Clinton, Trump target two different Americas in final push

Clinton is hypocritical to the nth degree! She has promoted arm sales,ruined countries and allowed terror groups to receive income in the millions! She has profited from the Clinton Foundation's foreign donor support ! Do the American people want a homocidal dictator as a leader?

Trump is in favor of less war not more!

Trump has never had a hand in a real war as Clinton has!

NATE SILVER: 'There’s been a potential breach' of Hillary Clinton's 'electoral firewall'

http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-nate-silver-2016-11

"Silver pointed to New Hampshire..." "Live Free Or Die!"

Compare how the two talk:

Clinton: "[Trump is] someone who demeans women, mocks people with disabilities, insults African-Americans and Latinos and demonizes immigrants and Muslims.”

Trump: "[Clinton's] plans would mean generations of terrorism, extremism and radicalism spreading into your schools and through your communities"

One is defending women and minorities, the other is appealing to bigots.

Trump is in favor of less war not more!

Except when he's in favor of more war not less. But maybe he's just being sarcastic, or has been misunderstood by the media, or maybe he just didn't say that. And the fact that he's repeatedly lied about his attitudes toward wars, it could well be he's lying once again.

Trump has said he wants to increase the size of the US military, which currently is the largest, most expensive, and most frightening military the world has ever seen. Why would he propose this? Is throwing more money at military industries the only way he can see to right the economy, which he has to know will start sinking if he's elected.

Trump's election could very well send world markets into a downward spiral. If he increases military spending, other nations will respond in kind. What will nations do with all those weapons?

A Trump election will most likely mean the dollar will be devalued, making it cheaper for more nations to purchase US made military weapons and services, making US weapons industries even stronger, increasing the likelihood of the US maintaining its state of perpetual war.

No wonder many in the military, in military support positions and in weapons manufacturing favor Trump. It'll be full employment for them.

One is defending women and minorities,

From what? Jobs and equal opportunities and equal pay??

the other is appealing to bigots.

You mean to those that want to rely on Big government , let the government take care of everything and government dependency by receiving full entitlements?

"“They’ve shipped our jobs and they’ve shipped our wealth to other countries,” he said. “To all Americans, I say it is time for new leadership.”

Yea like having neckties made in Chinese factories. Freaking con man.

@bass You mean to those that want to rely on Big government , let the government take care of everything and government dependency by receiving full entitlements?

Are you referring to the big-war industries, like the one FBI Director James Comey used to work for?

Are you referring to the big-war industries, like the one FBI Director James Comey used to work for?

And NOW works for the welfare food stamp president and could possibly work for another war time president if she wins.

And NOW works for the welfare food stamp president and could possibly work for another war time president if she wins.

In regard to 'another war time president', are you referring to Trump?

Comey attacked HRC; it seems pretty unlikely she'd want to keep him.

Remember, prior to his appointment as FBI Director Comey had been a life-long Republican. His inner-Republican snake re-emerged just in time for the election.

I think Trump would definitely want to keep Comey. Unless Lockheed or one of the other big-war industries is willing to pay him more.

In regard to 'another war time president', are you referring to Trump?

No, if you read what I wrote, I said, "Clinton" HRC.

Comey attacked HRC; it seems pretty unlikely she'd want to keep him.

That's obvious, she should appoint Donna Brazile or Debbie Wassermann Schultz, they both could be the new Eric Holder and shield her from any future investigation that would come her way.

Remember, prior to his appointment as FBI Director Comey had been a life-long Republican. His inner-Republican snake re-emerged just in time for the election.

Yes, that is correct and now he works for the biggest food stamp president in US history and a president that is deep involved in a war in the middle east caused by a woman who's policies in Syria and Libya completely destroyed those countries.

I think Trump would definitely want to keep Comey. Unless Lockheed or one of the other big-war industries is willing to pay him more.

He should and I hope he creates a stronger military as a deterrence.

And NOW works for the welfare food stamp president and could possibly work for another war time president if she wins.

I just happened to be one of those folks who during the severe recession had to use that welfare foodstamp system to get back on my feet so I wouldn't HAVE to be on foodstamps. enough with the BS rhetoric mantra you're ilk love to spew. I still see a lot of homeless American's (some used to be those white middle class workers) who weren't able to get out of the pit that was dug from the economic downfall. The system you so like to blame is a lot more strict than it was back in say the 80s and 90s. There is no free ride. It's there to help people, and it's much much harder for lazy idiots to take advantage of.

Pray that you don't end up in a situation where you'll need that welfare, food stamp support you like to mock so much. Cos you just might learn a really hard lesson.

ATTENTION TRUMP SUPPORTERS:

Clinton is going to win, and win big. I had an offer going last summer. You all remember it. It went like this:

If Clinton wins, you go away for six months. If Trump wins, I go away for six months. No sock puppets. Just. Go. Away.

