Deacsfan27
Well-known member
According to the NC BOE website it's:
Dems: 39.6%
Pubs: 30.1%
UnAff: 29.8%
Which is really surprising.
https://enr.ncsbe.gov/voter_stats/results.aspx?date=10-22-2016
Last edited:
General Election Thread: Two Weeks Out
- Thread starter Deacsfan27
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
According to the NC BOE website it's:
Dems: 39.6%
Pubs: 30.1%
UnAff: 29.8%
Which is really surprising.
https://enr.ncsbe.gov/voter_stats/results.aspx?date=10-22-2016
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Funny words coming form a guy who's generation about to bankrupt medical care and social security by ignoring end of life costs their whole lives
This from a guy who plans to vote for Hillary. No one has used political power for personal gain better than the Clintons.
She is the living incarnation of cronyism.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 174,676
- Reaction score
- 48,816
That's not the same as running for President to gain mailing lists and to scam old ladies for donations to pay political operatives with no real desire to govern.
avalon
Antwan Scott
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 19,124
- Reaction score
- 2,251
Baconwfu
Well-known member
I wasn't defending Trump for the sake of defending him, I loathe Trump, but I also hate muckraking, if you're going to criticize someone, criticize them from doing something wrong, not just some bullshit talking point that is meant to be misleading. In the original post from RJ that I responded to there was absolutely nothing wrong or unethical about what RJ described...which is to say there is nothing wrong with the fact that Trump's campaign was paying him to rent his office space/plane/whatever. There is nothing wrong with that or morally or legally. I did go so far as to say if he was overcharging or something then that's a different story...but how in God's name would I know if he's overcharging his campaign or billing unnecessary items for his personal gain. I know little about campaigns and little to nothing about office rental in Manhattan...point being, I didn't look it up because I figured all I would find was articles like the ones posted which didn't really say anything.
For full disclosure, I only skimmed those articles. They say he quadrupled/quintupled his rent paid, but it also says that his campaign used proportionately more space and that they spent less on space than Hilary, so really there doesn't seem to be anything sketchy going on there...just some BS talking points. If I missed some other telling info in the articles then I apologize and will stand corrected.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
man, get a load of Bacon the Trump Lover
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
What the hell does any of that have to do with NC early voting going 2-1 Democrat? You can spin till you're dizzy, bottom line is NC is voting Democrat.
qcdeac
Le tits now
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 684
Thanks for the link. The county I grew up in and registered to vote in, is 67% Democrat and less than 15% Republican. Almost all candidates in local races were Dems, so I registered Dem to vote in primaries. Never felt the need to change even though I vote Pub at least 2/3 of the time.
And holy cow is Watauga County white.
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
You can't be this dense. Do you actually think that 2/3 of the early vote in North Carolina has been for Hillary Clinton? Nobody knows how these people have voted. All these numbers tell us is the number of registered voters by party who have voted.
What the hell does what I said have to do with this? It's simple. Registered Democrat votes in North Carolina does not equal actual Democrat votes in North Carolina....for reasons I gave in my post.
marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,875
- Reaction score
- 2,090
CantStandYa
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,495
- Reaction score
- 241
Can't we agree that millennials and boomers both suck equally?
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction
qcdeac
Le tits now
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 684
Interesting article from a Charlotte Observer guy telling people it's OK not to vote, particularly if you aren't informed on the issues.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/mark-washburn/article111121132.html
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/mark-washburn/article111121132.html
DeacsPop
Resident Old Man
Anyone who thinks that HRC can do anything over the next 10 days except murder on live TV to lose this election is sadly mistaken.
This doe not speak to her infallibility but to how piss poor a candidate Dump is. :thumbsup:
This doe not speak to her infallibility but to how piss poor a candidate Dump is. :thumbsup:
marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,875
- Reaction score
- 2,090
man you are naive
DeacsPop
Resident Old Man
Moi?? Ha: your kidding right? Why do none of u Dumpsters want to put your $$ where your mouths are? I take venmo; name your wager.
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
DeacsPop thought Hillary was going to win the popular vote by 20%, ala Nixon/McGovern, Reagan/Mondale & Johnson/Goldwater. Everyone should have known right then that he didn't know his ass from his elbow about U.S. politics in the 21st century.
It was like saying a car was going to run 300 MPH at Daytona next February.
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
Why doesn't the media ever talk about this?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/doesnt-clinton-embarrass-democrats-1477611135
Donald Trump wears his character flaws on his sleeve. Hillary Clinton seeks to prevent documentation of hers, even when the law requires it. Yet despite her best efforts, facts about Mrs. Clinton that are now public should trouble voters more than any of Mr. Trump’s remarks.
