Political Roundtable Part X

[dckingsfan]

Three reasons why:
1) Hillary has a high disapproval rating.
2) Their would be no equivalent of Wikileaks/Trump tapes
3) He has successfully run a state - with limited baggage - he would have taken the middle
4) He would be able to be an equal on wonkiness
5) He would have a much easier time going back to the middle - Hillary is having to go hard left to get millennials

It would have been a beat down. Just like the one Hillary is about to give Trump.

This country is far too evenly divided politically for there to be a "beat down" of Hillary or any other Dem or Repub nominee for president. The only reason that we might see a "beat down" this year is because the Repubs nominated a buffoon for president.

Okay, I understand your thinking. I think Hillary's negative approval rating would have killed her.

[gtn130]

IMO, Kasich we have one handily.

Kasich was the Repub I thought had the best chance of beating Hillary. But I doubt that Kasich would have won handily. He would have had a hard time energizing the Repub conservative base. He's too moderate for many of them. I actually think Jeb Bush may have been the Repubs best chance to win on Nov. 8--but I (and probably many other Americans) would have hated a Bush-Clinton matchup given that both families have already held the presidency.

Trump's supporters are getting just what they deserve for nominating a man who doesn't have the temperament, intelligence or character to be President of the US. Trump and his supporters railed against the so-called Repub establishment. But there's a reason they're called the "establishment," and it's primarily because they know how to run and win elections. Trump doesn't have a clue as to how to do either of those things.

D. Trump is about to get an old-fashioned a**-whippin' on Nov. 8.

Three reasons why:
1) Hillary has a high disapproval rating.
2) Their would be no equivalent of Wikileaks/Trump tapes
3) He has successfully run a state - with limited baggage - he would have taken the middle
4) He would be able to be an equal on wonkiness
5) He would have a much easier time going back to the middle - Hillary is having to go hard left to get millennials

It would have been a beat down. Just like the one Hillary is about to give Trump.

This is correct. Kasich would have crushed Hillary.

A super moderate (at least optically) Republican, after 8 years of a Democrat in the white house, going up against one of the most disliked candidates ever in Hillary Clinton - yeah, it wouldn't be close at all as far as presidential elections go.

[gtn130]

Three reasons why:
1) Hillary has a high disapproval rating.
2) Their would be no equivalent of Wikileaks/Trump tapes
3) He has successfully run a state - with limited baggage - he would have taken the middle
4) He would be able to be an equal on wonkiness
5) He would have a much easier time going back to the middle - Hillary is having to go hard left to get millennials

It would have been a beat down. Just like the one Hillary is about to give Trump.

This country is far too evenly divided politically for there to be a "beat down" of Hillary or any other Dem or Repub nominee for president. The only reason that we might see a "beat down" this year is because the Repubs nominated a buffoon for president.

Presidential elections are always going to be "close" because of our tribalistic two party system, but that doesn't mean a candidate can't still win by a lot within that context.

[AFM]

I wonder why Grunfeld has never run for public office? He's an expert spinmaster, wears ill fitting suits, somehow always evades taking responsibility, and is full of it. Someone email him this idea, it may be our only chance to get a new GM

[montestewart]

I wonder why Grunfeld has never run for public office? He's an expert spinmaster, wears ill fitting suits, somehow always evades taking responsibility, and is full of it. Someone email him this idea, it may be our only chance to get a new GM

Don't forget the Wizards Rule: if the Wizards lose their last game before the election, Grunfeld somehow still wins!

[tontoz]

No, voter fraud is incontrovertibly NOT common in the United States.

There has been a ton of research on this, but here is a short encapsulation on just how "common" voter fraud is in the US:

In an Aug. 16, 2014, article for the Washington Post, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, currently on leave to work with the Department of Justice overseeing voting, wrote that he has been tracking allegations of voter fraud for years, including any “credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.”

“So far,” he wrote, “I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. … To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.”