Only one you had the guts to take it. Fizzbit.

I am so certain that Fizzbitt will be going away for six months, I am so confident in my gal, that I now re-offer my bet to all those here who support Trump.

I'll be making the same offer every day till Tuesday.

'Cause not only do I know that Clinton is gonna win, I know you know that as well.

Louis CK's comments on Trump are pretty funny, but funny because they are true:

This is four more years of a guy who can't be criticized. What's more important about a president than that you can * all over them? That's what presidents are for. [giving example] 'This ** guy SUCKS'. That's the point of the president, is to get drunk and blame them for everything, and accuse them of ****. This guy, every time he's criticized, everything stops and he makes everybody pay. That's not how it works. We need somebody who can take abuse. Hillary Clinton can take abuse. She's been taking it and taking it.

Trump would be the most thin-skinned president ever. With his finger on the nuclear codes.

He should and I hope he creates a stronger military as a deterrence

Against other peoples' audacious demands for self determination?

Against the possibility of someone having more resources or another competitive advantage?

Or is it a deterrence against ordinary decent Americans waking up to the reality that a purposely uneducated caste exists and is sustained as basic economic inputs for the military-industrial complex, the commercial prison system, and their myriad political and commercial facilitators?

I just happened to be one of those folks who during the severe recession had to use that welfare foodstamp system to get back on my feet so I wouldn't HAVE to be on foodstamps.

I totally understand that and I am sympathetic to anyone that needs to use the system for a period to get back on their feet, that was not the issue even for most conservatives. I was referring a very large growing segment of the society that will not get off of it and abuse the system since Obama has for the most part expended the program indefinitely.

enough with the BS rhetoric mantra you're ilk love to spew. I still see a lot of homeless American's (some used to be those white middle class workers) who weren't able to get out of the pit that was dug from the economic downfall. The system you so like to blame is a lot more strict than it was back in say the 80s and 90s. There is no free ride.

That's not entirely true. I know a few people that got on public assistance with very, very little effort and are quite content with their situation.

It's there to help people, and it's much much harder for lazy idiots to take advantage of.

Ok, that's your take, I have seen quite the opposite in many cases.

Pray that you don't end up in a situation where you'll need that welfare, food stamp support you like to mock so much. Cos you just might learn a really hard lesson.

Sorry that you had to go through it.

All voters need to do is suspend disbelief for another 4 days, and ignore the last 8 years.

73 straight months of jobs growth (that's every month for 6 years in a row) under Obama and Trump calls it an 'absolute disaster'!

What a nutjob.

73 straight months of jobs growth (that's every month for 6 years in a row) under Obama and Trump calls it an 'absolute disaster'!

But it goes down when you factor in the people that took themselves out of the workforce, baby boomers retiring at record numbers, people moving back home, people changing to government assistance. Then yes, the onion looks great!

"Since to play "fair" would certainly mean defeat, the only way to "win" would be to cheat better than other cheaters."

...its not for the faint of heart, one needs to stay grounded in the reality of the obvious and...play with it.

Is the "Affordable Health Care Act"...affordable?

Is "Social Security"...secure?

Is the "Patriot Act"...patriotic?

If "playing fair" was the nature of this DC Beast they wouldn't mock us so with these mis-representations of "laws" that actually mean the exact opposite of what our perception of the wording is.

And yet, no one see's it ;-)

But it goes down when you factor in the people that took themselves out of the workforce, baby boomers retiring at record numbers, people moving back home, people changing to government assistance.

How would any of those things change the number of jobs that have increased? Your arguments are in reference to the unemployment rate, not jobs growth.

And the labor participation rate continues to plummet. Interesting that you neglect to factor this in.

And the labor participation rate continues to plummet. Interesting that you neglect to factor this in.

How does that factor into jobs growth?

The first black president of the U.S. Coming up the first female president. The moral arc is expanding.

For decades, Republican voters have been trained to hate minorities, women and gay people etc. So now they’re supposed to think Trump’s hate-filled racism and bigotry is bad?

Good luck with that one. They’re giving him a standing ovation.

Election Day is nearly upon us. Let's hope all the folks who have been posting so diligently for the last year actually bother to vote. Too bad Donald and Hillary didn't meet first. Hillary has done well with Bill, but imagine what a dream pairing - almost said coupling, but... leave that to the horror genre - Don and Hill would have made. His seed money and ability to find the pulse of a considerable number of Americans (Okay, let me say it for those of you who are probably now ignoring the rest and plunking away on your keyboards: read on.) and a woman who excels in organization and back room scheming à la Saul Olinsky (her senior thesis at Wellesley College was on him) could have dominated the WH for 16 years and then pass it on to grown up Chelvanka. He gets the crowd for her and she passes through them lifting their wallets. Well, one can only dream.

