[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[Timsup2nothin]

Tim, I'm not so much talking real court. I'm talking CFC court. Now, that tape got Trump to respond. And his response shows zero insight into sexual assault. But the Stoynoff story stands on its own and Trump's general misogyny. In my head, I disregard the mic.

No matter what court I just don't see Dingbat Donny cooperating in that defense. I agree he is enough of a boastful braggart with no concern for the truth that his own words can't be taken as reliable, but it's not a useful defense since he would refuse it.

"So, Mr Trump, your boasting to Billy Bush was just stuff you were making up to make yourself seem manly, is that right?"

How do you picture him answering that question?

 

[El_Machinae]

I honestly think he could lose the defamation torts if some of those women pushed them

 

[tetley]

The media is reporting Al Qaeda threats of pre-election-day terrorism. I knew it. I KNEW it....

The stupidest thing about it is...oh, so Al Qaeda is back now? Not ISIS?

 

[Takhisis]

You know that blade has two edges, right?

I take issue with yoru constantly applying variations of ‘no, you!’ as the one I posted in the post you're answerign to. And your reply, again, consists of… another instance of a ‘NO U!’

No one is redefining corruption here. An official taking unethical action for the benefit of himself or another party is literally the textbook definition of corruption.

Unethical acts aren't necessarily illegal, man.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Well with the FBI now an infighting, calamitous mess, and various US institutions crumbling around us as the election draws ever closer, why not have the electoral college self-destruct, too.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d3a1...ngton-state-elector-says-he-wont-vote-clinton

"A Democratic elector in Washington state said Friday he won't vote for Hillary Clinton even if she wins the popular vote in his state on Election Day"

 

[Takhisis]

You might finally get rid of the Electoral College at this rate. Yay.

 

[Camikaze]

I think faithless electors could be a real problem if the election is close. Imagine if Clinton wins, but then there's more FBI investigation stuff (not any sort of indictment, mind you, just enough for the right-wing to think there is something disqualifying) - I'd bet the Trump strategy of not conceding defeat would involve campaigning for electors to switch their votes. Similarly, if Trump wins, there's the possibility that with his fraud case, child rape lawsuit, etc., some electors would think him too unpalatable and vote for Clinton.

 

[Takhisis]

In some states you just vote for an elector, without even binding him at all, and I think not all states force their electors to state whom they will vote for in the electoral college. It is, at best, a highly risky situation in normal times, and in these days, well, it's idiotically risky.

 

[Bootstoots]

They're only likely to be a big problem if the winning candidate has no more than 272 or 273 EV, but a 270-268 outcome (one of Trump's most likely winning maps) would definitely come down to one or two faithless electors. In a 270-268 Trump scenario, at least two Trump electors would have to switch to Clinton (and not McMullin or someone) or the election would go to the House. The House votes among the top 3 EV getters in a no-majority situation, so whatever third candidate got the vote(s) would be one of the choices the House could make. It could even be someone who wasn't running at all.

 

[JohannaK]

Now is when the faithless Washingtonian is Hillary's 270 and votes Bernie.

 

[Bootstoots]

Then Trump becomes president.

 

[zxcvbob]

You might finally get rid of the Electoral College at this rate. Yay.

Remember the 2000 election in Florida? Now imagine a national popular vote that was too close to call... the recount (probably multiple recounts) would take forever. The EC, whatever else good or bad it does, limits the scope of potential recounts.

 

[Takhisis]

Yeah, no, just no. You just recount the votes on the particular electoral district in which you have had complaints.

 

[zxcvbob]

Yeah, no, just no. You just recount the votes on the particular electoral district in which you have had complaints.

In a virtual tie, you'd have to recount every district if the vote was contested. Think about it; the little errors add up, even if a district was overwhelmingly for one candidate or the other.

 

[FriendlyFire]

No surprise.
At least he apologized, the Trump campaign is running wild with this even in the face of the apology.

Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment

Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.

In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement.

We stand by the sourcing on the ongoing, active Clinton Foundation investigation and are working to get sources with knowledge of the details on the record and on camera, hopefully today.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...d56f20-a2b7-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html [/B]

 

[onejayhawk]

Yeah, no, just no. You just recount the votes on the particular electoral district in which you have had complaints.

He has a point. Florida 2000 established that you cannot recount just problem areas. It was a relief to find out, in May 2001, that a thorough recount upheld the original result. That election also established a deadline, though it would have to be seen if that carries over when there is no Electoral College.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

He has a point. Florida 2000 established that you cannot recount just problem areas. It was a relief to find out, in May 2001, that a thorough recount upheld the original result. That election also established a deadline, though it would have to be seen if that carries over when there is no Electoral College. J

Not sure if Republicans are bad at Maths and Law but Gore actually won
And Florida should be banned from using stupid punch hole ballets

- Gore won if chards recount was strict standard
- Bush won if all chards recounted
- Gore won if all chards recounted and all overwrite recounted
- Nearly 30k more votes for Gore

Why do Republican have to LIE so much ?
They only way Bush won was to count all chards and not to count overwrites

BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today, show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes
Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. The standards considered by BDO Seidman were:

According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote.

Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, [sic] while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-election_studies

 

[BirraImperial]

Ever since the 2000 US election, I've always wondered why is the Electoral College a thing...The popular vote is the will of the people...The person getting the most votes should be elected...

 

[Verbose]

Ever since the 2000 US election, I've always wondered why is the Electoral College a thing...The popular vote is the will of the people...The person getting the most votes should be elected...

But wasn't the whole thing set up PRECISELY for an election with a selection of candidates like this?

Isn't the Big Idea underlying something like that precisely that it… should… decide Jeb Bush, or someone, would make the best president, and chuck out this popular-vote-gone-wrong?

 

[Camikaze]

It could even be someone who wasn't running at all.

This makes me think that a not-entirely-crazy scenario is a 270-268 Trump win (with NC, Florida, Nevada, NH & 1 from Maine), followed by some new Trump revelation, resulting in a couple of faithless electors going for, say, Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney, before it's thrown to the House who undertake a coup in the name of compromise/wound-healing. That seems the type of fan-fic that, this year, is semi-plausible. The key is for something 'disqualifying' to occur post-election, upon which some justification (however unconvincing) could be grounded.