Icewolf

Insurance companies try to jack up premiums when re-enrolling is just normal business practice over here. At least in that case they are telling you the old price, here you have to find your original letters. Does this not happen with car or home insurance in the US?

Well yougov, who show better scores for Trump than other pollsters are showing Texas to be within a few percentage points. It is interesting...if the election falls on the centre line of pollsters then the error in yougov is enough to tip Texas. Of course there is the big if of assuming that the average is correct, the big if of assuming such a hypothetical error would be even between state and national polling. It is not a prediction being made here, just raising a possibility. But at the same time the Clinton odds in Texas are better than the Trump odds in general. Well yougov, who show better scores for Trump than other pollsters are showing Texas to be within a few percentage points. It is interesting...if the election falls on the centre line of pollsters then the error in yougov is enough to tip Texas. Of course there is the big if of assuming that the average is correct, the big if of assuming such a hypothetical error would be even between state and national polling. It is not a prediction being made here, just raising a possibility. But at the same time the Clinton odds in Texas are better than the Trump odds in general.

The point is... Trump exaggeration has done zero damage... you just don't like his enormous ego. The lies of Hillary Clinton have done a lot of damage. Donald Trump is not a savior, he is merely the best chance we have ever had to clean house in Washington DC. Hillary is not the devil incarnate. That would take supernatural power. She's just a really evil person. The Pro-Choice platform has enormous effect on the economy. It's firmly entrenched in every Progressive agenda for US taxpayers to fork up the cash to pay for abortion on demand. You want to murder your children? Pay for it yourself How does a marginal outlay on a small scale government service have an enormous impact on the economy?

In what sense? Because Trump refuses to have a consistent or even coherent position there is no threshold against which to measure a Clinton Presidency.Cool! Will you return to us in two years and take responsibility for that decision? Hmm... Is this a European thing? I can't tell if you're trying to put words in my mouth, trying to respond to Canik and blaming your confusion on me, or if you're trying to respond to me while intoxicated. Maybe we should replace Hillary with Theresa May?The basic point is how do you determine in 2 years if Trump would have been a better President? Is he supposed to come back and say "yeah still glad I didn't vote for an unhinged narcissistic sexual predator?" Because that is pretty low bar. You can't compare policy outcomes because that requires Trump to have policy rather than a garbled mess. What exactly is he supposed to be taking responsibility for?

In what sense? Because Trump refuses to have a consistent or even coherent position there is no threshold against which to measure a Clinton Presidency.Cool! Will you return to us in two years and take responsibility for that decision?

I think actually the point is worth the public being more aware of. It doesn't do harm as it is already publicly available. But the fact that decisions are needed so quickly and are taken by fallible people is something that should be kept in mind when considering the current state of world affairs, and ensuring that we don't allow leaders to play brinkmanship and ensure people are elected who can take rationale decisions under pressure. Which is why Clinton brought it up. If you can't tweet rationally at 5am you probably can't take the nuclear decision at 5 am.

If you make information public that should be kept classified, I wonder what you discussed in your private emails that you refuse to release. Its like watching spoiled brats at Wal Mart. If this is how your child acts in public, how does your child behave at home? Even if the time frame she gave is somewhat already known, why would you even say it? How would revealing that information help make your point? Because all it did was inform other countries about some of our capabilities. Its like Obama admitting in 2012 that the US and Israel jointly worked to create/deliver Stuxnet to damage Iranian nuclear facilities. Why would you reveal that now? Highly classified information like that isn't released for decades, long after isn't relevant, and that is if it ever gets released. Another noteworthy event happened last year when the Pentagon admitted Israel has nuclear weapons, breaking decades of silence. Why would you reveal a state secret of a supposed ally? Shouldn't it be up to the possessor and owner of that secret to divulge that information if they so choose? It was already public information. http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/ @lystria The acorn thing was also roundly debunked...it fell victim to the same crooked lies. CNN have shown trump losing each debate and he lost ground after the first two. At the same time you predicted a Trump bounce after each. And finally, you proudly cast your caucus vote for Trump and broad cast that fact on this forum. You could have voted for someone else.

That video is crap. Cutting constantly so a voice over can say what was said next probably means that it wasn't what was said next. The only explicit reference to voter fraud is from the reporter which leads to them being told to shove it, apart from one guy whose face is conveniently hidden. Classic job if asking people if fraud is possible, getting a "well theoretically" followed by cutting it to make it look bad. Anyway in the debates yougov and CNN show its been 3/3 Clinton. Every headline is now Trump's nasty woman comments and refusing to accept democracy. Game set and match as we say here.

I don't think Trump is going to win big tonight and get his campaign back on track. I think this is probably the point were the result basically gets confirmed. Trump has been making poor judgements all week, and its going to be too easy to play on that. He doesn't look like a man ready to make good judgement in the heat of the moment, and given a lack of debate prep he needs to make good judgement in the heat of the moment. I also just don't think he is a good debater. He lost the 1st two debates for a reason. (and yes, he did lose). He is also struggling that whilst wikileaks have leaked lots of stuff, none of it is new. On the other hand, there is a pile of new stuff to deal with on him. And he is in real trouble, having associated himself with the claims against Bill Clinton, the fact that there is now stronger evidence against him really puts him in a bad spot. But I suspect it will go very low, he is probably in the sewers of vegas right now to try and find as much shit as possible.

Actually the "acting like on coke" is from the erratic hyper and mood swing aspects of his behaviour. And no I don't think he is on drugs. I just think he is that incapable of being coherent under questioning for an hour and a half. My "nothing to say" is pointing at the stupidity of it. Clinton is not on drugs. Demanding a drugs test is rediculous. It really just sounds like more of Trump trying to find excuses for losing each debate. It has no substance. It is a pathetic attempt to distract from the awkwardly strong evidence that he is a serial sex offender, and in his lashing about he landed on something that once again shows he is out of his depth.

Drug testing....the man who acted like he was on crack at the first debate wants drug testing....truly this man has nothing to say.

Comparing the LA times poll to past polls is misleading. It is a totally new methodology that throws a lot of orthodoxy out the window. It also appears to be a very risky way to poll. Pollsters reckon you have a 1/20 chance of a misleading sample in each poll. Normally not an issue as you have lots of polls and get a new sample each time. If you have one sample for the entire election and it is wonky...well you're fucked. Also the mechanism means it requires very engaged persons to partake in it who probably don't reflect an average voter. For example they may be more partisan than average. Overall remember it's an experiment, an entirely untried method. Qudos is owed for trying this new concept in so public and open a way. And it could be right. It could also be wrong. Overall there is also a common train of thought of polls can be wrong....Therefore Trump is doing better than polling suggests. Yep...could be true. But they could be wrong the other way. If you think that there is a possible 6-8% error on average...fair enough. It's possible and polls have been unreliable in the past. But before you cuddle your Trump teddy with glee remember that it could also mean Clinton in fact has a 14 point lead and is on the way to winning Texas, and the scenarios are about as likely as each other. Also remember in 2008 it was the Bradley effect. In 2012 it was the poll unskewers. Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse

And now add leering after ten year olds. Ten. Years. Old. I don't care what your political persuasion is. That has to be over the line.

Wikileaks is doing a classic case of over promising and under delivering. Everyone says things in emails they would put differently if it was known it would be published. But so far they have found nothing interesting Meanwhile the apprentice leaks and testimony continue and Trump keeps the focus on that by fighting his own party. For me this comes to one of the top three reasons I really think it's better for America if he loses. 1. Advocating for torture. No. Just no. 2. Denying global warming. It firstly would do a lot of harm, and also shows a efusal to follow evidence 3. Thus is the one that flows from debates and his campaign. I work in a policy driven role in government. Trump does not show any capacity to make good policy. He is irrational, impulsive, ignores advice, refuses to build coalitions and fights with likely allies. His campaign is poorly run, contradicts itself, and he shows a lack of understanding of the principles of good governance.

Trump now melting down again on Twitter...so even supposing that he gained some positive news spin from the debate (doubtful but supposing) he has now turned the media cycle back on himself, the Republicans that are disowning him, and by extension, the video that is crucifying him. And therefore neatly spinning Clinton out of the picture of the scandals. This, right here, is why he is going to lose. His grasp of basic political strategy is so weak. I used to think maybe there was some master plan, some clever trick or spin that was behind this...not since the general election campaign started in earnest. He is bleeding out.

Never said or heard similar in a locker room. Ever.

I don't know that that is as true as you seem to believe it is (based on this statement alone, maybe I'm reading more into than there really is). There's a lot of hate for both in general, but I'm the exact opposite of what you stated. I dislike Trump, but I despise Clinton and the things she has done. In the end, it's going to depend on who can get people mobilized to go to the voting booth and check the box for them. I'd say there's a pretty good chance that Trump can win that, looking at the public conferences he's had, seems like Trump supporters mobilize well. But I also know that there are a lot of people that vote solely based on the letter after their name (R or D), and, if there are more democrats than republicans as you say (I don't look at statistics like that), then Hilary also has a chance. Trump's favourability is worse than Clinton's than by a long way. As for turnout Trump's organisation is pretty weak. Clinton has a much better network, and the full party organisation to back her. Trump is threadbare and has been ditched by his party.

Both Yougov and CNN had Clinton winning the debate. There are no other polls, the "open access" polls might as well be ignored (although they keep Trump happy I suppose). Given that there are more democrats than Republicans atm, and given the crossbreak also had Clinton winning undecideds, however you cut the weightings, Trump did not win. You end up at best (for him) a draw, at worst a loss. Which given his current situation is bad. (for him) As for shouting "you'd be in jail," reminding everyone that he has the opinions of a 3rd world dictator is not going to swing undecideds to him. You have to remember that people don't like Clinton....but they hate Trump more.

To me it seems very much like Trump said all the things that his base wanted him to say. However overall he lost. 4 weeks from election day, a six point deficit in the polls, a campaign being abandoned by the party...merely saying what your base wants to hear is losing, especially if you have a fairly small base to start eith.Polls after the debate showed him the loser. Polls after the debate show a continued downward trend. The Republican Party is not going to drum out voters for him and he doesn't have the infrastructure to do it himself, and he failed to rally the party back to him. His only saving grace is his advisors seem to have changed his twitter password to stop him trying to re fight the debate as he did after round 1.

Those are open access polls. They are statistically meaningless. Any poll which relies on a link on a public webpage essentially just polls which side tweeted the link more, and to an extent tells you the leanings of the person accessing that page. It does not give a true picture of the wider population. To show how little relevance they have, I just went and voted in them. If I delete cookies of my browser, I could go and do so again. If I were so minded (and had the technical ability), I could build a bot to go and do it over and over again. Polls with random samples, like those conducted by CNN and Public Policy Polling, show that Trump got owned last night.

I'm curious to know which polls, as a quick google of "post debate polls" shows Clinton leading in every single one, with the debate between "totally schooled trump and made him beg for his mummy" and "did a pretty good job and had a clear advantage." Waking up this morning and checking through a variety of news sites (of all sides) it seems to come down to Trump had the bar set very low of "look, Presidential, don't say anything too stupid, have some kind of concept of what an issue is" and failed. 18 months on the campaign trail and still struggling to have coherent policy ideas is a pretty damning indictment.

This sort of thing seems to get posted a lot. There are however a number of problems with it; 1. It puts the onus on the member of the public, not the police officer threatening illegal action (it is illegal for police to shoot you unless you demonstrate a threat to life, so threatening to shoot you for disobeying them is straight forward common assault) 2. 1/4 people will have some form of episode of mental illness in their lifetime. The most common one is depression, or anxiety, but there is a chance that you or anyone else could become bipolar, or schizophrenic, or enter some form of psychosis. Now imagine that does happen to you, do you really want to be in a country where the clear cultural understanding is it is your job to deescalate a confrontation with police or get shot? I wonder how many people die at the hands of US police for the simple crime of being in the middle of an episode of psychosis or a bipolar mania because the police chose to escalate the situation and relied on the suspect deescalating?

Some things for those defending the police here to think about. Annually US police shoot and kill about 1,000 people. In the UK, our police generally shoot about 3-4 people. Scale up to US population size, you are still coming in under 50. Think about that. Also think about that as a matter of US Federal law, settled by the supreme court, Police Officers may not use lethal force to prevent someone from escaping. So if all 4 officers draw a gun...what are they legally planning to do? The person can legally put up 2 fingers and walk away. By immediately drawing a weapon the officers are actually making it harder for themselves to effect a legal arrest. I am reminded of Terry Pratchett' book Night Watch, in which the seargent points out,"if you draw your sword not intending to use it, and the person calls your bluff, you don't have many options and they are all the wrong ones." Same applies here. If you draw a gun on an unarmed person and tell them to get on the floor, and they say "no" your options are to shoot them (an unarmed person who is at that moment innocent in the eyes of the law) or put your gun away and look a twat. That is the big problem in this case. 4 officers all holding guns in both hands who have literally no other way of controlling a suspect other than to shoot him. That means as soon as the suspect doesn't do what they want they are going to kill him. They have left themselves no other option. Which means that they are applying an extra-judicial death sentence for the not actually a crime of "disobeying a police officer"

Clinton. You have a 2 party state, and therefore it is Clinton or Trump. Trump doesn't believe in Global warming and wants to tear up the Paris Climate Convention. Therefore he is a danger to the US and a danger to the world. Anyone who does not believe in global warming should not be let into office for 2 reasons; 1) It means that they will enact policies to severely damage the world 2) It means they do not hold with evidence based policy making, and will in general make bad policy Further, Trump is a racist, see comments about the hispanic judge in his case that he wanted removed purely on the basis of family history and skin colour. To quote Paul Ryan, textbook racism. We saw in my country after the Brexit vote the impact of validating racists at the ballot box. Racist attacks and general racism goes up. Elect trump, be prepared for petrol bombs through the windows of minorities. It happened here, it will happen to you. Finally, Trump has no clue on maters of policy and no desire to have a clue. Simple example, upon arriving in Scotland after the Brexit referendum he declared that Scotland had voted to leave the EU. It would have taken a policy advisor 35 seconds (or less) to update him that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain. Which means either he doesn't bother having informed advisors around, or just doesn't care to listen. This is just one example of the many many many cases where he shows an appalling lack of coherence and basic regards for facts. This man was still adhering to the birther conspiracy until six months ago...does he really seem of sufficiently sound mind to run a government? Or even today when he called on US police to invalidate any evidence obtained from the suspect in the recent bombings by denying medical care...any law enforcement official will tell you that is insane. This guy has no clue how to respond to even a low level incident, how can he be expected to deal if something actually major happens? Is Clinton a good candidate? No, but she is the better one. She knows how to run a government. She has a grasp of policy issues. She pays attention to facts. She can handle issues of foreign policy, has a far more measured and practical response to a crises. Yes she has told lies, she is a politician. But so has Trump, and the key difference is, when Clinton tells lies she is grounded enough she knows what the truth is. When Trump lies you get the feeling he no longer knows what is reality and what is not. Is that really a good quality in a candidate?

Current. Name discovered in ledgers of corrupt payments by the former Ukrainian government.