How Many Of You Here Support Trump?

[Mighty NorCal]

Trump will win on a turnout of about 60% because people can't tell the difference between a political robot like Hilary and a total populist moron like Trump. Trump would be able to achieve somewhere around zero of what he has claimed.

I feel roughly....47% confident this exact scenario is going to play out.

 

[Gelgarin]

I'd happily put down a grand, and at least one of my testicles, right now that Trump will not even get close to the presidency. Electoral college math means Clinton can literally spend her entire time and war chest on the East Coast. Trump would have to beat her there, (Including Florida, a state the Republicans can't presently win without, and its 25% Hispanic population) whilst simultaneously claiming nearly every other battleground state.

US Elections are part of a huge, multi-party conspiracy to make things appear closer than they are. Both parties want to paint it as a close race to get their voters out on polling day. The media want to paint it as a close race so people keep watching their inane coverage of candidates failing to eat hotdogs. The polling organisations want to paint it as a close race so people keep paying for more polls. But just because everyone wants it to appear close, doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

The most recent CBS poll puts Trump ahead by a single point with registered voters (which he's not, but whatever). Which sounds impressive, until you realise that this is a completely meaningless metric. Al Gore will tell you that.

If Clinton manages to hold every state that went blue for Obama, and for Kerry, and for Gore, and for other Clinton (in other words, the states that have gone Democrat every year since 1992) she'd still only need to take Florida to seal victory. Incidentally, I think every safe Democratic seat is still polling safely Democratic, with a slight wobble in Wisconsin owing to the VP selection, which will probably even out because of Trump's negatives. Pennsylvania should probably be full blue on the electoral maps by now.

That's leaving aside the fact that Clinton has more money, more endorsements, a better fundraising infrastructure, a more united party behind her and a more experienced political team running things and is adopting a strategy basically designed to avoid fucking up (less media access than any non-Romney candidate for 20 years). It's too early to declare outright certainty, because she could still be caught raping a Filipino orphan, but I literally cannot see a natural path that takes Donald Trump to 270 electoral college votes.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Could Trump win California?

 

[Gelgarin]

A state that's gone blue every election since '88, where he's behind by sixteen points and isn't going to put any money?

No. No he could not.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

If he gets one of those Ronald Reagan masks from Point Break he might be able to pull it off.

 

[klunderbunker]

Gelgarin has it right on here. The map just does not work out for Trump. Tim Kaine basically guarantees Virginia and it's 13 electoral votes. Add in the potential of Michigan and its very unpopular Republican governor and Trump is in major trouble, even with Florida.

 

[JGlass]

Could Trump win California?

According to Fivethirtyeight, California is the fifth most Hillary leaning state this election, ahead of even New York, Hillary's home state (Trump's home state too, but he's definitely not going to win New York either).

 

[klunderbunker]

Hilary is also likely to win Washington (12), Oregon (7), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), Massachusetts (11), and Illinois (20).

That's another 74 votes to go along with New York (29), Virginia (14) and California (55). That's 172 total in nine states, almost none of which she'll likely have to set foot in. As has been said, Hillary comes into this with a huge lead and she's far easier to elect than Trump.

To give you an idea of what else she needs to win the remaining 92 votes:

Pennsylvania (20)
Florida (29)
Wisconsin (10)
Ohio (18)
Michigan (16)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)

That's 272 and she would only need to win 16 states. Trump just has nothing to combat these with and Hillary is already up in a lot of these states.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

If by "like" you mean "could not possibly be more opposite" then yea

Financially and socially speaking, yeah definitely opposites

Communism puts forth a position of rigid financial control by a gov't whereas libertarianism aims to be the complete antithesis of a finance-controlling system.

But I stand by my point, which was that both viewpoints make broad assumptions that people are not going to try and take more than they're owed by these respective systems

I probably should have said "share a key similarity" rather than the broader "like"

A state that's gone blue every election since '88, where he's behind by sixteen points and isn't going to put any money?

No. No he could not.

I was confused by this until I remembered that you fellas use blue for the right and red for the left. It's the other way round here so I get muddled from time to time.

