 

My point was he's polling really well.  Will people vote that way in the end especially in swing states.

no probably not, I know I won't be.  I just hope he ends up on the debate stage to break up the mudslinging a bit, although I'm sure the moderators will completely ignore 3rd party candidates and they will get no speaking time.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2999 on: August 26, 2016, 05:22:38 PM »
Clinton and Trump were neck and neck 3 weeks ago until Trump imploded.

I do not believe this is accurate. I saw this just this morning:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/its-end-august-hillary-clinton-lead-clear-steady

Every tracker shows a significant lead for Clinton three weeks ago.