Election 2016 Thread

[Tyrannical]

Well this is amusing.......
Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... t-dead-dc/

[Scot Dutchy]

Well this is amusing.......
Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... t-dead-dc/

Never mind.

[DaveDodo007]

Well this is amusing.......
Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... t-dead-dc/

Never mind.

Yeah. because people who lift weights always rest the said weights on their throats so they can't breathe. Also when commiting suicide always shoot yourself in the head twice. The Clintons didntdunothin.

[Scot Dutchy]

[Tyrannical]

La times poll out today, clinton +1 over trump.

[Scot Dutchy]

Was that the poll Trump paid for?

[Tyrannical]

Los Angeles times / university southern California paid for the poll silly. You know, that great right wing bastion in California lol

[pErvinalia]

FortyTwo has been noticeably absent since the wheels really started falling off Trump's campaign..

[Tero]

It's kind of interesting that he was so predictable, Trump. You might even think he was an invention of the media, for falling circulation.

[Tero]

It's getting boring. Here are some polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... president/

[Forty Two]

Right now, Clinton is dominating -- http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/

Nate Silver's outfit has Clinton an 89% probability of winning -- http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... id=rrpromo

Not looking good for the Trumpster.

Clinton, of course, is a piece of shit. But, that goes without saying, even though I said it.

[Tero]

Only a stroke can change the course. Well,if Hillary had a stroke I guess the side kick would run, a tight race against trump at that point.

[Forty Two]

I hope they were just play-acting.

[pErvinalia]

Right now, Clinton is dominating -- http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/

Nate Silver's outfit has Clinton an 89% probability of winning -- http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... id=rrpromo

Not looking good for the Trumpster.

Clinton, of course, is a piece of shit. But, that goes without saying, even though I said it.

And you still think Trump is worth your vote?

[Forty Two]

I have never considered a candidate's "chance of winning" as having anything to do with whether they are "worth my vote." I've voted for third party candidates in the past, up and down the ballot (lots of positions are generally on a ballot at election time). I've also cast my vote for propositions which were doomed to lose (based on the polls), and against propositions that appeared sure to win.

Whether Nate Silver's outfit predicts Clinton or Trump to win, based on analysis of polls and bayesian applications, etc., is interesting, but I would have to say that anyone who would change their vote so that they could vote for the one who is supposedly ahead is wasting their vote and in a small way supporting the deficiencies in the system. People ought to vote their conscience. That may mean voting for the person they believe in, even if he or she is doomed to lose. That may mean not voting at all because no candidate represents anything close to one's values. It may mean voting for the least objectionable option. It may mean casting a vote for a small third party candidate to be part of the numbers which will be analyzed for the next election.

Votes to losing candidates can have an effect on the political climate. If enough people swing toward the Green Party, for example, the major parties will want to see how they can lure those voters back for the next election.