 

[GI Cake]

What peeves me about Clinton is the blatant double standard she was allowed to live by in regards to her mishandling of classified information. Every day, I'm handling classified information and intelligence in a facility designed specifically for that information. If I, or even a full bird were to take any of that classified information outside of the building we could lose our security clearance, and possibly face a life time of prison depending on the classification of that information. Hillary had classified information outside of a secure area.

But the law doesn't apply to Clinton, why should I vote for someone who doesn't have to follow the same laws that I have to follow? At this point, I say fuck it, let Trump be President and send us into war with the Vatican before trying an invasion of Russia in the winter. Let's see Rome burn.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

She was thoroughly investigated by the F.B.I. They found nothing to warrant an indictment. It has no allegiance to Clinton.

Funny how people just cannot accept this.

 

[#MrScissorsKick]

I hope they both lose

 

[Nate DaMac]

I hope they both die

FTFY

 

[JGlass]

I was confused by this until I remembered that you fellas use blue for the right and red for the left. It's the other way round here so I get muddled from time to time.

No, blue is the left here and red is the right.

 

[M]

It's Australia that has it backwards where Blue is Liberal, but they're the right wing party and Red Labor is basically Hilary with less charisma.

 

[enviousdominous]

For me, this is going to be a loooong election season.

I try to keep from getting into politically charged debates, due in small part to the fact that -- in my line of work -- I could be fired for saying bad things about elected officials and due in large part to the fact that thinking is really really hard. What really sucks is when someone insists that some random bullshit they felt like throwing out was true, and I have to take ten minutes out of my day to do the research they didn't do to prove that they were talking out of their ass.

I work with A LOT of people who think Trump should be the next President of the US. If I'm in a room that totals 15 people, and everyone except for me is saying "I just really think that he's going to change everything for the better" then I start wondering if the entire world has gone crazy.

With everything that would make a sensible person think that Donald Trump has a slim -- if at all tangible -- chance of winning 270 electoral votes in November, seemingly intelligent people are still wondering out loud about how great it'll be if Trump wins.

I don't hate Donald Trump, I can't hate someone for being ignorant. I think that he got the nomination because he was a loud-mouth jackass going up against 17 politically correct opponents who would basically rehash the same message among each other. I know I know; Rand Paul and John Kasich have wildly different perspectives on the role of government, but try to relate to Trump supporters. Trump supporters don't listen to anything, not even Trump. They're the loud mouth jackasses from high school who would brag about their low marks because they already know that they're going to make a fortune as entrepreneurs.

This is one of those sagas from my life where so many people around me are wrong, and they can't realize how wrong they are until a fateful date where all their bullshit actually has to mean something. The math doesn't add up, Trump isn't winning this election. The people I work with are answering my arguments that Trump will likely not win this election by swearing on their dead relatives that he will win by a fucking landslide.

Just like every-time this has happened to me, they'll be wrong and they'll pretend like the entire time they were never really that into Trump.

 

[enviousdominous]

What peeves me about Clinton is the blatant double standard she was allowed to live by in regards to her mishandling of classified information. Every day, I'm handling classified information and intelligence in a facility designed specifically for that information. If I, or even a full bird were to take any of that classified information outside of the building we could lose our security clearance, and possibly face a life time of prison depending on the classification of that information. Hillary had classified information outside of a secure area.

But the law doesn't apply to Clinton, why should I vote for someone who doesn't have to follow the same laws that I have to follow? At this point, I say fuck it, let Trump be President and send us into war with the Vatican before trying an invasion of Russia in the winter. Let's see Rome burn.

This.

While I pretty much despise Trump, it pains me to admit that I'll probably be voting for Hillary Clinton in November.

Regarding the e-mail scandal; on March 9th, Hillary told Univision "my predecessors did the same thing". Um, no Madame Secretary, THEY FUCKING DIDN'T!

E-mail had only been around since Madeleine Albright, who didn't use e-mail in any extent. Condoleezza's aides apparently shared classified info through private servers, but those were her aides and there's no evidence that she shared classified info. Colin Powell apparently maintained a private server, but there's no evidence that he sent classified information. Apparently, two classified e-mails had been sent to Colin Powell's private server. Sources; link #1 link #2.

