## Election Tuesday

Post by Jay Feely » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:20 am

Who going to win the election? Trump or Hilary?
You will have to subdue me to restrain me. I been a bad boy so make sure you torture me too with anything but pain.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by drawscore » Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:18 am

The electoral math favors Hillary, but Trump could pull off an upset in a couple of states, that would put him over the top.
Drawscore

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Chris12 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:54 am

I feel the intense urge to take a shower after saying this but I predict a Trump victory. The race was almost decided not to long ago and that Trump is back in the race so fast before the election could be a trend that's going to continue the following days. And there's not enough time for more dirt to pop up about Trump to reverse the trend. I'm pretty sure there's no dirt left either since so much has already been thrown at both sides.
It also neatly fits in with the recent trend of Democracies voting for terrible things. We already have Brexit , populist wolves rising in Europe, Islamists in Turkey and death squads in the Philipines. A completely inexperienced and probably unstable man being made the most powerful man alive in the most dangerous time since WWII would fit in quite nicely with that.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Oohmynameisblue » Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:57 am

Mathematically, Hillary. But she has decreased her lead. Furthermore, she is now within the margin of error. Furthermore, the percentage of Hillary supporters who are "feeling enthusiastic" about their candidate is 9% less than Trump. If only the supporters feeling enthusiastic about their candidate turned out, Trump would win by approximately 0.23% (correct as on 5/11/16). This is with a margin of error of 0.25%, which technically means that if the above hypothesis happened, Hillary COULD win by 0.02%. But who knows which way it'll swing. I suggest you try to find online the video in which Trump states "Obama virtually screamed at a Trump supporter". Watch what he actually said and judge for yourself. Trump can twist things so much and nobody he supports will actually care. There's another video online in which one of the late night shows asked what Trump would have to do to lose their vote, one supporter said they would support him even if he raped someone. Yep. Sorry, just needed to get that out.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by MisterBones » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:47 pm

I WILL SAY IT ONCE.
VOTE.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, VOTE.
YOUR VOTE MATTERS
AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE TRUMP OR HILLARY, DON'T VOTE THIRD PARTY
VOTE HILLARY, TRUMP CANNOT BE PRESIDENT
I have ocs or whatever

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by xtc » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:01 pm

OK. I've already admitted that we Brits have surrendered our natural right to consider Americans to be dumb since the result of the poll concerning our membership of the EU [Wasn't that a lot of circumlocution to avoid saying, "Barmy, and not legally binding, Brexit vote"?] But . . .

> Oohmynameisblue wrote:Trump can twist things so much and nobody he supports will actually care. .

He doesn't need to twist things; he just lies!
I seriously despair for a country of 300 000 people who can't come up with two better candidates (OK, I know there are other marginal nominees) than those we can see. Perhaps we still have a right to consider Americans dumb! You're just not allowed to mention Boris Johnson!
Surely, if voters were allowed to cast their own votes for President, Flossie Perma-Tan would be consigned to the skip along with the other outworn Barbie dolls who might then want a little word with him.
Oooops!
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!
More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Oohmynameisblue » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:12 pm

> xtc wrote:OK. I've already admitted that we Brits have surrendered our natural right to consider Americans to be dumb since the result of the poll concerning our membership of the EU [Wasn't that a lot of circumlocution to avoid saying, "Barmy, and not legally binding, Brexit vote"?] But . . .

> > Oohmynameisblue wrote:Trump can twist things so much and nobody he supports will actually care. .

> He doesn't need to twist things; he just lies!
> I seriously despair for a country of 300 000 people who can't come up with two better candidates (OK, I know there are other marginal nominees) than those we can see. Perhaps we still have a right to consider Americans dumb! You're just not allowed to mention Boris Johnson!
> Surely, if voters were allowed to cast their own votes for President, Flossie Perma-Tan would be consigned to the skip along with the other outworn Barbie dolls who might then want a little word with him.
> Oooops!

Not 300 000 people, more like 300 000 000, surely.
And of course we have a right, this election is in my opinion worse than Brexit (although I didn't support it).
Last edited by Oohmynameisblue on Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by xtc » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:34 pm

OOoops!
Yes, actually 300 000 000 people, of course.
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!
More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by acecondor » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:27 pm

And if you think that the civilian populace is freaking out you should see us in the military. We have a pool om which country we are gonna have to go to war with first....right now the odds are we go to war with china if trump wins and russia if hillary wins
Me gusta le bondage

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Oohmynameisblue » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:36 pm

> acecondor wrote:And if you think that the civilian populace is freaking out you should see us in the military. We have a pool om which country we are gonna have to go to war with first....right now the odds are we go to war with china if trump wins and russia if hillary wins

Who'd you think you have better odds against? Russia or China?

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by acecondor » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:42 pm

Honestly if this became a real war like the old stuff of ww2 we would win against anyone. However, this is a new world and its hard to judge based on manpower alone. But we feel strong and confident against china, theyre still using ww2 era weapons and machinery even though they have an army nearly 5 times the size of ours...Any veteran knows we have to be careful with russia, they are not a country to be underestimated even if half their country is ice. They are all trained killers who are not afraid to do what they need to do to win. That would be a very close war and i cant say we are guaranteed a victory if we do go to war with them
Me gusta le bondage

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:31 pm

I don't like Hillary any more than any other progressive Bernie supporter does, but imo God help us all if Trump wins the election.
Imo he only has about a 20% chance of victory at this point, but that's still all too great a chance to my liking. It's like playing Russian Roulette with a six-shooter and one blank cartridge already fired.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Chris12 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:02 am

> Jason Toddman wrote:I don't like Hillary any more than any other progressive Bernie supporter does, but imo God help us all if Trump wins the election.
> Imo he only has about a 20% chance of victory at this point, but that's still all too great a chance to my liking. It's like playing Russian Roulette with a six-shooter and one blank cartridge already fired.

20% I'm hearing its a lot higher, with Trump even making headway in a lot of blue states and Hillary being in the lead with only 1%. Of course I got a lot less sources to chose from.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Oohmynameisblue » Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:12 am

> acecondor wrote:Honestly if this became a real war like the old stuff of ww2 we would win against anyone. However, this is a new world and its hard to judge based on manpower alone. But we feel strong and confident against china, theyre still using ww2 era weapons and machinery even though they have an army nearly 5 times the size of ours...Any veteran knows we have to be careful with russia, they are not a country to be underestimated even if half their country is ice. They are all trained killers who are not afraid to do what they need to do to win. That would be a very close war and i cant say we are guaranteed a victory if we do go to war with them

Do you think more modern weapons would counteract effectively fighting 5 of your army?

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:16 am

> Oohmynameisblue wrote:Do you think more modern weapons would counteract effectively fighting 5 of your army?

Yes, if the difference in technology was great enough. Look how easily European settlers took over lands in North and South America, India and much of Asia, Australia, and Africa despite far worse odds against them numerically than even that. Even with the primitive weapons of the time, Europe practically conquered the rest of the world in the 16th century despite being vastly outnumbered because they had the only military forces with guns at the time. Bows and arrows or spears are simply no match for even flintlocks... let alone cannons.
Look at Russia in WWI; it had by far the largest army in the world. But it was often ill-equipped, and as a result took so many casualties that Russia was forced to withdraw from the war in 1917, and fell victim to the Communist revolution shortly afterward. Even in WWII it was almost defeated by the Nazis in 1941. Only the fact that Hitler's timetable was thrown off by Mussolini's bumbling, critically delaying his invasion of the USSR until the Russian winter ruined his momentum, prevented the Soviet Army from getting annihilated. And the Soviet Army was vastly larger than the German forces and had the home ground advantage as well. They were saved by sheer luck and bad planning on Hitler's part.
Of course China could destroy us by launching nuclear missiles and vice versa, and the relative size of our armies wouldn't even matter. But short of that, the USA's more advanced technology would give us many advantages. However, neither could ever conquer the other without at least near-total destruction for both sides, as China isn't that backward (anymore!) by any means. Also, its soldiers don't have as much experience or training in combat situations as other armies, as afaik they haven't been involved in international wars very much since the end of the Vietnam War.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Ozone0530 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:32 am

As an active-duty member of the US armed services, I can confidently say that we have the capability and, at the lower levels, the willpower to see through to the end and win any conflict between either a re-emerging power in Russia or rising China. Unfortunately, that same will to win, if you will, is generally seen as lacking, particularly at the civilian level of the chain of command (Executive and it's departments). Internationally, we have done nothing to dissuade the notion that we are a nation of front-runners, cutting loose at the first sign of trouble and unwilling to allow the freedom to do what is needed for fear of "looking bad," as if war isn't worse.
As I see it, neither major party candidate, and for that matter the 2 most visible 3rd party candidates, have the intelligence, humility, understanding of nuance and historical geopolitical factors, and negotiation ability (summed up as Statesmanship) along with the willpower and for lack of a better term, balls to deal with the present and future problems the United States will obviously face.
I will leave with this: a personal dislike (or dare I say hatred) of one candidate does not somehow make the other candidate more qualified or a better option for the highest and most important public office in the free world. I also wonder if the largely ignorant, naive, hypocritical and spineless cowards that make up the majority of our pop-culture and media industries would be so quick to tell you that "your vote matters," and "rock the vote," if they thought those same people they were talking to would vote for the candidate they didn't side with.
There are enough wack jobs and kooks in this country that believe in Roswell and all the other conspiracy theories, along with a huge number who know nothing about things like civics and economics and important documents and moments in political history for me to trust them to make informed decisions to vote. I think it is akin to criminal negligence or medical malpractice to simply tell someone to go vote without taking those factors in mind.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by drawscore » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:22 am