31 cases among 1 billion ballots. VERY COMMON GUYS

From payitforwards own article.

There are lots of ways to cheat that we wouldn’t have detected, but the easiest ones we likely would have found. Honestly, I was shocked we found nothing."

Foval flat out admitted to years of voter fraud and the DOJ didn't know squat about it. There is also the issue states or localities trying to suppress minority voting, which was obviously worse decades ago.

[gtn130]

No, voter fraud is incontrovertibly NOT common in the United States.

There has been a ton of research on this, but here is a short encapsulation on just how "common" voter fraud is in the US:

In an Aug. 16, 2014, article for the Washington Post, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, currently on leave to work with the Department of Justice overseeing voting, wrote that he has been tracking allegations of voter fraud for years, including any “credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.”

“So far,” he wrote, “I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. … To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.”

31 cases among 1 billion ballots. VERY COMMON GUYS

From payitforwards own article.

There are lots of ways to cheat that we wouldn’t have detected, but the easiest ones we likely would have found. Honestly, I was shocked we found nothing."

Foval flat out admitted to years of voter fraud and the DOJ didn't know squat about it. There is also the issue states or localities trying to suppress minority voting, which was obviously worse decades ago.

Do you think any of this matters as it relates to Donald Trump and 2016? Do you think the 2016 election results will be illegitimate? Do you think there is a history of rigged elections in the US?

And, I was referring to your proclamation that voter fraud is commonplace in the US - again, you're wrong about that.

[tontoz]

Do you think any of this matters as it relates to Donald Trump and 2016? Do you think the 2016 election results will be illegitimate? Do you think there is a history of rigged elections in the US?

Committing voter fraud and rigging an entire election are not the same thing. Believe in one does not necessarily mean believing in the other.

I think voter fraud would be basically irrelevant in this election, and most elections for that matter. In order for it to actually have an effect on the outcome it would have to be a close race and voter fraud would have to be fairly extensive.

[gtn130]

also where's my man Nate these days? I came here for some spicy alt-right conspiracy theories and i'm coming away with very little.

[gtn130]

Do you think any of this matters as it relates to Donald Trump and 2016? Do you think the 2016 election results will be illegitimate? Do you think there is a history of rigged elections in the US?

Committing voter fraud and rigging an entire election are not the same thing. Believe in one does not necessarily mean believing in the other.

I think voter fraud would be basically irrelevant in this election, and most elections for that matter. In order for it to actually have an effect on the outcome it would have to be a close race and voter fraud would have to be fairly extensive.

Why do you care to make this point? You want to say that voter fraud is common but it won't affect the presidential election at all? Pretty sure everyone is talking about voter fraud as it relates to altering the results of the 2016 presidential election...Interesting line you're walking...

[tontoz]

Do you think any of this matters as it relates to Donald Trump and 2016? Do you think the 2016 election results will be illegitimate? Do you think there is a history of rigged elections in the US?

Committing voter fraud and rigging an entire election are not the same thing. Believe in one does not necessarily mean believing in the other.

I think voter fraud would be basically irrelevant in this election, and most elections for that matter. In order for it to actually have an effect on the outcome it would have to be a close race and voter fraud would have to be fairly extensive.

Why do you care to make this point? You want to say that voter fraud is common but it won't affect the presidential election at all? Pretty sure everyone is talking about voter fraud as it relates to altering the results of the 2016 presidential election...Interesting line you're walking...

People lie/steal/cheat in every other aspect of life, why would voting be different? Are you saying voting fraud only matters if it changes the outcome of an election? If voting fraud happens in a landslide election that doesn't make it any less real.

If you coast through a stop sign when there is no other traffic around and a cop pulls you over for it, try telling him that it doesn't matter that you broke the law. After all it didn't effect anyone. Let me know how that works out for you.

[gtn130]

Committing voter fraud and rigging an entire election are not the same thing. Believe in one does not necessarily mean believing in the other.