I've mentioned before that I have a difficult time judging how bad it was of Secretary Clinton to exchange classified info on a private server in that there's no verifiable data regarding how secure her server was, it's the lies she's telling after the fact that bug me to no end.

 

[Good Golly It's Ollie]

No, blue is the left here and red is the right.

Which is what I meant to say, doy. I posted my own country's colours instead of yours. I shouldn't post when tired.

Anyway here's an example of Simpsons always being relevant:

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

She was thoroughly investigated by the F.B.I. They found nothing to warrant an indictment. It has no allegiance to Clinton.

Funny how people just cannot accept this.

She's in a situation where if they could prove she was indictable, the FBI would be breaking their jurisdiction. Charity funds are private after all.

 

[Tastycles]

She's in a situation where if they could prove she was indictable, the FBI would be breaking their jurisdiction. Charity funds are private after all.

This is utter nonsense.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

She's in a situation where if they could prove she was indictable, the FBI would be breaking their jurisdiction. Charity funds are private after all.

There is much wrong in this.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Yeah... right

 

[Spidey Revivey]

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

This is utter nonsense.

No it isn't. Did you read my initial post about the Clinton Foundation?

 

[Gelgarin]

I'm still waiting for a response to the last time I bothered talking to you, but whatever. Tasty is a busy man and I spent 30 minutes today finding out how many custard doughnuts I could eat in a single sitting.

Your comment about the FBI exceeding their own jurisdiction was so nonsensical that I legitimately don't understand what you're on about, and since you haven't explained it elsewhere in the thread, I'll let you better explain what you were trying to say before I make any attempt at correction.

As for your original post however;

Last night, I finally sat down to do some research into Hillary's alleged corruption. I just wrote it off as convoluted smear tactics and solely based off inductive reasoning, giving it little to no weight (since you can prove virtually anything with just inductive reasoning.)

The result? Whilst there's still no hard evidence, it's VERY hard to defend Hillary after looking into it further. Basically, it appears that the Clinton Foundation (a charity for improving living conditions globally) has been the source of some very wealthy investments from places like Russia, China, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. She then positioned that funding into her presidential campaign. Normally, this would be highly illegal, but because there is zero transparency for charity donations in the US, it is impossible to say for certain whether she did this, although the signs clearly point to yes given the exponential growth the Clinton Foundation has received and the fact that Hillary refuses to declare what attributed this growth.

Hillary Clinton has quite literally created a situation whereby nobody can look into her affairs, even though she's now a Presidential candidate, and was formerly a paid officer of the US government, and her family's running "a charity".

I'm just glad I don't get a vote on this shit-show, being a Briton. Voting for someone like Hillary would kill me, voting Republican would kill me. I could just slap a vote on a third-party, but there's zero point seeing as it's winner-takes-all, unlike the British elections.

I do agree with deanerandterry though, with regards to a myriad of politicians being proven liars, so Hillary should be given more lenience, but the fact that the Clinton Foundation scandal is so colossal makes it very hard to defend. There's a difference between a politician lying, and a politician breaking the law.

What does "She then positioned that funding into her presidential campaign" even mean? You think she's taking money out of the Clinton Foundation? Because she's not, and even the Republican conspiracy nutjobs aren't claiming otherwise.

If the Clinton Foundation were trying to ferry money into Hillary's campaign then it would be operating as a 501(c)(4) charitable organization (which it isn't). This is the same status that "charitable" groups like the NRA and Planned Parenthood operate under.

The NRA has contributed $800,000 this election cycle. Planned Parenthood has contributed something like $600,000. You know how I know this? Because political contributions like this are open information under US Campaign Finance Laws. As a charitable organisation, the Clinton Foundation does not have to disclose where it's money comes from unless they so choose, or law enforcement asks (both of which have happened) but they do have to show where that money goes - and according to the American Institute for Philanthropy, about 90% of it goes on direct philanthropy.

So for your implications that it's somehow not a real charity; the fuck are you on about?