Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: Nareed

The Whig party (No clue what a Whig is)

As an American political party it only existed for 5 elections and 3 presidents were Whigs
1836 William H. Harrison (February 9, 1773 – April 4, 1841)
1840 William H. Harrison (February 9, 1773 – April 4, 1841) & John Tyler (March 29, 1790 – January 18, 1862)
1844 Henry Clay (April 12, 1777 – June 29, 1852)
1848 Zachary Taylor (November 24, 1784 – July 9, 1850)
1852 Winfield Scott (June 13, 1786 – May 29, 1866)

Etymology of word "Whig"

British political party, 1657, in part perhaps a disparaging use of whigg "a country bumpkin" (1640s); but mainly a shortened form of Whiggamore (1649) "one of the adherents of the Presbyterian cause in western Scotland who marched on Edinburgh in 1648 to oppose Charles I." Perhaps originally "a horse drover," from dialectal verb whig "to urge forward" + mare. In 1689 the name was first used in reference to members of the British political party that opposed the Tories.

American Revolution sense of "colonist who opposes Crown policies" is from 1768. Later it was applied to opponents of Andrew Jackson (as early as 1825), and taken as the name of a political party (1834) that merged into the Republican Party in 1854-56.

Quote: Daniel Walker Howe, "What Hath God Wrought," 2007, p.390

In the spring of 1834 Jackson's opponents adopted the name Whig, traditional term for critics of executive usurpations. James Watson Webb, editor of the New York Courier and Enquirer, encouraged use of the name. Henry Clay gave it national currency in a speech on April 14, 1834, likening "the whigs of the present day" to those who had resisted George III, and by summer it was official.

Quote: Pacomartin

As an American political party it only existed for 5 elections and 3 presidents were Whigs

I knew what the Whig party was, not what a Whig is :)

Thanks.

What I'm surprised is no one objected to the name I suggested for the GOP base ;)

If you recall, or have seen the info, on the Dolphins' fabled Perfect Season in the early 70s, you may be familiar with Garo Yepremian's Pass. In a botched kick the kicker, Yepremian, tried to throw a pass. Look up the video. He pretty much throws it up and forward a few inches.

It's the one instance, sports writers agree, that 99.999% of the audience would be justified in thinking "I could have thrown a better pass."

I mention this because it now seems to me that 99.999% of the people who regularly follow politics, would be justified in thinking they could have run a better general election campaign than Trump.


This would be a good time for the GOP national committee to cut off the Trump campaign and use whatever funds it saves to prop up Senate and House races. Of course they won't, because if they do Trump will throw a hissy fit about being betrayed by "his" party, and further encourage his Trumpkins no to vote for the Republican party in down-ballot races.

Quote: YeahBaby

UH OH!!!!!!!!!
lil man gon be pissed after seeing Trumper kiccking ass in these polls lol!!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard

Here's an interesting article about why The Los Angeles Times election poll is always an outlier that never seems to match the other election polls. (YeahBaby will be please to know that this link won't send him to the liberal media. It sends him to a right-wing blog called RedState.)

Trump wants to sue all the women who've made accusations against him.

Does he not know if he does, then he has to be available for depositions under oath, and that the tape where he brags about committing sexual assault, and other similar recordings, are admissible as evidence?

Consider, if he sues for libel, and what else could he sue for, he'd have to explain why he's on record as admitting he tried to have sex with a married woman and bragged about instances of sexual assault? He has already damaged his own reputation a great deal. The accusations came after the tapes were known to the public. They cannot possibly hurt his reputation more than he already has hurt it himself.

You couldn't ask for a better political opponent. He's his own worst enemy.

FYI - Rasmussen, IBD, and the LA Times all have Clinton in the lead today in their daily tracking polls. Those are the holy trinity of polls for the Trumpsters, so I don't expect to hear from YeahBaby today.

Quote: Nareed

Trump wants to sue all the women who've made accusations against him.

Does he not know if he does, then he has to be available for depositions under oath, and that the tape where he brags about committing sexual assault, and other similar recordings, are admissible as evidence?

Consider, if he sues for libel, and what else could he sue for, he'd have to explain why he's on record as admitting he tried to have sex with a married woman and bragged about instances of sexual assault? He has already damaged his own reputation a great deal. The accusations came after the tapes were known to the public. They cannot possibly hurt his reputation more than he already has hurt it himself.

I agree that he'd be vulnerable to all sorts of unflattering facts being revealed during the "discovery" process of the lawsuit. It might backfire spectacularly.

Nevertheless, Trump has deep pockets and could easily bankrupt these women with lawyer fees. (Even if he's not worth the $10 billion he incessantly brags about, surely he's got a few hundred million.)

Quote: reno

Nevertheless, Trump has deep pockets and could easily bankrupt these women with lawyer fees. (Even if he's not worth the $10 billion he incessantly brags about, surely he's got a few hundred million.)

That's a good point. on the other hand, some of these women have high-powered women attorneys with a vested interest in taking down abusive men like Trump. They've built their careers on such things.

And a false accusation of libel can be construed as being libel itself. Deep pockets work both ways.

Trump said he would sue all the -liars- after the election. One assumes any he doesn't sue, were not lying.

Quote: TheCesspit

Trump said he would sue all the -liars- after the election. One assumes any he doesn't sue, were not lying.

I said before he might threaten to sue anyone who doesn't vote for him. Now I'm waiting for an offer to give $100 to anyone who votes for him. I really wish he'd do that.

He may well try to sue Clinton for libel after the election. The man has no limits.