I think voter fraud would be basically irrelevant in this election, and most elections for that matter. In order for it to actually have an effect on the outcome it would have to be a close race and voter fraud would have to be fairly extensive.

Why do you care to make this point? You want to say that voter fraud is common but it won't affect the presidential election at all? Pretty sure everyone is talking about voter fraud as it relates to altering the results of the 2016 presidential election...Interesting line you're walking...

People lie/steal/cheat in every other aspect of life, why would voting be different? Are you saying voting fraud only matters if it changes the outcome of an election? If voting fraud happens in a landslide election that doesn't make it any less real.

If you coast through a stop sign when there is no other traffic around and a cop pulls you over for it, try telling him that it doesn't matter that you broke the law. After all it didn't effect anyone. Let me know how that works out for you.

Dude, the issue at hand is whether Trump's claim that the election will be rigged is legitimate or not. And by 'rigged', we can safely assume that Trump is saying he is the rightful winner of the election - not that he would lose a few irrelevant votes.

You seem to agree that the election results will be legitimate, and there will not be any type of rigging that Trump is alluding to. Yet you're still here saying voter fraud is common and is a real issue. Yeah, gerrymandering is real. Suppressing minority votes is real. That stuff doesn't apply to this conversation, though. Trump is talking about third world kangaroo court levels of corruption here.

[popper]

also where's my man Nate these days? I came here for some spicy alt-right conspiracy theories and i'm coming away with very little.

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

[Wizardspride]

also where's my man Nate these days? I came here for some spicy alt-right conspiracy theories and i'm coming away with very little.

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

OK.

[bsilver]

Committing voter fraud and rigging an entire election are not the same thing. Believe in one does not necessarily mean believing in the other.

I think voter fraud would be basically irrelevant in this election, and most elections for that matter. In order for it to actually have an effect on the outcome it would have to be a close race and voter fraud would have to be fairly extensive.

Why do you care to make this point? You want to say that voter fraud is common but it won't affect the presidential election at all? Pretty sure everyone is talking about voter fraud as it relates to altering the results of the 2016 presidential election...Interesting line you're walking...

People lie/steal/cheat in every other aspect of life, why would voting be different? Are you saying voting fraud only matters if it changes the outcome of an election? If voting fraud happens in a landslide election that doesn't make it any less real.

If you coast through a stop sign when there is no other traffic around and a cop pulls you over for it, try telling him that it doesn't matter that you broke the law. After all it didn't effect anyone. Let me know how that works out for you.

People lie/cheat/steal because they perceive some benefit relative to the penalty. Voter fraud is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The chances of swaying a presidential election are basically zero, so there is no benefit for an individual, which is why it's rare. You'd have to be pretty crazy to try.

[montestewart]

also where's my man Nate these days? I came here for some spicy alt-right conspiracy theories and i'm coming away with very little.

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

Don't want to undermine the wonder, but corrupt implies an alteration, whereas congenital implies being present from birth. Were they born that way or were their characters mutated?

PS: As before, I'm not writing off political deception. I just don't know of any president who hasn't done the exact same thing, at least not since the perhaps the Civil War.

[gtn130]

also where's my man Nate these days? I came here for some spicy alt-right conspiracy theories and i'm coming away with very little.

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

lol

Legitimately nobody cares about the Wikileaks stuff outside of the alt-right. There was absolutely nothing revealing or damaging about them at all for Hillary, but I did enjoy the courier font and the HIGHLIGHTING OF TEXT to underscore just how super top TOP secret confidential those LEAKS were.

And don't get me wrong - Hillary is a mediocre candidate at absolute best, and nobody in their right mind should be excited about her. The bigger mistake you're making, though, is how you somehow manage to bracket Trump, Hillary and Obama into the same group.

Aside from being a xenophobic and misogynistic white nationalist, Trump is an imbecile - he's incompetent and not fit to be president. You did correctly point out that he's a liar.

