Presidential Elections

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
irvinehomeowner said:
So there is this article on Rolling Stone listing why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712

But many of those things make me want to vote for him.
Click to expand...
You might as well vote for him.
- Your presidential vote in California doesn't count.  It's going to Hillary regardless if you vote for her or not.  A vote for her is basically a thrown away vote.
- Johnson isn't going to win, so you don't have to worry about him winning.  He isn't the brightest tool in the shed, but he isn't as awful as the other 2 candidates.
- It helps support a 3rd party and sends a message
 
spootieho said:
irvinehomeowner said:
So there is this article on Rolling Stone listing why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712

But many of those things make me want to vote for him.
Click to expand...
You might as well vote for him.
- Your presidential vote in California doesn't count.  It's going to Hillary regardless if you vote for her or not.  A vote for her is basically a thrown away vote.
- Johnson isn't going to win, so you don't have to worry about him winning.  He isn't the brightest tool in the shed, but he isn't as awful as the other 2 candidates.
- It helps support a 3rd party and sends a message
Click to expand...

You can also just leave the Presidential vote boxes blank, while voting on other races/propositions.
 
Perspective said:
You can also just leave the Presidential vote boxes blank, while voting on other races/propositions.
Click to expand...
That doesn't help send a message.  Also, might as well not even vote.  Just kidding about not voting, but most people have no idea what they are voting for on the other items.  It's basically what sounds good at first short sighted glance without much thought.

We should have another thread here to discuss that.  Here's a site that has a lot of useful information with as little bias as possible as far as I can tell.https://ballotpedia.org/California_2016_ballot_propositions


Prop 61 probably deserves it's own thread.  Bernie Sanders is Campaigning in California for it.  Most of the veterans groups are very much against it.https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_61,_Drug_Price_Standards_(2016)
 
spootieho said:
[Prop 61 probably deserves it's own thread.  Bernie Sanders is Campaigning in California for it.  Most of the veterans groups are very much against it.https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_61,_Drug_Price_Standards_(2016)
Click to expand...
So Prop 61 says the drug companies can't charge California more for a drug than they charge veterans.  So this means if Prop 61 passes, one of two things will happen: (1) drug companies will keep drug prices for veterans the same and lower prices charged to California or (2) drug companies will raise prices for veterans so they don't have to lower prices for California.  Which do you think the immoral, evil, greedy, blood-sucking un-American drug companies will do?

BTW, Mylan sells epipens for $600 in the USA and sells epipens in Germany for $50.  You think Mylan is losing any money in Germany?
 
morekaos said:
tim said:
Rashida Jones' tweet:

If we're going to equate investigations with criminality, lemme just leave this here for y'all:

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-oldhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news...epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=share_btn_tw
Click to expand...

That story has a few holes in it....

A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for ?Jane Doe? also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.

Harambe for President!!!
Click to expand...

Of course there are holes in it. My point is not about whether a crime took place. My point is that if people are going to knock Clinton for the wiff of guilt from the FBI, then they also need to knock Trump for this wiff of guilt.
 
I don't know about that equivocation.  Being the target of a formal FBI investigation or having your story shopped around by a sketchy lawyer or Gloria Allred for a few bucks doesn't seem to hold up to the same light of credibility...at least to me.
 
morekaos said:
I don't know about that equivocation.  Being the target of a formal FBI investigation or having your story shopped around by a sketchy lawyer or Gloria Allred for a few bucks doesn't seem to hold up to the same light of credibility...at least to me.
Click to expand...

Tax evasion is a federal crime, no?
 
Responding to tims charge, there still is no comparing "People are saying" to a formally announced FBI investigation.  Using headlines like this...

Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes

Thanks to a maneuver later outlawed by Congress, Mr. Trump potentially escaped paying tens of millions of dollars in federal personal income taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html

...is both untrue and misleading.  Legal but dubious? It's either legal or not and in this instance, LEGAL!!. No story here, no investigation.
 
Former Attorney Generals (AG) rip the current AG

"Republican former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday slammed the FBI director's recent actions in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.

He called Comey's actions an "error in judgment" and said he is "somewhat perplexed about what the director was trying to accomplish here."

Gonzales said Comey's letter Friday informing lawmakers that the FBI is reviewing new emails potentially related to its investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state breaks from long-standing Justice Department practice. The protocol is not to comment on investigations and to stay silent on politically sensitive matters less than 60 days from an election."

