OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[the ultimates]

I think with it would be easier to suppress the vote with voter id's than commit voter fraud. I can easily see scenario's where the common misspelling of a name, having apartment 2 instead of 3 or leaving that area blank, people with similar or maybe the same name with different middle initials, people having correct voter id information but getting the run around about where their correct polling place is. Especially considering low turnout usually benefits republicans in national elections and incumbents overall.

I think we should look at the world and adopt similar standards. Somebody mentioned the UK where you don't need an ID to vote. I do believe that in the vast majority of the world, a state ID is required for voting. I don't think address or spelling mistakes are a big deal and I can't see why demanding an ID would suppress voting.

I just named several ways in which voter id's could be used to keep otherwise eligible people from voting. Like I said before it's solution to a problem that isn't there. Now what sounds more plausible what I described with voter id's or this with voter fraud. Here is an excerpt from the article http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776

"To vote repeatedly in person on Election Day - the kind of fraud that Trump worries about - someone would have to steal another voter's ballot. Minnite, the Rutgers professor, says that's as difficult as "pickpocketing a cop."

A voter would need to know names, addresses and other identifying information about whoever they were impersonating, she said. Then they would have to show up to the polling place and pretend to be that other person in front of the same elections officials who had likely seen them vote in their own name. Beyond that, they'd have to hope that nobody in the polling place knew the person they were impersonating."

[TimRobbins]

I just named several ways in which voter id's could be used to keep otherwise eligible people from voting. Like I said before it's solution to a problem that isn't there. Now what sounds more plausible what I described with voter id's or this with voter fraud. Here is an excerpt from the article http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776

"To vote repeatedly in person on Election Day - the kind of fraud that Trump worries about - someone would have to steal another voter's ballot. Minnite, the Rutgers professor, says that's as difficult as "pickpocketing a cop."

A voter would need to know names, addresses and other identifying information about whoever they were impersonating, she said. Then they would have to show up to the polling place and pretend to be that other person in front of the same elections officials who had likely seen them vote in their own name. Beyond that, they'd have to hope that nobody in the polling place knew the person they were impersonating."

I don't think the reasons you mentioned should stop anybody from voting.

In any case, the quotes you gave here are convincing. It would be difficult to commit large scale fraud without collusion from the officials at the polling place.

I still think IDs should be required for voting, the same way we require IDs for much more frivolous actions.

[RedBulls23]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politics/donald-trump-jessica-drake/index.html

That **** cracks me up.....is that lady in the video even serious??

God i wish that man became president.....this country is so damn soft.

This country is much tougher than rich boy, pantie waste, coward ass Donald Trump.

This man starts whining and crying anytime someone says one minor joke about him. Throws temper tantrums on twitter. Threatens to sue anyone that says something even slightly against him.

[dice]

F-A-L-S-E-H-O-O-D-S

I just gave you the source. Hillary never denied it. So the Podesta emails are false? Wikileaks is false? D-E-N-I-A-L to the extreme.

hillary admitted she was a psychopath? because that's the patently absurd suggestion i was responding to with my post there. don't take my comments out of context any more

i take it you haven't voted for any presidential nominee in recent history then. because she isn't engaging in any thing that anyone else hasn't. maybe to a greater degree, but c'mon. where was the righteous indignation before?

Candidates vary by the level of corruption. Hillary is the most corrupt of them all. Nobody owes more "favors" than Hillary

yes, i'm sure you've taken measurements and made the calls. you, mr. robbins, can make the determination who is most corrupt of them all

you cannot even come up with an example of when she has betrayed her principles for money, and yet she is the most corrupt politician of them all? either you're quite comfortable turning the hyperbole dial up to 11 or your lack of political knowledge knows no bounds. a lot of politicians have been JAILED for corruption. you, sir, are the boy who cried wolf

again, who are you getting the "psychotic" nonsense from? reveal your loathsome sources. same folks that call obama a kenyan marxist? sure sounds like it

Have you read the Podesta emails? State department Wikileaks?

and NOTHING where hillary admits she's a psychopath. you are blatant fabricating things. produce the quote. yourself. i refuse to go on a wild goose chase

you can't produce the quote, can you?

Nah, you'll vote for al baghdadi if he runs under the "Democratic" label and say that him beheading people is simply a "conspiracy theory" which comes from "loathsome sources".

you're really being an ass here. stop making **** up about me or you will be reported. you're trolling up a storm. apparently you do not need sources to obtain the loathsome. it's right on hand, isn't it?

i have NEVER said that every negative truth about hillary clinton is a conspiracy, nor that it all comes from poor sources. you're creating a simple-minded version of an opponent that you with to deal with. strawman all the way. that way you don't have to deal in nuance. too complicated. crooked hillary's a psychopath - clear cut, no muss no fuss. 'cause cartoon characters are much easier to dissect than actual human beings, aren't they?

i'm a fan of the truth. you seem to be a fan of gross hyperbole and outright fabrication

Not a single fabrication. It's all documented in official emails. You just chose to be blind.

show it. quote it. otherwise keep your mouth shut

are you going to tell me what i have ignored, or is that a secret to be revealed after the election?

oh, maybe i'm not playing this trump-like twitter war correctly...i'll add a *roflcopter*

Is this a split personality thing? Look at the top of this discussion.

tell me what i have ignored. do it. i'm pretty sure i've addressed all the foul garbage you've thrown out there

i don't give a good god damn about party. i care about results. and i see hillary being more or (probably) less an extension of what obama has done. bernie sanders thinks she'll go further. i am very skeptical. not that she doesn't want to, but i don't see her being able to. for christ's sake, we now have a group of republicans, including the formerly respectable john mccain, saying they won't confirm ANY supreme court justice she nominates. hard to do much of anything under the laws of the land when one party refuses to even participate. but simply four or more years of status quo is better than the enormous risk taken by letting a guy who pretty clearly LEGITIMATELY has mental disorders take the reigns. and that, sir, is why i am voting for hillary clinton (a woman who, by the way, has been a big part of why millions of americans have health insurance that otherwise would and who will attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy. i'm not sure which capitalists she's cronying up to there, but perhaps you can enlighten me. non-breitbart source please)

LOL @ you don't give a damn about the party. Have you ever voted for a non-Democrat?

yes. does that blow your mind?

i care about progressive principles. i have no reason to care about what party a candidate belongs to. why would i? so take your made up delusions about me and crawl back into your hole

by the way, a person having voted solely for members of a particular party is not evidence that they only care about party. logical fallacy on your part. shocking

Funny that you mentioned Medicare and Medicaid. I think that's a pretty great example of crony capitalism. The woman you so deeply adore also has been a "big part" of the fact that, by law, Medicare and Medicaid cannot negotiate drug prices (as they do in every other country in the world), but have to accept list prices for drugs

nope. republicans forced that into the law. do your homework

I love it that Hillary has no shame to talk publicly about drug prices. That is truly priceless. I guess she has very little respect for voter intelligence. I thought she was wrong. Maybe not.

if you bothered to research rather than assume the worst you wouldn't be so smugly amused

So, yeah. I would rather give the reigns to a mentally disturbed guy like Trump, than to a psychopath like Hillary. I admit, it's a tough call though.

it would be. if what you WANT to think about hillary was true. but it isn't. not amongst those outside of the core trump supporter base

no sane person thinks that hillary clinton is a psychopath. it's beyond ridiculous. you might as well be saying that charles manson is a perfectly well-reasoned human being. that's how far astray from basic logic and, frankly, common decency, you are. repugnant

i've been on this site for a long time. i've blocked scant few posters. can count them on one hand. the trolliest of trolls. those that simply cannot be reasoned with and are whole-hearted subscribers to the notion that any attention is good attention. at least a couple of which didn't last long on the site. you are on the verge of making that distinguished list. at which point you will no longer receive the negative attention you seem to so desperately crave

shucks, i'll just do it now. i don't think you have it in you to come to your senses and engage in a little self-examination prior to your next post

[SHO'NUFF]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politics/donald-trump-jessica-drake/index.html

That **** cracks me up.....is that lady in the video even serious??

God i wish that man became president.....this country is so damn soft.

This country is much tougher than rich boy, pantie waste, coward ass Donald Trump.

This man starts whining and crying anytime someone says one minor joke about him. Throws temper tantrums on twitter. Threatens to sue anyone that says something even slightly against him.

No doubt that's true....it's the media (& people who buy into their bs) that's making it easy for me to support him. That pisses me off way more than his temper tantrums.

There's no doubt the U.S. is softer. God forbid not being politically correct....

[TimRobbins]

hillary admitted she was a psychopath? because that's the patently absurd suggestion i was responding to with my post there. don't take my comments out of context any more

Hillary never denied she wanted to drone Julian Assange. She said she "doesn't remember". If suggesting the droning of a person, residing in the UK, who never committed an act of aggression against this country doesn't qualify her as a "psychopath", I don't know what does. Does she actually need to take a knife and behead somebody to qualify?

PS - I never took anything you said out of context so stop trying to deflect with BS.

yes, i'm sure you've taken measurements and made the calls. you, mr. robbins, can make the determination who is most corrupt of them all

you cannot even come up with an example of when she has betrayed her principles for money, and yet she is the most corrupt politician of them all? either you're quite comfortable turning the hyperbole dial up to 11 or your lack of political knowledge knows no bounds. a lot of politicians have been JAILED for corruption. you, sir, are the boy who cried wolf

I think the number or large scale donations to her private fund is a pretty good proxy for corruption and for the amount of favors she owes. No candidate in the history of this country has reached these levels.

This isn't a criminal court of law. When a country like Qatar (one of the largest sponsors or world terrorism) gives money to the "Clinton Foundation", they get something in return. I'm not going to play the denial game here. You can play it with yourself.

and NOTHING where hillary admits she's a psychopath. you are blatant fabricating things. produce the quote. yourself. i refuse to go on a wild goose chase

you can't produce the quote, can you?

Ask and answered (multiple times). Look above.

yes. does that blow your mind?

Yes, it does.

by the way, a person having voted solely for members of a particular party is not evidence that they only care about party. logical fallacy on your part. shocking

Nope, but a person ignoring the reality about "his candidate" is.

nope. republicans forced that into the law. do your homework

Oh yeah, it's the "Republicans" who "forced" that into law and also forced Bill to sign the law. It's not like Bill and Hillary got money from pharma companies. It's those "Republicans".

if you bothered to research rather than assume the worst you wouldn't be so smugly amused

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/company-gouging-price-of-epipens-is-a-clinton-foundation-donor-and-partner/

Yes. Research. My "research" says the Clintons got millions in donations from pharma companies after Bill signed that law. But right, Bill was forced to sign that law at gunpoint by the evil Republicans. Bill and Hillary are really great altruists who care only about the welfare of their subjects. They were forced to sign a bill that bankrupt millions of sick Americans (and state medicare funds) by the evil Republicans. They were also forced to accept millions in donations from the same companies who benefited from these laws. Such great people who fell victim to the evil Republicans.

it would be. if what you WANT to think about hillary was true. but it isn't. not amongst those outside of the core trump supporter base

I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy outside the "core Trump supporters" and I know what I say about Hillary is true. Almost everybody I know (including those who are going to vote for her) shares this opinion. In fact, you are the first (supposedly uninterested) person I've seen to think anything good about her. There's a near consensus about her being a horrible candidate. Any normal candidate would be leading Trump by 20 points at this point in time.

i've been on this site for a long time. i've blocked scant few posters. the trolliest of trolls. those that simply cannot be reasoned with. you are on the verge of making that distinguished list

Thanks. You're already on my ignore list for some time, so I'm perfectly fine with this. I agree that this discussion is going nowhere. Some people simply can't be reasoned with.

[TheEndIsNigh]

Yes. Research. My "research" says the Clintons got millions in donations from pharma companies after Bill signed that law. But right, Bill was forces to sign that law at gunpoint by the evil Republicans. Bill and Hillary are really great altruists who care only about the welfare of their subjects. They were forced to sign a bill that bankrupt millions of sick Americans (and state medicare funds) by the evil Republicans. They were also forced to accept millions in donations from the same companies who benefited from these laws. Such great people who fell victim to the evil Republicans.

Medicare part D was passed while Bush 43 was in office, with a fully Republican congress. The inability for the Federal Government to negotiate drug prices under the law was very much a Republican stipulation. I don't know where you got the idea it was under Clinton.

[TimRobbins]

Yes. Research. My "research" says the Clintons got millions in donations from pharma companies after Bill signed that law. But right, Bill was forces to sign that law at gunpoint by the evil Republicans. Bill and Hillary are really great altruists who care only about the welfare of their subjects. They were forced to sign a bill that bankrupt millions of sick Americans (and state medicare funds) by the evil Republicans. They were also forced to accept millions in donations from the same companies who benefited from these laws. Such great people who fell victim to the evil Republicans.