Hillary is a mediocre career politician. Benghazi and EMAILS are mostly republican fan fiction. The emails show some mediocre judgment, but nothing sinister. The average republican dumbass thinks Hillary should be thrown in jail - this is silly and misguided.

Obama has a 55% approval rating and has been a very good president. I'm sure you will disagree with that, but history will be kind to him. You probably think he's a LIAR because he said you could keep your doctor or didn't abide by his line in the sand or whatever, and these are cool talking points, but you should take a step back and think harder about things.

[tontoz]

Dude, the issue at hand is whether Trump's claim that the election will be rigged is legitimate or not. And by 'rigged', we can safely assume that Trump is saying he is the rightful winner of the election - not that he would lose a few irrelevant votes.

You seem to agree that the election results will be legitimate, and there will not be any type of rigging that Trump is alluding to. Yet you're still here saying voter fraud is common and is a real issue. Yeah, gerrymandering is real. Suppressing minority votes is real. That stuff doesn't apply to this conversation, though. Trump is talking about third world kangaroo court levels of corruption here.

Trump will lose because he is nuts. He won't take the blame for his past and his crazy af actions during the campaign which will cause him to lose to a lousy candidate. He has to find something else to blame. It is his nature.

Voting fraud has been going on long before Trump showed up. If he ran a good campaign,didn't have a cemetery full of skeletons in his closet and didn't have a laundry list of character flaws then he could have definitely won. But of course he won't see it that way.

[popper]

also where's my man Nate these days? I came here for some spicy alt-right conspiracy theories and i'm coming away with very little.

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

Don't want to undermine the wonder, but corrupt implies an alteration, whereas congenital implies being present from birth. Were they born that way or were their characters mutated?

PS: As before, I'm not writing off political deception. I just don't know of any president who hasn't done the exact same thing, at least not since the perhaps the Civil War.

In my adult experience, I think Carter, Reagan and both Bushs' were generally honest people. So I don't think you're being fair when you paint them with the same brush as Obama, Trump and Clinton. The latter are proven world class serially liars.

[popper]

also where's my man Nate these days? I came here for some spicy alt-right conspiracy theories and i'm coming away with very little.

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

lol

Legitimately nobody cares about the Wikileaks stuff outside of the alt-right. There was absolutely nothing revealing or damaging about them at all for Hillary, but I did enjoy the courier font and the HIGHLIGHTING OF TEXT to underscore just how super top TOP secret confidential those LEAKS were.

And don't get me wrong - Hillary is a mediocre candidate at absolute best, and nobody in their right mind should be excited about her. The bigger mistake you're making, though, is how you somehow manage to bracket Trump, Hillary and Obama into the same group.

Aside from being a xenophobic and misogynistic white nationalist, Trump is an imbecile - he's incompetent and not fit to be president. You did correctly point out that he's a liar.

Hillary is a mediocre career politician. Benghazi and EMAILS are mostly republican fan fiction. The emails show some mediocre judgment, but nothing sinister. The average republican dumbass thinks Hillary should be thrown in jail - this is silly and misguided.

Obama has a 55% approval rating and has been a very good president. I'm sure you will disagree with that, but history will be kind to him. You probably think he's a LIAR because he said you could keep your doctor or didn't abide by his line in the sand or whatever, and these are cool talking points, but you should take a step back and think harder about things.

Wow. Benghazi lies are R fabrications? It's a fact that she and Obama knowlingly blamed the tragedy on some obscure person to deceive the American people. Is that even debatable at this point? The Obama lies about ACA are just a small fraction of the serial deceptions that the president has foisted upon the country. I and others here have documented them over the past several years. Perhaps you weren't part of the thread during that period. We both agree Trump is an imbecile but if you think Obama and Clinton are any less dishonest or destructive you're gravely mistaken IMO.

Isn't the latest info documenting the D's efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies enough to open your eyes? D's were fired and had to quit their jobs because the truth came out.