How does that factor into jobs growth?

How does Obama factor into jobs growth?

FACT CHECK: Is that true?

"Probably not, he doesn't sit at the economy's steering wheel. Even former Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee says that a president has little control over much of what happens in the economy."

You still didn't answer the question. I didn't say anything about Obama, you're going off on a tangent. So once again, how does the labor participation rate factor into jobs growth?

You still didn't answer the question. I didn't say anything about Obama, you're going off on a tangent. So once again, how does the labor participation rate factor into jobs growth?

Below is the original post linking Obama. Do try and keep up.

73 straight months of jobs growth (that's every month for 6 years in a row) under Obama and Trump calls it an 'absolute disaster'!

Yes, but you were replying to me, and I didn't say anything about Obama.

Anyways, once again I ask, how does the labor participation rate factor into jobs growth?

I was referring to factoring it into your overall observation.

So to clarify, you would agree that labor participation rate doesn't have anything to do with jobs growth, correct?

I will agree that jobs growth had little to do with Obama, and that it is a single facet of a complex system.

So to clarify, you would agree that labor participation rate doesn't have anything to do with jobs growth, correct?

But that's not what I asked. Again, to clarify, you would agree that labor participation rate doesn't have anything to do with jobs growth, correct?

But that's not what I asked. Again, to clarify, you would agree that labor participation rate doesn't have anything to do with jobs growth, correct?

Exactly how could the not be interconnected?

Newsflash for the JT Hillary supporters:

"WIKILEAKS 30 JUST RELEASED: FBI Finds Clinton's Top Secret Classified Emails on Weiner's Laptop"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osiyfv-hAZk

"Clinton is Probably Going to Land like Santa Claus in a Tropical Jungle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUjLDX-oJ3k

How on Earth is this woman still a candidate? Mind boggling...

It is an interesting discussion. The discussion should really revolve more around the overall state of the economy. Trump calling things a disaster was a mistake. The situation in the U.S. is not good. There are less full time jobs and more part time jobs as many businesses are limiting hours to 29 or 29.5/week to avoid having to buy health insurance for their employees so the job growth thing for me is not the important indicator. The better indicator is wages are going up which is a positive sign. The labor participation rate (which I completely agree is a different animal than the job growth rate) is important however. I think when this number starts to be impacted (move downward) that will be a sign of real improvement.

It is funny how Presidents always get credit (good or bad) for the economy when they have so little control over it. Examples are the crash in 2007, blamed on "Bush" (look up where Barney Frank was saying how healthy Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were prior to the crash. The runup of the debt now approaching 20 Trillion...blamed on Obama when there is little he can do to stop it....The economy in the 90s...credit went to Clinton...but it was technologically driven and a matter of timing.

I still hold the opinion that Trump is not fit for office and Ms. Clinton is not the best choice either.

Anyway the only poll that really counts is coming up soon and we will soon know who the next American President will be.....it is amazing with someone like Trump running it is too close to call at this point. If the Democrats had put up a viable candidate with no questionable past they would have run away with this by a very large margin.

Exactly how could the not be interconnected?

Because if there is one more job, there is one more job. That's not related to more or less workers.

Exactly how could the not be interconnected?

I don't understand how they could be connected. As far as I understand it, which could be incorrect, jobs growth is a measure of the increase or decrease of the absolute number of jobs available. Therefore the number of people participating in the workforce (or not) will have no effect on the absolute number of jobs one way or the other, since it's not a measure of the people working, but rather the jobs available.

At least that's how I understand it. I'm unclear on whether you think they are connected or not. So now my question is, are you of the belief that jobs growth is somehow affected by the labor participation rate, and if so, how?

Things are likely to get pretty hot under the collar between now and election night, so I'd just like to say "Thanks, JT," for your consistent coverage, and also for your responsible monitoring of the reader posts, which I realize must have required a lot of additional work.

Id surprised if riots didnt break out on election day. One way or the other there is going to be a group really angry, disappointed people.

62% of Clinton supporters make $30,000 or less per year, so Clinton loses, that means their future prospects of get more handouts goes with it!

WHERE are Clintons positions on policies anyways? Her website is terrible! At lease on Trumps, it is nice and organized and easy to view his positions!

62% of Clinton supporters make $30,000 or less per year, so Clinton loses, that means their future prospects of get more handouts goes with it!

HAHAHA

You're still repeating this, after I blew you out of the water proving that you were wrong?!

Hahahahhahahahaha

Moderator: Once again, you continue your daily habit of bickering with other readers, despite being asked not to numerous times.

The situation in the U.S. is not good. There are less full time jobs and more part time jobs as many businesses are limiting hours to 29 or 29.5/week to avoid having to buy health insurance for their employees so the job growth thing for me is not the important indicator.

Tokyo, in our modern, interconnected world, economic growth must always be compared relatively. Which other countries are outpacing the US at the moment? - most none. Labor participation dropping is natural in an aging society; you're not going to see the growing number of 70- and 80-year olds out working, but they're still counted in the stats.

The relationship between ACA and full-time employment is difficult to discern. I've seen stats on both sides, though mainly I suspect it's had a very minor effect on employment, and even that has to be balanced with the greater good of the highest insured rate in American history. Certainly, the ACA could be improved - in fact, many Dems suggest expanding Medicare to a single-payer system competing with private plans and eliminating the employer requirement (reading between the lines,that's what Hillary's after) - but you will hear none of this from the GOP. Instead, it is the steady drone of "repeal and replace," with the replacement conspicuously absent even seven years in. Zero. Nada. Nothing from the GOP re: healthcare.

Hillary will be watched like a hawk by Sanders, Warren et. al., and they along with other Dems in the newly-Dem controlled Senate will drive her domestic policy. No worries, except for how the GOP-controlled House will deal with their growing impotence.

Stranger, I'm not claiming that workforce participation is an engine for job creation. But job creation should increase workforce participation, but here it is not. How does that not indicate a connection? And as I stated before, claiming that Obama is responsible for 73 months of job creation is a very small and biased glimpse of a very large, complex picture.

Stranger, I'm not claiming that workforce participation is an engine for job creation. But job creation should increase workforce participation

Not necessarily. If more people retire than start looking for jobs, workforce participation will go down, even if/when the number of jobs go up. The US is an aging population - the baby boomers are starting to retire.

hillary taking money from terrorist sympathizers, speaks voumes!! Guess thats why she didnt inform the state department!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clintons-charity-confirms-qatars-1-million-gift-while-001205827.html

62% of Clinton supporters make $30,000 or less per year, so Clinton loses, that means their future prospects of get more handouts goes with it!

62% of people who make under $30,000 support Clinton. You misinterpreted the statistics.

Hillary will be watched like a hawk by Sanders, Warren et. al., and they along with other Dems in the newly-Dem controlled Senate will drive her domestic policy. No worries, except for how the GOP-controlled House will deal with their growing impotence.

That is, IF the Dems get the Senate, but as of now, doesn't really much look like it.

62% of people who make under $30,000 support Clinton. You misinterpreted the statistics.

Of course, a lot of the impoverished and people that are on government subsidies would.

@Tokyo-Engr,

If the Democrats had put up a viable candidate with no questionable past they would have run away with this by a very large margin.

Tokyo-Engr, you are damn right about that! Hillary should be ashamed of herself at this dismal performance. Most people would be embarrassed to hell. This is that hillary combination of colossal ego and sense of entitlement and hubris playing itself out before our eyes.

Of course, a lot of the impoverished and people that are on government subsidies would.

You mean people would support the party that wants to help the people at their class level? And how exactly is that different from any other class?

And yet there's no furor about hillary taking money from terrorist sympathizers? hillary supporters, how do you live with yourselves?

You mean people would support the party that wants to help the people at their class level? And how exactly is that different from any other class?

Obama hasn't done it. Hillary wants to raise taxes even more than they already are. So basically, only the people that are rely and can't ween themselves off the government nipple will support Hillary.

No takers. 'Cause they know their boy is gonna lose, and all their talk is just that.

Talk.

Funny, a lot of inside talk is, there is a lot of panic in throughout the Hillary campaign, she could lose or he could lose, either way, it's way too close.

Funny, a lot of inside talk is, there is a lot of panic in throughout the Hillary campaign, she could lose or he could lose, either way, it's way too close.

So what makes you think that the same wouldn't be in his camp as well?

If hillary supports terrorist backers, doesn't that make her complicit in terrorism as well?

Ironic that the guy supporting a misogynist bigot, who is owned by Putin, refuses to show his tax returns, and mocks the handicapped, is trying to come from a position of moral superiority.

Once you start publicly discrediting Trump, we can talk.

Ironic that the guy supporting a misogynist bigot, who is owned by Putin, refuses to show his tax returns, and mocks the handicapped, is trying to come from a position of moral superiority.

Deflect

Once you start publicly discrediting Trump, we can talk.

Dodge

If hillary supports terrorist backers, doesn't that make her complicit in terrorism as well? I've asked already but I'll be more specific, @strangerland, @blacksabbath and others, how in the world do you live with yourselves?

Original question.

Minor note. Don't care for trump seeing as he has a snow balls chance in hades to win plus he's not in bed with the same entities that funded the 9/11 terrorists and continue funding discord in the ME and around the globe.

Your move.

doesn't that make her complicit in terrorism as well?...how in the world do you live with yourselves?

I'm no fan of Clinton, but you must be naive to think that top-level politicians in government are not involved in ugly dealings that involve terrorists/rebels/freedom fighters/unpleasant people/whatever. Surely you're not expecting your president to be some saintly angel. And if you are, Trump hardly fits the bill, does he?

Well, to be honest, I just don't know enough to speak on it well, without digging myself into a hole that I don't know the answers to.

My main thoughts are, if she was SoS when it happened, and she didn't report the money, that's bad.

If she was SoS and did report the money, then I don't see a big issue with it, if she didn't give any favors for it.

If she was SoS and did report the money, and gave favors for it, that's bad.

The fact that the money came from Qatar itself doesn't really matter to me - they were giving money to charity, and since that money went to the Clinton foundation, it means the money was put to good use, rather than if they had given to Trump, using it for pictures of him, or bribing attorney generals or what not.

I seriously doubt Clinton was supporting terrorism, and I seriously doubt the money was used for anything other than good reasons, so it seems mostly like a non-issue to me, though there could be some questionable parts to it.

Well, to be honest, I just don't know enough to speak on it well, without digging myself into a hole that I don't know the answers to.

Nice. Here's something to enlighten.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clintons-charity-confirms-qatars-1-million-gift-while-001205827.html

I seriously doubt Clinton was supporting terrorism, and I seriously doubt the money was used for anything other than good reasons.

Quite a stretch seeing as she's receiving 'gifts' from known terrorist enablers. Come on!!

And if you are, Trump hardly fits the bill, does he?

Not a trump fan.

Quite a stretch seeing as she's receiving 'gifts' from known terrorist enablers.

Not according to that article.

Not a trump fan.

So you are not voting for him?

Not necessarily. If more people retire than start looking for jobs, workforce participation will go down, even if/when the number of jobs go up. The US is an aging population - the baby boomers are starting to retire.

Also, what's the average pay of these new jobs? That information isn't provided. New $8/hr. jobs don't offset eliminated $40/hr. jobs, which would add to unemployment and ultimately lower the participation rate. Cause and effect.

So you are not voting for him?

Oh jezuz. How many times can one say? No, not ever, not a fan!!

Not according to that article

True. Article points out how hillary did not report the 'gift' from terrorist enablers while Sos.

So out of curiosity, who are you voting for?

True. Article points out how hillary did not report the 'gift' from terrorist enablers while Sos.

She didn't get the gift one way or the other.

bring the crown to his outsider campaign.

FU...JILL COLVIN and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY...you AP liars!

We don't have "crowns" you idiots. You're dumbasses are so brainwashed to use such words.

She didn't get the gift one way or the other.

That's why she didn't report it? Are we reading the same article?

So out of curiosity, who are you voting for?

Undecided.

Fred Wallace, I know you've said it plenty of times, that you're not voting for trump. Ive noticed it too - how anyone who's not head over heels for hillary (suppress urge to throw up) is automatically and forever labelled as a trump supporter and a red neck psycho racist homophobe to boot. This is the state of the "progressives" on this site.

So what makes you think that the same wouldn't be in his camp as well?

Easy, because they know the chips are high for the to begin with.

Ironic that the guy supporting a misogynist bigot, who is owned by Putin,

Can you prove that? Is there any proof that you know that the FBI doesn't? Oh, please tell us.

refuses to show his tax returns, and mocks the handicapped, is trying to come from a position of moral superiority.

Hillary didn't show any of her emails...well, now we all know why....

Once you start publicly discrediting Trump, we can talk.

Trump's got a lot of problems this is very true, but Trump doesn't have 35 years of experience in fooling the American people while being supported by the tax payer.

Us Japanese are quite offended by the recent rhetoric given by Trump. If he does indeed become President we would like to invite him to Japan and introduce him to a geisha which should help calm him down.

The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments.

Qatari officials pledged the money in 2011 to mark the 65th birthday of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton's husband, and sought to meet the former U.S. president in person the following year to present him the check, according to an email from a foundation official to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta. The email, among thousands hacked from Podesta's account, was published last month by WikiLeaks.

And the one you clearly glossed over.

Clinton signed an ethics agreement governing her family's globe-straddling foundation in order to become secretary of state in 2009. The agreement was designed to increase transparency to avoid appearances that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by wealthy donors.

It doesn't say anywhere in that text that she received any money from Qatar.

It also doesn't say anywhere in that text that she failed to inform anyone of any monies received from Qatar - how could she, she didn't receive any money.

It doesn't say anywhere in that text that she received any money from Qatar

....

bass4funkNOV. 05, 2016 - 05:56PM JST

Hillary...

That's your stock response to any criticism of Donald Trump, isn't it? But how does whatever another person has or has not done make him a better candidate for the job? Or maybe you keep trying to change the topic to Hillary Clinton because criticising her is so much easier for you than defending him?

Fortunate for Hillary that her carelessness with emails didn't cause any real damage, like a traffic jam in New Jersey. Because if it had, she would already be sporting a prison pant suit.

Special report: Battle Ground Florida

We go live to Florida with our imbedded reporter J. Caesar

"Florida has been rocked by the news that Trump now appears to have edged ahead of Clinton in the latest presidential poll taken somehwhere in Florida, done by people we don't know and whose credibility we can't check. Anyway, despite reports to the contary, the sun does appear to be rising! Yes, it is the sun! Wide spread distruction was forecast but it appears Floridians are feed up this election and they just want it to go away. From Florida, this is J. Caesar, thank you."

This is after all Florida....if Trump can get around massive voter fraud operations he should be in the clear.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3670646/voter-fraud-claims-in-broward-county-florida-florida-gop-prepares-lawsuit-for-illegally-opening-tens-of-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots/

VOTER FRAUD CLAIMS IN BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA: FLORIDA GOP PREPARES LAWSUIT FOR ILLEGALLY OPENING ‘TENS OF THOUSANDS’ OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS

Broward County, Florida, is once again at the center of another voting scandal, the fourth of such this voting season. On November 2, 2016, the Florida Republican Party sent a warning letter to the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Dr. Brenda Snipes informing her that her county was allegedly in violation of ballot handling regulations. The party indicated that if they did not respond to the letter by 4:00 p.m. EST, the Florida Republican Party would prepare to take the issue to court.

It's really simple if you think about it. A vote for Don the Con is a vote for him and his. A vote for Hillary is a vote for yourself. She is going to help you and yours. Get out and vote on 11/8. HRC 2016 ! It's HER time guys, it's HER time. 1/20/17 - "Madame President" !

It's not that close. Hillary's chances of winning have gone down from 95% to 90% but there's no way Trump will win ALL the swing states he needs to win. I'd say she'll still romp it in and Trump can appeal and cry and sue and claim it's all rigged as usual. But he will still lose thank goodness. Admittedly he has given the system, the US, and the world a scare and made people realize that many are tired of the status quo in the US, but he isn't the one to bring about the changes needed. It will be someone else in the future who is much more well-spoken, diplomatic and 'normal'; someone who may well be an Independent. Just not Donald Trump. The man is an aberration.

HRC 2016 ! It's HER time guys, it's HER time. 1/20/17 - "Madame President" !

"Madame Inmate" !

Fixed that.

@nadaku - Thanx. The anger and fact-free statements that have fueled the intense rhetoric espoused by him and his supporters has gone off the charts. When they go low, we go high ! HRC 2016 ! ! !

if Trump can get around massive voter fraud operations he should be in the clear.

The sound of losers rationalizing. Let's see - the FBI is clearly in the GOP's pocket, yet somehow, "massive voter fraud" will allow to pass unchecked. Cry me a river (and I'm sure Trumpsters will, for at least the next four years, though their tears will be insufficient to extinguish the stench of the dumpster fire that has been Donald Trump).

That's your stock response to any criticism of Donald Trump, isn't it? But how does whatever another person has or has not done make him a better candidate for the job?

Just him not being tied or being a part of the Washington establishment is more than a good enough reason to vote for him.

Or maybe you keep trying to change the topic to Hillary Clinton because criticising her is so much easier for you than defending him?

Actually, I do both, but Hillary just has so much more baggage and skeletons in her closet, it would be stupid of me to ignore it.

"Madame Inmate"

Har! There will be a Madame President, but we'll have to wait for Ivanka after one or two terms of Donald.

Its so hilarious to see how many people seem to believe Hillary Clinton is a good person. And I say that, not because I even care whether she is a good person or not, but because the qualifications for office of POTUS need not include 'good person'. There are plenty of other qualities much more desirable in a President than 'good person'. Its obvious to me that neither candidate is a 'good person' and I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people seem to think that should even matter.

Wilmington, Ohio, another overwhelmingly white town where just 13 percent of residents have a college degree.

No wonder unemployment rate there are very high,Whether Trump or Clliton win, those unemployed people will never got their jobs back. US is not only losing blue collar jobs but also white collar jobs such as software engineers jobs to India.

China has stolen many blue collar jobs from US before. Now China has lost textile industry to Bangaladesh. China is struggling to train and re-employ those blue collar jobs.

There is no magic wand for solving unemployment, high foreign debt and inequalities. Good old days of US, Japan and China are over.

Poorer nations will get more jobs. Richer nations will lose more jobs.

Trump should be ashamed for himself for misleading desperate people with false hopes and illusions.

I find it extremely interesting that the GOP and the Trumpsters repeatedly cite statistics saying that they are out pacing the performance of Romney in various states in 2012. Those numbers mean NADA, ZIP, ZERO. They have to outpace HER in this race (2016), and they are not doing that consistently enough to win in the general election. It's HER time, ! HRC 2016 ! 1/20/17 - "Madame President" !

The problem for Hillary Clinton is that she lost her most-trusted political confidant, Huma Abedin, last Friday when it was revealed that the FBI had to re-open the investigation in Hillary Clinton's private email server. Reason: the NYPD (New York City's police department) as part of their investigation in Anthony Weiner's perverted behavior found thousands of suspicious emails on the cellphones and laptop computers owned by Abedin and Weiner--emails that shouldn't there under Federal law in regards to confidential information disclosure. In short, Hillary Clinton lost essentially the lynchpin of her campaign at the worst time possible with disastrous results.

If Clinton wins, you go away for six months. If Trump wins, I go away for six months. No sock puppets. Just. Go. Away. as much as I like the idea of this bet , I really have to disagree, why? because when Clinton wins, the butthurt salty conspiracy comments from the Trumpsters are going to be EPIC!!. I cant wait to sit back with my coffee and read them as my computer screen flickers with rage!!! LOL

I find it extremely interesting that the GOP and the Trumpsters repeatedly cite statistics saying that they are out pacing the performance of Romney in various states in 2012. Those numbers mean NADA, ZIP, ZERO. They have to outpace HER in this race (2016), and they are not doing that consistently enough to win in the general election. It's HER time, ! HRC 2016 ! 1/20/17 - "Madame Inmate"

I too, love the sound of it. It's funny, Bill was campaigning in Michigan the other day and why would he do that to a state that has consistently voted Democrat and why is that, because you have a lot of laid off auto workers like Volkswagen that moving overseas to Mexico it's no wonder that so many people in this country are angry at the system and want Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1yTYR3isi8

JuliusCaesar wrote: ""Florida has been rocked by the news that Trump now appears to have edged ahead of Clinton in the latest presidential poll taken somehwhere in Florida, done by people we don't know and whose credibility we can't check. " ... ... ... So, Jules, you think this is all a rube con? You've got a lot of gall. (Campaign 2016: death by a thousand cuts. "What's it good for? Absolutely nothin'!")

Clinton, Trump target two different Americas --

neither of which the American people want.

bass4funkNOV. 05, 2016 - 09:16PM JST

Just him not being tied or being a part of the Washington establishment is more than a good enough reason to vote for him.

Setting the bar pretty low there, aren't you? I'd be looking for a bit more in a head of state than that, personally.

"Or maybe you keep trying to change the topic to Hillary Clinton because criticising her is so much easier for you than defending him?"

Actually, I do both, but Hillary just has so much more baggage and skeletons in her closet, it would be stupid of me to ignore it.

None of that is relevant when the topic is Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton could be even worse than you're making her out to be (although that's hard to imagine), and it still wouldn't matter in the context of the discussion. Her being a potentially bad president doesn't make Trump anything more or less than what he is. Anyway, on the occasions when you do defend Trump it's usually pretty insubstantial stuff you offer - you like the way he talks, he's not part of the Washington establishment, he's a successful businessman (?!??!!), er... that's about it, isn't it? Like I said before, I still come across some quite compelling arguments to vote for Trump that I respect - but certainly not on this site.

“Everywhere he goes he leaves people behind,” Clinton told rowdy supporters.

What a tone-death statement. She should consider the families of those she left behind to die in Libya before making such hurtful comments.

Look people, Hillary is going to win. She has the entire establishment on her side - even the Republican establishment (the neocons, the Bush family, etc.). What is hillary-ious is that it is seemingly so close just a few days before the election. How can a career politician be so inept as to be capable of losing to a caustic reality tv star from New York? I mean - this is seriously funny stuff.

What do you think about Sanders, Wolfpack? Sometimes I read things from right leaning people here talking about fighting the establishment and special interests and looking out for the working man, and a lot of it could come right out of Bernie's mouth. Why didn't his message resonate more with people on the right?

She has the entire establishment on her side - even the Republican establishment (the neocons, the Bush family, etc.).

Those factions are even less popular then she is if that is possible. Although the media arm of the establishment will make it a closer race than it has any right to be.

Isn't it odd that 8 years ago, one of the biggest complaints Republicans had about Obama was that he was too inexperienced in government to be President. They went on and on that he was "just a community organizer". He was a community organizer before he earned his law degree. Then he went on to teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, serve 3 terms in the Illinois Senate, and then, in 2004, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Now they support Trump? A crooked failed businessman, reality TV "star", and lunatic ignoramus? Can he even spell "Constitution"? We already know he doesn't know anything about the Constitution, if his speeches and so-called policies are anything to go by. Has the man ever even read a book? At the very least least, Clinton has experience, intelligence, and dedication on her side, as well as not being out of her mind.

WolfpackNOV. 06, 2016 - 12:21AM JST

Look people, Hillary is going to win. She has the entire establishment on her side - even the Republican establishment (the neocons, the Bush family, etc.). What is hillary-ious is that it is seemingly so close just a few days before the election. How can a career politician be so inept as to be capable of losing to a caustic reality tv star from New York? I mean - this is seriously funny stuff.

One could ask how a Republican candidate could be so inept that the Republican establishment are on Hillary's side.

One could ask how a Republican candidate could be so inept that the Republican establishment are on Hillary's side.

Conversely one could ask what agenda the Republican and the democratic establishments share.

Setting the bar pretty low there, aren't you? I'd be looking for a bit more in a head of state than that, personally.

That comment alone is another reason why it seems liberals are just perfectly content with the current status quo and why it is more imperative to NOT vote for Hillary.

None of that is relevant when the topic is Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton could be even worse than you're making her out to be (although that's hard to imagine),

Actually, it's not if you deal with the reality of what and who she is.

and it still wouldn't matter in the context of the discussion. Her being a potentially bad president doesn't make Trump anything more or less than what he is.

Why not? Because liberals are desperate to just pounce on Trump relentlessly in order to stroke their egos and inferiority complexes?

Anyway, on the occasions when you do defend Trump it's usually pretty insubstantial stuff you offer - you like the way he talks, he's not part of the Washington establishment, he's a successful businessman (?!??!!),

That's right. None of us on JT have a tower (with your name written on it), casinos, been a TV celebrity, owns buildings, golf courses, clothes products, personal plane (with your name written on it) Yeah, successful. He's had his ups and downs in business, some good, some not so good, either way, compare his overall accomplishments to Hillary in regard to CREATING something and compare that to Hillary TAKING something it's not even a close second for the woman.

er... that's about it, isn't it? Like I said before, I still come across some quite compelling arguments to vote for Trump that I respect - but certainly not on this site.

Well, that's your opinion and I respect it, I think differently though.

Conversely one could ask what agenda the Republican and the democratic establishments share.

The 'Trump is unfit for president' agenda of course.

The 'Trump is unfit for president' agenda of course.

No, the perpetuation of the status quo would be the correct response.

No, the perpetuation of the status quo would be the correct response.

Almost the same thing. Given the choice between Trump and the status quo, preservation of the status quo wins.

Now, if the person disrupting the status quo were someone who wasn't entirely unqualified to be president, I think they would easily win. Trump's biggest enemy has been himself. He has shown himself to be so bigoted, so misogynistic, so ridiculous, that people can't imagine a more unqualified candidate, which is why it's almost definite that he will lose. If he had been pretty much anyone else, they could have won.

I bet whatshisface who ran against Obama in 2012 is kicking himself for not running again.

bass4funkNOV. 06, 2016 - 08:40AM JST Setting the bar pretty low there, aren't you? I'd be looking for a bit more in a head of state than that, personally.

That comment alone is another reason why it seems liberals are just perfectly content with the current status quo and why it is more imperative to NOT vote for Hillary.

Hrm. So it's somehow not acceptable to want the best possible candidate for the job, rather than merely someone who fits in with a huge swathe of the population that also includes criminals, liars, bigots, morons and losers? Trump's not part of the Washington establishment? I'm not either but it doesn't qualify me to be president.

"and it still wouldn't matter in the context of the discussion. Her being a potentially bad president doesn't make Trump anything more or less than what he is."

Why not?

Her weaknesses don't make Trump any better. Her various dealings with whichever dubious people she's dealt with doesn't alter the fact, for instance, that Donald Trump appears to be in Vladimir Putin's pocket.

Because liberals are desperate to just pounce on Trump relentlessly in order to stroke their egos and inferiority complexes?

Umm... no, because the answer to "Why is Donald Trump not a complete jerk" is not "Hillary Clinton."

He's had his ups and downs in business, some good, some not so good, either way, compare his overall accomplishments to Hillary in regard to CREATING something and compare that to Hillary TAKING something it's not even a close second for the woman.

Why even bother with such a comparison? Surely comparing him with other businessmen would more accurately reflect his accomplishments? But as for giving and taking? He seems to be doing okay for himself - without him releasing his tax returns there's no way to be sure - so he's clearly taking plenty for himself. How about the giving side? All the lawsuits, job cuts, bankruptcies, debts, loans and falling profits don't paint a very pretty picture. Or to summarise it in two simple words: Trump University.