Medicare part D was passed while Bush 43 was in office, with a fully Republican congress. The inability for the Federal Government to negotiate drug prices under the law was very much a Republican stipulation. I don't know where you got the idea it was under Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

[TheEndIsNigh]

Yes. Research. My "research" says the Clintons got millions in donations from pharma companies after Bill signed that law. But right, Bill was forces to sign that law at gunpoint by the evil Republicans. Bill and Hillary are really great altruists who care only about the welfare of their subjects. They were forced to sign a bill that bankrupt millions of sick Americans (and state medicare funds) by the evil Republicans. They were also forced to accept millions in donations from the same companies who benefited from these laws. Such great people who fell victim to the evil Republicans.

Medicare part D was passed while Bush 43 was in office, with a fully Republican congress. The inability for the Federal Government to negotiate drug prices under the law was very much a Republican stipulation. I don't know where you got the idea it was under Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

That was never passed. It went absolutely nowhere and had zero impact on the health or pharmaceutical industry.

[RedBulls23]

Hillary Clinton was drafted by the Clinton Administration to head a new Task Force and sell the plan to the American people, which ultimately backfired amid the barrage of fire from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and considerably diminished her own popularity. On September 26, 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell.[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

From that very link in quote. Then further down there is also a tab talking about the bills defeat.

[TeK]

I just named several ways in which voter id's could be used to keep otherwise eligible people from voting. Like I said before it's solution to a problem that isn't there. Now what sounds more plausible what I described with voter id's or this with voter fraud. Here is an excerpt from the article http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-finds-no-evidence-widespread-voter-fraud-n637776

"To vote repeatedly in person on Election Day - the kind of fraud that Trump worries about - someone would have to steal another voter's ballot. Minnite, the Rutgers professor, says that's as difficult as "pickpocketing a cop."

A voter would need to know names, addresses and other identifying information about whoever they were impersonating, she said. Then they would have to show up to the polling place and pretend to be that other person in front of the same elections officials who had likely seen them vote in their own name. Beyond that, they'd have to hope that nobody in the polling place knew the person they were impersonating."

I don't think the reasons you mentioned should stop anybody from voting.

In any case, the quotes you gave here are convincing. It would be difficult to commit large scale fraud without collusion from the officials at the polling place.

I still think IDs should be required for voting, the same way we require IDs for much more frivolous actions.

Early voting in Schaumburg already "malfunctioning".

Reminder, nothing in a coded digital voting booth needs to calibrated.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county.html

[GetBuLLish]

you cannot even come up with an example of when she has betrayed her principles for money, and yet she is the most corrupt politician of them all?

Here you go:

https://therussells.crossfit.com/2016/10/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-officials-helped-coca-cola-fight-soda-tax/

[GetBuLLish]

By the way, the most shocking disclosure from the Wikileaks emails doesn't even directly implicate Clinton. It's the emails showing that Citigroup practically handpicked Obama's cabinet before he took office:

https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton

Funny, I thought it was just the republicans who were in the pockets of big banks. Of course, we can expect Clinton to be no different.

[GetBuLLish]

Regarding Clinton, the Wikileaks emails show that her campaign listed a bunch of "negative facts" about Obama that they could potentially use to attack him. One of these "negative facts" was that Obama has a Muslim father who was from an Islamic country. The Clinton campaign then did some polling to see how effective this attack would be. Only after determining that the attack would be ineffective did they decide not to use it. Of course, this didn't stop them from Clinton confiante, Sid Blumenthal, from fanning the flames of the birther movement.

So I have some questions to ask the vocal Clinton supporters here: Why do you support a candidate who has clearly espoused such prejudicial views? Heck, why haven't you condemned these actions? Do you guys have something against Muslims? RedBulls? Dice?

[Axl Rose]

So I have some questions to ask the vocal Clinton supporters here: Why do you support a candidate who has clearly espoused such prejudicial views? Heck, why haven't you condemned these actions? Do you guys have something against Muslims? RedBulls? Dice?

because they media hasn't propagated it like they do with everything Trump says. they don't have pundits telling you how angry you should be at this bit of news.

its pretty effective technique they use that can turn something most wouldn't even care about into something everybody is up in arms about. thus what we call "fake outrage".

[burlydee]

1. Owning guns is a basic right that should never be infringed upon. Requiring ID to protect against gun fraud works against the idea that gun ownership should have active participation. Significantly less people would own guns if ID is required and the reason for wanting ID is essentially suppressing gun rights of people who tend to be Americans.

But seriously, how do you function as a human being without an ID in 2016? This topic will never be debated in an intellectually honest way. How many people don't have a valid form of ID? Do we really want those people to be able to vote? Would requiring an ID make dishonest people think twice about committing fraud? If requiring an ID doesn't work, then why do we require it for so many other things in life? Can you even entertain the idea that people in favor of voter ID laws have good intentions?