Not that it’s easy for Republicans to appear on a ballot with Mr. Trump, especially since media folk spend days after each controversial remark demanding responses from other GOP candidates. The objective is to force them to endorse or condemn Mr. Trump and suffer the consequences.
Fair enough, but reporters don’t force down-ballot Democrats to take a position on each new Clinton email revelation. The result is wall-to-wall media coverage focused on whether GOP voters can possibly support their candidate. But why should Republicans have all the fun? Democratic voters have every right to be ashamed of their nominee.
We’ll review some of the reasons in a moment, but first let’s consider the importance of party loyalty in this year’s presidential election. In recent polls, Mr. Trump often leads among independents. But he generally trails overall because Mrs. Clinton enjoys stronger support among Democrats than Mr. Trump does among Republicans—or because pollsters don’t believe Republicans will turn out and therefore include many more Democrats than Republicans in their survey samples. Clearly Mr. Trump needs more Republicans to support him. This could happen if holdout Republicans break his way or if some Democrats decide they can’t stomach another era of Clinton scandals.
History says it will probably have to be the former. Bill Clinton rallied his party and survived an impeachment vote in the 1990s not by disproving the charges against him, but by dedicating himself to partisan goals. Once he agreed to abandon entitlement reform, Democratic support in the Senate was rock solid.
Similarly, at the final debate last week Mrs. Clinton made no effort to embrace centrist policies. She called for higher taxes, expanded entitlements and an activist Supreme Court to impose strict limits on liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Mrs. Clinton is speaking exclusively to the left wing of her party. Mr. Trump, for his part, deviates from many Republicans on trade and immigration but has otherwise embraced a growth agenda of lower taxes and regulatory relief for an economy that sorely needs it.
Beyond policy considerations, voters across the political spectrum should consider what it would mean to ratify Mrs. Clinton’s institutionalization of political corruption. We now know from emails published by WikiLeaks that before Mrs. Clinton formally launched her campaign, she arranged for the king of Morocco to donate $12 million to Clinton Foundation programs.
What’s significant about the Morocco case is that for years the Clintons peddled the fiction that donors write checks simply to support wondrous acts of Clintonian charity. But that cover story isn’t available here. Mrs. Clinton’s trusted aide Huma Abedin put it in writing: The Moroccans agreed to the deal on the condition that Mrs. Clinton would participate at a conference in their country.
Panicked Clinton-campaign aides persuaded Mrs. Clinton to avoid such a trip before launching her candidacy—and the foundation got the king to settle for Bill and Chelsea Clinton. But the record is clear. The king wanted the access, influence and prestige that all strongmen crave from legitimate democracies.
This wasn’t the first time the Clintons satisfied such a desire while collecting megadonations. When it comes to human rights, Kazakhstan’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, makes Morocco’s king look enlightened. In power since 1991 and never freely elected, Mr. Nazarbayev must have enjoyed the sensation of Mr. Clinton endorsing him to lead an international election-monitoring group in 2005.
The Kazakh strongman knows how to return a favor, and he granted valuable mining concessions to Clinton Foundation donors. The donors then built a global uranium powerhouse that was eventually sold to the Russians in a deal that required the 2010 approval of a U.S. government committee that included Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. To put the cherry on this sundae, the Clintons violated their promise to the Obama administration by failing to publicly identify all the foundation donors.
A cache of emails, recently made public via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee, exposes another fiction at the heart of the Clinton Foundation. Clinton aides have long asserted that nobody received preferential treatment from Secretary Clinton’s State Department as a result of foundation donations. Yet emails show the State Department giving special access to “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) identified by foundation staff.
WikiLeaks has revealed a draft 2011 report on Clinton Foundation governance from the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm. The document notes that the foundation had a conflict-of-interest policy for directors, officers and key employees and a separate conflict-of-interest policy for other employees. “It appears that neither policy has been implemented,” reported the lawyers.
Of course not. Conflict of interest is the Clinton business model. And political influence is the product. That’s how Hillary and Bill managed to gross more than a Rolling Stones tour by delivering speeches. Looking at how successful Mrs. Clinton and her husband were in monetizing her position as secretary of state, why would any voter, of any party, want to see how much revenue she can squeeze from the Oval Office?
Voters who wish to reject the Clintonization of America’s governing institutions have a choice on Nov. 8. They can feel good about themselves by writing in the name of a third-party candidate. Or they can do right by the country by selecting the only person who can stop the Clintons: a very flawed candidate named Donald Trump.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/doesnt-clinton-embarrass-democrats-1477611135
Donald Trump wears his character flaws on his sleeve. Hillary Clinton seeks to prevent documentation of hers, even when the law requires it. Yet despite her best efforts, facts about Mrs. Clinton that are now public should trouble voters more than any of Mr. Trump’s remarks.