Source:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/eric-holder-op-ed-rips-comey-letter/





 
morekaos said:
Responding to tims charge, there still is no comparing "People are saying" to a formally announced FBI investigation.  Using headlines like this...

Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes

Thanks to a maneuver later outlawed by Congress, Mr. Trump potentially escaped paying tens of millions of dollars in federal personal income taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html

...is both untrue and misleading.  Legal but dubious? It's either legal or not and in this instance, LEGAL!!. No story here, no investigation.
Click to expand...

No, it is not either "legal or not." There are many shades of grey.

Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...d-to-avoid-paying-taxes/ar-AAjFiec?li=BBnbcA1

... Before proceeding with his plan, Mr. Trump did what most prudent taxpayers do ? he sought a formal tax opinion letter. Such letters, typically written by highly-paid lawyers who spend entire careers mastering the roughly 10,000 pages of ever-changing statutes that make up the United States tax code, can provide important protection to taxpayers. As long as a tax adviser blesses a particular tax strategy in a formal opinion letter, the taxpayer most likely will not face penalties even if the I.R.S. ultimately rules the strategy was improper.

The language used in tax opinion letters has a specialized meaning understood by all tax professionals. So, for example, when a tax lawyer writes that a shelter is ?more likely than not? going to be approved by the I.R.S., this means there is at least a 51 percent chance the shelter will withstand scrutiny. (This is known as an ?M.L.T.N.? letter in the vernacular of tax lawyers.) A ?should? letter means there is about a 75 percent chance the I.R.S. will not object. The gold standard, a ?will? letter, means the I.R.S. is all but certain to bless the tax avoidance strategy.

But the opinion letters Mr. Trump received from his tax lawyers at Willkie Farr & Gallagher were far from the gold standard. The letters bluntly warned that there was no statute, regulation or judicial opinion that explicitly permitted Mr. Trump?s tax gambit. ?Due to the lack of definitive judicial or administrative authority,? his lawyers wrote, ?substantial uncertainties exist with respect to many of the tax consequences of the plan.? ...
 
Didn't see it mentioned here yet, but Wikileaks strikes again lol

I think it's a non story with Donna Brazile apparently feeding Clinton the debate questions beforehand...I mean the questions asked weren't out of the ordinary but it is interesting how quick CNN president Jeff Zucker took to action to fire Brazile, calling it "unethical" and "disgusting".  Obviously the order came from higher ups and Brazile was the scapegoat, but it is scary to think in this country, the official presidential debates, which uses CNN supposedly for being a neutral 3rd party would have significant ties with one party.  Secondly, it raises the whole Wikileaks authenticity again (is it Russian hackers?) and how it is still possible for these sensitive information to be transmitted via email boggles my mind...I mean how hard is it to pick up the phone and say it instead of putting it in writing?  :o

Do you guys care about this at all, non story? or do you think all parties should get the questions in advance to take any advantage from both sides?  Like Rubio said, right now the democrats are suffering, tomorrow it could be the republicans.  It is scary how Wikileaks can have so much of an impact on our politics...

I still think Trump has no shot at winning but we will see what happens
 
SoclosetoIrvine said:
Didn't see it mentioned here yet, but Wikileaks strikes again lol

I think it's a non story with Donna Brazile apparently feeding Clinton the debate questions beforehand...I mean the questions asked weren't out of the ordinary but it is interesting how quick CNN president Jeff Zucker took to action to fire Brazile, calling it "unethical" and "disgusting".  Obviously the order came from higher ups and Brazile was the scapegoat, but it is scary to think in this country, the official presidential debates, which uses CNN supposedly for being a neutral 3rd party would have significant ties with one party.  Secondly, it raises the whole Wikileaks authenticity again (is it Russian hackers?) and how it is still possible for these sensitive information to be transmitted via email boggles my mind...I mean how hard is it to pick up the phone and say it instead of putting it in writing?  :o

Do you guys care about this at all, non story? or do you think all parties should get the questions in advance to take any advantage from both sides?  Like Rubio said, right now the democrats are suffering, tomorrow it could be the republicans.  It is scary how Wikileaks can have so much of an impact on our politics...

I still think Trump has no shot at winning but we will see what happens
Click to expand...

This feeds the Trump narrative that "everybody" is against him, especially the "media." Brazile was a talking head/pundit for CNN, not a journalist. Much of broadcast "news" isn't journalism, but rather entertainment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top