Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Polls Plus- Clinton by 3.3%, Clinton 70.3% chance of winning. Clinton takes all of the Obama 2012 states with the exception of IA & ME-2, closest state is NC which goes to Trump by less than 0.1%
Polls Only- Clinton by 4.4%, 72.3% chance of winning. Clinton takes all of the Obama 2012 states with the exception of Iowa and ME-2. Clinton does take one Romney 2012 state in NC. Iowa closest state at 0.1%
Now Cast- Clinton by 4.4%, Clinton 73.7% chance of winning. Map the same as polls-only, though slight differences within the margins. NE-2 the closest state at 0.6%
As stated previously the caveats with NE-2 and ME-2 should apply as there has been an extreme lack of polling there.
And how do you KNOW that an official DIDN'T have the interests of the people at heart? If an official made a decision BECAUSE of a donation, it's bribery and BOTH parties are guilty. Now it IS true that it's hard to PROVE there is a quid pro quo, but that's true for both the person making the donation and the person receiving the donation. Trump has ADMITTED making donations with the expectation of getting favors later. That was his REASON for making the donations. How is that NOT "crooked"?
Ken
I'm not a lawyer, are you? Are you saying this from a point of authority? I would think that if one party gave a donation in the hopes that the politician will be "friendly" to them, but without actually knowing whether or not they would, that would not be considered bribery. However, if the politician gave a favor, knowing that it is because of the campaign contribution, that would be considered bribery. Morally, if not legally. As I said, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't hold businessmen to the same standards as public officials, and I don't think we should. Businessmen don't hold the public trust. Mark Cuban, an anti-Trump businessman, can make contributions in the hopes for a government that is friendly to him. I don't have a problem with that, or with him. He is acting in the interests of his company within the law. My problem is with the system that allows it and the politicians who take part in it. THEY are our leaders. THEY are the ones who are supposed to be above reproach. THEY are the ones who are suppose to be looking out for our interests. Mark Cuban never made any commitment to me, and neither did Trump.
The link I provided discusses methodology.
The link you provided says it discusses methodology, but does not. And no other recent poll shows the results released yesterday. The 3 most recent polls show Johnson in Colorado at 13 - 15 - 16%; 7/15/16, 8/12/16, 8/17/16. And suddenly he is down to 7%?
I'm not a lawyer, are you? Are you saying this from a point of authority? I would think that if one party gave a donation in the hopes that the politician will be "friendly" to them, but without actually knowing whether or not they would, that would not be considered bribery. However, if the politician gave a favor, knowing that it is because of the campaign contribution, that would be considered bribery. Morally, if not legally. As I said, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't hold businessmen to the same standards as public officials, and I don't think we should. Businessmen don't hold the public trust. Mark Cuban, an anti-Trump businessman, can make contributions in the hopes for a government that is friendly to him. I don't have a problem with that, or with him. He is acting in the interests of his company within the law. My problem is with the system that allows it and the politicians who take part in it. THEY are our leaders. THEY are the ones who are supposed to be above reproach. THEY are the ones who are suppose to be looking out for our interests. Mark Cuban never made any commitment to me, and neither did Trump.
Even ASSUMING your first paragraph is true, it's very hard, if not impossible to PROVE the REASON the politician granted the favor in question. Did they grant it BECAUSE of the donation or did they do it because it seemed like a good idea? There's really no way to know. In the case of Clinton, there's no way whatsoever to prove she granted favors in exchange for anything. In the case of Trump he's ADMITTED he donated money in order to get favors later, so it's clear his INTENTION was to buy favors.
And you may not hold businessmen to the same standards as public officials, but if Trump were to win, he wouldn't be a businessman anymore, he'd be a public official. And as someone USED to the process buying and selling of favors (and who has ADMITTED being part of that problem) why would anyone really expect him to somehow behave differently just because he's on the other side of the table? Seems to me he's quite possibly looking simply to be one of the ones being PAID for those favors rather than being one of the ones PAYING for those favors. Going into politics could simply be another path to increasing his wealth. Aside from the money to be made taking "bribes", maybe Trump is simply looking to steer all kinds of government money into his own firms. There's a lot of ways for someone who has admitted bribing officials to make crooked money themselves.
All in all, it seems like you are just turning a blind eye to things Trump HAS ADMITTED while criticizing Clinton for things you CAN'T EVEN PROVE.
Even ASSUMING your first paragraph is true, it's very hard, if not impossible to PROVE the REASON the politician granted the favor in question. Did they grant it BECAUSE of the donation or did they do it because it seemed like a good idea? There's really no way to know. In the case of Clinton, there's no way whatsoever to prove she granted favors in exchange for anything. In the case of Trump he's ADMITTED he donated money in order to get favors later, so it's clear his INTENTION was to buy favors.
The intent of businesses to profit from political donations is predicated on the assumption that the politicians are corrupt, which in many cases they are. But they have no way of knowing at the time of the donation whether or not it will pay off. It takes a corrupt politician for that to happen.
Yes, in the case of Clinton, as with many politicians, there is no way to prove quid pro quo, but there doesn't have to be. They may not go to jail, but the mere appearance should be enough to lose them elections. And in Hillaries case, it is not even confined to campaign contributions. She had money funneled outside of the political arena altogether with the Clinton foundation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
And you may not hold businessmen to the same standards as public officials, but if Trump were to win, he wouldn't be a businessman anymore, he'd be a public official. And as someone USED to the process buying and selling of favors (and who has ADMITTED being part of that problem) why would anyone really expect him to somehow behave differently just because he's on the other side of the table? Seems to me he's quite possibly looking simply to be one of the ones being PAID for those favors rather than being one of the ones PAYING for those favors. Going into politics could simply be another path to increasing his wealth. Aside from the money to be made taking "bribes", maybe Trump is simply looking to steer all kinds of government money into his own firms. There's a lot of ways for someone who has admitted bribing officials to make crooked money themselves.
All in all, it seems like you are just turning a blind eye to things Trump HAS ADMITTED while criticizing Clinton for things you CAN'T EVEN PROVE.
Ken
You are right about one thing here. I don't know what Trump will do if elected. He has never held office, so how am I expected to know? Maybe he will use the office to enrich himself. Maybe he won't. But with Hillary's track record as a public office holder, I am 100% sure that she will.
The intent of businesses to profit from political donations is predicated on the assumption that the politicians are corrupt, which in many cases they are. But they have no way of knowing at the time of the donation whether or not it will pay off. It takes a corrupt politician for that to happen.
Which is why Trump said he gave to EVERYONE.
Yes, in the case of Clinton, as with many politicians, there is no way to prove quid pro quo, but there doesn't have to be. They may not go to jail, but the mere appearance should be enough to lose them elections. And in Hillaries case, it is not even confined to campaign contributions. She had money funneled outside of the political arena altogether with the Clinton foundation.
You are right about one thing here. I don't know what Trump will do if elected. He has never held office, so how am I expected to know? Maybe he will use the office to enrich himself. Maybe he won't. But with Hillary's track record as a public office holder, I am 100% sure that she will.
You "know" Clinton will even after you just admitted that there is no way to prove she's ever done it. How do you "know" something you can't prove? Seems to me you don't "know" that at all, you just BELIEVE that to be the case. That's fine, everyone can feel free to vote for whoever they want, but you certainly have no claim to any moral high ground in regard to how you are voting. After all, Trump has ADMITTED to trying to buy favors.
In any event none of this has anything to do with the subject of this thread so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 09-05-2016 at 04:02 PM..
You "know" Clinton will even after you just admitted that there is no way to prove she's ever done it. How do you "know" something you can't prove? Seems to me you don't "know" that at all, you just BELIEVE that to be the case. That's fine, everyone can feel free to vote for whoever they want, but you certainly have no claim to any moral high ground in regard to how you are voting. After all, Trump has ADMITTED to trying to buy favors.
In any even none of this has anything to do with the subject of this thread so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Ken
This is the problem with humans in general. If we like someone, we are willing to ignore common sense and believe whatever allows us to feel better about liking them. There are plenty of people who believed OJ was innocent, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Like Hillary, he used power, influence, and all the smoke and mirrors money could buy to avoid jail. I have common sense, so to me he is still a murderer.
Hillary is a known entity, Trump is not. He has never held office and as I said, I never put my Trust in him as a businessman to look out for the interest of the American people. If Trump takes the oath of office, I will hold him to the same standard I hold Hillary.
After weeding through 15-25 posts of off-topic political diatribe/argments/rebuttals - with possibly only 3-4 actuals posts talking about POLLS (thank you to the few peeps who actually remained on topic today) - here is something of a hybrid:
for the amusement of those who actually read this thread for POLLING DATA -and want a bit of a laugh related to POLLS and POLLING.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