I'm not a big Trump fan, but I absolutely cannot stand Hillary Clinton.
I come from a military background - six years service; father and four uncles were military, etc. Injury while on active duty left me eligible for a disability pension from the VA, and continuing care at no cost, from a nearby VA hospital.
I believe Obama and Clinton do not like the military, its veterans, or retirees. I know that vets who get a disability check, and military retirees, along with Social Security recipients, have not received a COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) in three of the last four years. But we will get one in January. A whole, whopping three-tenths of one percent. (And yet, there's plenty of money for Middle Eastern refugees and illegal aliens.)
Probably because the refugees and illegals are future Democrat voters, while the active military, the reserves, the retirees, and the veterans, along with the over 50 demographic, appear to be around 60-40 for Trump. With those numbers, does anyone really think Clinton and the Democrats are going to do anything for the troops and the elderly? (And don't forget - Hilly's hubby once infamously implied that he "loathed" the military.)
Drawscore

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Oohmynameisblue » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:17 am

> drawscore wrote:
> I believe Obama and Clinton do not like the military, its veterans, or retirees.
> Drawscore

Are you kidding?!?!?! Trump has said he doesn't like "people who've been prisoners of war". That includes many veterans!
And why does everyone judge Hillary based on her husband's action?

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:42 am

> drawscore wrote:I'm not a big Trump fan, but I absolutely cannot stand Hillary Clinton. Drawscore

And I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, but I absolutely cannot stand Donald Trump.
Hillary is like the pushy mean girl who has to get her own way, or she makes other people regret it.
But Trump is like the five-year-old who has found a loaded handgun in the house and begins to play with it unsupervised while surrounded by other small children who also don't know any better.
One is merely damned unpleasant; the other is downright dangerous.
As you yourself have said, certain people would vote for Adolf Hither if he ran for President. Well, the next best (!) thing is doing so now, and you and many other are giving him your support.
God help us all if he wins. I'd much rather be voting for Sanders or Biden.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Ozone0530 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:57 am

> Oohmynameisblue wrote:

> > drawscore wrote:
> > I believe Obama and Clinton do not like the military, its veterans, or retirees.
> > Drawscore

> Are you kidding?!?!?! Trump has said he doesn't like "people who've been prisoners of war". That includes many veterans!
> And why does everyone judge Hillary based on her husband's action?

Because you would assume you know something about someone's character and actions and judgement if you were going to make a lifelong commitment to them, like marriage. I also wonder why the criticism for Mrs. Trump's apparent lack of intelligence is somehow legitimate, but the criticism of President Bill is off-limits or in bad taste.
The Republican Party is dead and it is almost solely responsible for it, and the hypocrisy of the liberal political platform is sickening. The country will take another "L" on the scoreboard come Tuesday night, regardless of the winner.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Oohmynameisblue » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:04 am

> Ozone0530 wrote:

> > Oohmynameisblue wrote:

> > > drawscore wrote:
> > > I believe Obama and Clinton do not like the military, its veterans, or retirees.
> > > Drawscore

> > Are you kidding?!?!?! Trump has said he doesn't like "people who've been prisoners of war". That includes many veterans!
> > And why does everyone judge Hillary based on her husband's action?

> Because you would assume you know something about someone's character and actions and judgement if you were going to make a lifelong commitment to them, like marriage. I also wonder why the criticism for Mrs. Trump's apparent lack of intelligence is somehow legitimate, but the criticism of President Bill is off-limits or in bad taste.
> The Republican Party is dead and it is almost solely responsible for it, and the hypocrisy of the liberal political platform is sickening. The country will take another "L" on the scoreboard come Tuesday night, regardless of the winner.

Hillarys on the up again, with one day left. Surely she can't be stopped now. Unless, of course, turnout.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by wataru14 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:18 am

Whoever wins is sure to be a one-termer, at any rate. At least we have that.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by jessicabound » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:45 am

Guys, face it, you're f***ed either way

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:57 am

> jessicabound wrote:Guys, face it, you're f***ed either way

I'd say that is something we can all agree on; maybe even Drawscore.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Oohmynameisblue » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:04 pm

> wataru14 wrote:Whoever wins is sure to be a one-termer, at any rate. At least we have that.

Yes. Still four years though. That's long enough for damage to be done.However, you can run again if you lose, so either of them could come back.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Oohmynameisblue » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:05 pm

> jessicabound wrote:Guys, face it, you're f***ed either way

I think we've covered that already.

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by drawscore » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:14 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:

> > jessicabound wrote:Guys, face it, you're f***ed either way

> I'd say that is something we can all agree on; maybe even Drawscore.

One can only hope.
Drawscore

### Re: Election Tuesday

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:49 pm

> drawscore wrote:

> > Jason Toddman wrote:

> > > jessicabound wrote:Guys, face it, you're f***ed either way

> > I'd say that is something we can all agree on; maybe even Drawscore.

> One can only hope.
> Drawscore

Wjat... that we're all f***ed? What an... odd... thing to hope for.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...