Not that it’s easy for Republicans to appear on a ballot with Mr. Trump, especially since media folk spend days after each controversial remark demanding responses from other GOP candidates. The objective is to force them to endorse or condemn Mr. Trump and suffer the consequences.
Fair enough, but reporters don’t force down-ballot Democrats to take a position on each new Clinton email revelation. The result is wall-to-wall media coverage focused on whether GOP voters can possibly support their candidate. But why should Republicans have all the fun? Democratic voters have every right to be ashamed of their nominee.
We’ll review some of the reasons in a moment, but first let’s consider the importance of party loyalty in this year’s presidential election. In recent polls, Mr. Trump often leads among independents. But he generally trails overall because Mrs. Clinton enjoys stronger support among Democrats than Mr. Trump does among Republicans—or because pollsters don’t believe Republicans will turn out and therefore include many more Democrats than Republicans in their survey samples. Clearly Mr. Trump needs more Republicans to support him. This could happen if holdout Republicans break his way or if some Democrats decide they can’t stomach another era of Clinton scandals.
History says it will probably have to be the former. Bill Clinton rallied his party and survived an impeachment vote in the 1990s not by disproving the charges against him, but by dedicating himself to partisan goals. Once he agreed to abandon entitlement reform, Democratic support in the Senate was rock solid.
Similarly, at the final debate last week Mrs. Clinton made no effort to embrace centrist policies. She called for higher taxes, expanded entitlements and an activist Supreme Court to impose strict limits on liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Mrs. Clinton is speaking exclusively to the left wing of her party. Mr. Trump, for his part, deviates from many Republicans on trade and immigration but has otherwise embraced a growth agenda of lower taxes and regulatory relief for an economy that sorely needs it.
Beyond policy considerations, voters across the political spectrum should consider what it would mean to ratify Mrs. Clinton’s institutionalization of political corruption. We now know from emails published by WikiLeaks that before Mrs. Clinton formally launched her campaign, she arranged for the king of Morocco to donate $12 million to Clinton Foundation programs.
What’s significant about the Morocco case is that for years the Clintons peddled the fiction that donors write checks simply to support wondrous acts of Clintonian charity. But that cover story isn’t available here. Mrs. Clinton’s trusted aide Huma Abedin put it in writing: The Moroccans agreed to the deal on the condition that Mrs. Clinton would participate at a conference in their country.
Panicked Clinton-campaign aides persuaded Mrs. Clinton to avoid such a trip before launching her candidacy—and the foundation got the king to settle for Bill and Chelsea Clinton. But the record is clear. The king wanted the access, influence and prestige that all strongmen crave from legitimate democracies.
This wasn’t the first time the Clintons satisfied such a desire while collecting megadonations. When it comes to human rights, Kazakhstan’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, makes Morocco’s king look enlightened. In power since 1991 and never freely elected, Mr. Nazarbayev must have enjoyed the sensation of Mr. Clinton endorsing him to lead an international election-monitoring group in 2005.
The Kazakh strongman knows how to return a favor, and he granted valuable mining concessions to Clinton Foundation donors. The donors then built a global uranium powerhouse that was eventually sold to the Russians in a deal that required the 2010 approval of a U.S. government committee that included Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. To put the cherry on this sundae, the Clintons violated their promise to the Obama administration by failing to publicly identify all the foundation donors.
A cache of emails, recently made public via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee, exposes another fiction at the heart of the Clinton Foundation. Clinton aides have long asserted that nobody received preferential treatment from Secretary Clinton’s State Department as a result of foundation donations. Yet emails show the State Department giving special access to “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) identified by foundation staff.
WikiLeaks has revealed a draft 2011 report on Clinton Foundation governance from the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm. The document notes that the foundation had a conflict-of-interest policy for directors, officers and key employees and a separate conflict-of-interest policy for other employees. “It appears that neither policy has been implemented,” reported the lawyers.
Of course not. Conflict of interest is the Clinton business model. And political influence is the product. That’s how Hillary and Bill managed to gross more than a Rolling Stones tour by delivering speeches. Looking at how successful Mrs. Clinton and her husband were in monetizing her position as secretary of state, why would any voter, of any party, want to see how much revenue she can squeeze from the Oval Office?
Voters who wish to reject the Clintonization of America’s governing institutions have a choice on Nov. 8. They can feel good about themselves by writing in the name of a third-party candidate. Or they can do right by the country by selecting the only person who can stop the Clintons: a very flawed candidate named Donald Trump.
Last edited: