We didn't need the Department of Homeland Security either, just better communication between FBI, CIA, Justice Department and state police. Shirley Hufstetler just died. Lyndon Johnson got Congress to add several judgeships we didn't need so he could appoint her and others to the bench. Then Carter created the Department of Education to give her a job. That has to be demoted to a sub-department in Health and Human Services, with several staff eliminated. Enforcement of all laws with all these extra people would be nice. By the way I have the solution for the border: all those soldiers stationed in Germany and England for no good reason.
Very few independents are going to vote for Donald Trump and virtually no Democrats. More Republicans are going to take a moral position and oppose Donald Trump's racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and misogyny by not voting for Trump than Democrats that might vote for him. As we know those identifying with the Republican Party has declined from about 30% to 25% since Donald Trump has risen as the Republican nomination since February. This is the hope of many on the right but it's simply not going to happen and here's why. The FBI might decide it has a case against Hillary Clinton and obtain an indictment before the elections BUT.... the case will not be heard in a criminal court before November and Hillary Clinton is presumed to be innocent until convicted. While the hard-core Right assumes she's guilty that isn't how our criminal justice system works and an indictment does not imply guilt in the United States. The election itself will not be affected by an indictment. Next is the fact that Constitutional scholars tend to agree that no sitting president can be prosecuted for a criminal offense. So if indicted the prosecution could not occur until after Hillary Clinton leaves office assuming she's elected. If elected Hillary Clinton could, in theory, be removed from office to face prosecution by the impeachment process but we know that's not going to happen. The Democrats already control enough seats in the Senate to prevent removal from office and will likely have majority control of the Senate after the November election. So basically, even if indicted, Hillary Clinton would continue to be presumed innocent until after her term in office (four or eight years) assuming she's elected. We can compare this to the allegations of fraud by Donald Trump that haven't negatively effected his nomination to the Republican ticket. While Trump's case of fraud works it's way through the civil courts Trump, like Clinton, is presumed to be innocent.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...ubledigits-against-trump-and-hillary-n2138829 Admittedly 11% isn't a large percentage but I've also read that it has increased to 13% in a June poll and it's very significant. The reason it's significant is that the criteria for being included in the Presidential Debates is a polling rate of 10% or more and the Presidential Debates are huge when it comes to electing the next president. In 2012 Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson was only polling in the 3%-6% range as I recall and he was excluded from the Presidential Debates. If his polling numbers continue to be in the double-digits, and rising as recent polls indicate, then he will arguably be included in 2016. There are several factors involved that could propel him to the presidency in November. First of all as the Republican Governor of New Mexico he received considerable support from both Democrats and Republicans. He managed to cross party lines appealing to both and was considered to be one of the best governors in New Mexico history because of that fact. Most important is that with the high disapproval ratings of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton the American people, especially the "Independents" that ultimately determine who becomes president, are looking for a positive alternative to both Trump and Clinton. If Gary Johnson is on the Presidential Debate stage he offers the American people an alternative to the negativity of Trump and Clinton. If there was ever a time when a third party candidate could win the presidency then 2016 is that time because the American people really despise both Clinton and Trump.
You are talking just popular vote right? So theoretically, Trump could still lose the election in the electoral college?
And just what makes you think Trump will get more than 50% of the vote? In the polling thus far, he is lagging. With his continued racist and stupid statements, it's difficult to see how he could ever muster even 50% of the vote. The Republican Party is a minority party. It's much smaller than the Democratic Party. The only reason Republicans control Congress is because of the undemocratic aspects of our government (e.g. the apportionment of senators and gerrymandering). Where it not for senator apportionment and gerrymandering Republicans wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of controlling Congress. Further, Clinton has consistently beaten Trump in favorability polling. I don't see how that changes going forward. Moreover, for the last 8 years Republican favorability ratings have done nothing by fall. That too bodes poorly for Republicans this fall. Republicans are paying for their extreme partisanship of the last 8 years (e.g. refusing to cooperate with Democrats on anything). We could well be witnessing at the demise of the Republican Party. I think you are deluding yourself if you think Republicans will win this fall. I have never seen an election cycle where Republican leaders are denouncing their nominee as Republicans have done and continue to do. Just yesterday Republican congressional leaders denounced the Republican nominee (i.e. The Donald).
Teflon Don will be fine. People, such as myself, don't mind that he rubs establishment Democrats and Republicans the wrong way. They're the ones that have put us in this mess in the first place. I am just waiting for the debates where millions will be watching as he dismembers her political agenda. Also, FYI he only lags Shillary 2 points in RealClearPolitics.
They spent a whole week hammering away at Trump both conservative and mainstream media lying about what he said about the judge's Mexican heritage. They failed to call the judge out on his racist La Raza affiliations, and I say this as an American with Hispanic/Mexican heritage myself, any group calling themselves La Raza is a racist group. Then using that, they do push polls which make it seem as though Hillary has a big lead. Now, do a poll after this terror attack and just ask who you support instead of those stupid push polls and see what the results are. Wanna bet you won't see any polls in the next week or two?