Watch on YouTube

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. You can be arrested by the police if you don't have an ID on you. This is specifically why the Democrats want illegal aliens in the country. Once you step foot in America you can vote.

Do you really believe you can be arrested for not having ID? Jesus.

[RedBulls23]

Regarding Clinton, the Wikileaks emails show that her campaign listed a bunch of "negative facts" about Obama that they could potentially use to attack him. One of these "negative facts" was that Obama has a Muslim father who was from an Islamic country. The Clinton campaign then did some polling to see how effective this attack would be. Only after determining that the attack would be ineffective did they decide not to use it. Of course, this didn't stop them from Clinton confiante, Sid Blumenthal, from fanning the flames of the birther movement.

So I have some questions to ask the vocal Clinton supporters here: Why do you support a candidate who has clearly espoused such prejudicial views? Heck, why haven't you condemned these actions? Do you guys have something against Muslims? RedBulls? Dice?

Where exactly have I suggested that I'm a vocal Clinton supporter? I have my issues with her. And because of those issues, I didn't vote for in the primaries.

I just loathe Trump much, much more. I do consider Hillary the lesser of two evils if you will. And even with her issues, she is still the better candidate in comparison to the alternatives.

Also, seeing as I am Muslim, no I don't have anything against them.

[burlydee]

Regarding Clinton, the Wikileaks emails show that her campaign listed a bunch of "negative facts" about Obama that they could potentially use to attack him. One of these "negative facts" was that Obama has a Muslim father who was from an Islamic country. The Clinton campaign then did some polling to see how effective this attack would be. Only after determining that the attack would be ineffective did they decide not to use it. Of course, this didn't stop them from Clinton confiante, Sid Blumenthal, from fanning the flames of the birther movement.

So I have some questions to ask the vocal Clinton supporters here: Why do you support a candidate who has clearly espoused such prejudicial views? Heck, why haven't you condemned these actions? Do you guys have something against Muslims? RedBulls? Dice?

I'm voting for Clinton because she's a better candidate/person/politician/lawmaker/parent/commander-in-chief/business person than Donald Trump. She has the ability to speak in complete sentences. She researches before she makes a decision. She is sane. She is not a racist, despite her willingness to be dirty in politics. I wish Bernie would have won, but he didn't. So I'm voting for Clinton b/c she's the best choice on my ballot.

I'm not voting for Clinton because I think she's perfect.

I believe Trump is dumb. I really do. I believe I'm smarter than he is. I believe he really, really has no respect for women. I think that is a core part of him. I think his ideas aren't only racist, but they are completely infeasible. There is no way the US gov't can deport 11 million people. Mexico will never pay for a wall. His tax cut plan would throw us into another recession. He's a proven, proven con man. His policies and so-called-beliefs vascilate wildly from day to day. He seemingly has no core knowledge about foreign affairs beyond what he hears on Fox News. From the moment Trump stepped on the political stage, I knew I would never vote for him. It has nothing to do with the media. it has nothing to do with Hillary.

Every time Donald Trump opens his mouth, he reveals himself to be a petty, ignorant, arrogant fool. He has done this for 30 some odd years. I'm just voting for the better choice.

[johnnyvann840]

"I don't even wait to ask, I just start kissing"

[dice]

you cannot even come up with an example of when she has betrayed her principles for money, and yet she is the most corrupt politician of them all?

Here you go:

https://therussells.crossfit.com/2016/10/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-officials-helped-coca-cola-fight-soda-tax/

soda tax corruption, eh? i guess that does count as an example, but it's pretty remarkable that that's the kind of corruption a freaking massive LEAK has produced. can you imagine what we'd find if all politicians were subject to such a leak?

most crooked soda politician of all time

did you happen to notice that the article detailed DECADES of "coca cola connection" as well as one of their executives taking leave to help the hillary campaign and yet hillary STILL publicly spoke in favor of a soda tax only several months ago? sounds like hillary's taking the coke folks for a ride. tens of millions in benefits to her causes, she stops supporting PA soda tax in return? she didn't even flip positions and come out AGAINST the soda tax. she just stopped supporting it. i can see why the coke execs were pissed at her. what an ingrate

sure seems like hillary's taking as much as she can get while giving as little as she possibly can in return. what has happened over the decades that hillary has been raking it in from coke? a proliferation in soda taxes nationwide. not a very successful buyoff