The burden of proof is on the accuser. When a bad man calls you a bad man you might not be a bad man. Of course when a bad man calls a bad man a bad man that doesn't make the bad man good nor the other good either. In elections we often choose the lesser of 2 evils, but never have both evils been so evil.
I assume you're aware of the fact that Trump is currently polling 12 points behind Hillary Clinton and I also assume you know that the Democrats have an Electoral College advantage so that margin is even greater when the Electoral College is eventually called upon to elect the president. Republican leadership has already expressed the fear that Trump could lose worse than Barry Goldwater did in 1964 when Goldwater received less than 10% of the Electoral College vote.
Trump has been dropping in the polls and Trump has been hammered by both Republicans and Democrats related to his comments after the Orlando terrorist attack. We will see new "post Orlando" polls and, based upon all indications, Trump's 12 point deficit to Hillary Clinton is going to increase and not decrease.
At the same time when the conservative media and the mainstream media were hammering away at Trump for this fake issue, I've seen several stories on Hillary that would be top of the news every hour if it were negative stories about Trump. I have updates on old and new scandals about Hillary but more often the not the media buries these stories: Hillary Clinton's Scandalpalooza Vol I
I think that Hillary and obama's weakness on terrorism will hurt them, and Trump's boldness on immigration and defense will give him a boost after any attacks like this one in Orlando. Democrats attitude is get used to being murdered by radical islamists. Trump's attitude is to put a stop to it.
So you post a link to a PF forum thread you created for right-wing conspiracy theories that have all been addressed in the news media. Seriously? Just because a right-wing-nut claims there's a scandal doesn't make it a scandal. I don't like Hillary Clinton but that's based upon the truth about her and is not based upon allegations of scandals that, for the most part, never existed.
President Obama's weakness on terrorism? Are you making this up? The DOJ has successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorist cases since Obama took office and we would have prosecuted the suspected terrorists being detained at GITMO had it not been for Republicans that blocked the prosecution in our criminal courts. Immigration? The number of suspected "illegal" (undocumented) immigrants in the United States is DOWN from 2007 and US border enforcement has never been more effective in my lifetime. The Obama administration is successfully deporting the maximum number of "illegal" aliens it can based upon Congressional budget authorizations (limited to about 400,000 per year) and has been focused on those that commit criminal offenses that are obviously the people we want to get out of the US the most. Hell, the president even issued an executive order so that those unlawfully (but peacefully residing) in the United States (because they don't have documentation) would turn themselves in for future adjudication of their case in the immigration courts (but of course Republicans have challenged this in court). The attacks in Orlando were apparently based upon anti-homosexual prejudice that literally crosses many religious lines. The fact that many Muslims have anti-homosexual prejudice is no different than the fact that many Christians also have that same anti-homosexual prejudice and members of both religions have committed murder based upon that prejudice. Orlando was an extreme example of a hate crime and we know that over 50% of all hate crimes committed in the United States are committed by whites that are statistically "Christians" and not by minorities and even fewer by non-Christians. Orlando, from everything I've read, was a hate crime based upon a bigoted ideology of anti-homosexual prejudice that is not unique to Muslims but instead is also shared by other religions and many social conservatives in the United States. Trump's attempt to blame Muslims or the Muslim religion reflects his religious intolerance based upon a bigoted ideology. Trump may not be prejudiced against homosexuals but he's unquestionably prejudiced against Muslims and that prejudice is based upon religious intolerance formulated by a nefarious and bigoted ideology.
The CPD threshold is 15%. This is common knowledge. Please be more diligent in your research next time, so you prevent a repeat of posting misinformation. Nothing personal, just a friendly reminder.
I'm tempted to argue the points there with you but man are you committed to progressive ideology. Sorry but you post is truly laughable. From claiming obama is not weak on terrorism, to claiming that Christians are to blame for homophobia and by association the Orlando shooting is completely twisted. Seriously, I would debate you point by point on this stuff but I don't see ever convincing you of how wrong you are.
I'm not sure what fight your picking here. Trump is evil. Hillary is evil. The media is (on average) evil. The other guy might be evil but Trump or the media or both saying he is neither makes him evil nor clears him. Is that clearer. Let's find a way to get rid of both of them and replace them with good people.
That's just not going to happen. I mean, Hillary could be replaced because she's a criminal, but it'll be her or Trump most likely.
Trump got 44% in the primaries, Hillary 55%. That means all they can count on in the general is 22 and 27, meaning a majority nationwide even of primary voters want someone else. that hasn't happened since 1976, but that year both candidates were acceptable within the party with few negatives among independents. There's a real chance four a third candidate. Specifically note that Hillary lost 5 states Democrats always win and Trump lost 7 states Republicans always win. Those 12 states are open for a third choice. Add the usual swing states and you might get the closest 3-way race since 1912, much closer in the EV.
The so-called popular is interesting trivia but pretty pointless. You have to win STATES. The 50 individual totally separate elections that occur that day. Now if a third party can win just one state or maybe two THEN it gets interesting and could insure a Trump win if the Electoral College fails to produce a majority win.
