zen Posted November 4, 2016 Author Posted November 4, 2016 1 hour ago, mishra said: ^ LOL. Where is vvslaxman. I told him , come election all this 8 point lead 10 point lead over Trump will be gone. Clinton still has the advantage. To win, Trump will probably have to win all the battleground states.
zen Posted November 4, 2016 Author Posted November 4, 2016 Some of the conditions that can make Trump win are below: Something scandalous against Clinton comes out ----> FBI on her emails Some threat from Islamic terrorist groups ----> AQ's threat on election day "White supremacists" unite Trump is leaving no stone unturned ....
BeautifulGame Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 The latest polls I saw Clinton still has comfortable leads in both NH and PA . So despite all these closing of points (hopefully) don't think will matter much in the Electoral vote results.Maybe it won't be a bad a land slide as earlier thought but still will be comfortable majory for Clinton think. Let's not forget lot of polls were predicting Romney with 1-2 point lead over Obama this stage last year and ended up getting trounced .Whereas Clinton has lead Trump right though the election cycle and more importantly has a strong ground game to get voters to polls unlike Trump who entirely relies on GOP machinery which gives her a huge advantage in these swing states
coffee_rules Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) ^ The turnaround this time was Hillary with a 6-point lead in national poll average and beyond the margin of error, was reduced to 1-2 lead, which is well within the margin of error. So, the e-mails/FBI trials did affect her prospects a lot, now there is a way for Trump victory although highly unlikely. FBI did dent her but I guess she is ahead in most battleground states including NM (where Dems won only during Bill's time!) NYT puts Hillary probable victory at 86% and Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com at around 65%. Nate Silver is more scientific than NYT. Edited November 5, 2016 by coffee_rules
Malcolm Merlyn Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 Clinton will be a disaster for India. Tibarn 1
Tibarn Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 5 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: Clinton will be a disaster for India. Agreed. Her and everyone she is likely to put in high positions are historically anti-India.
MechEng Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 8 years of Democrats, people want change, now it's time for the Republican.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 1 minute ago, MechEng said: 8 years of Democrats, people want change, now it's time for the Republican. Hopefully.
Muloghonto Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: Clinton will be a disaster for India. The US elections are not about India. And India-US relationship is too big to be influenced significantly by one person. My vote is going to Hillary. Edited November 5, 2016 by Muloghonto
Malcolm Merlyn Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 24 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: The US elections are not about India. And India-US relationship is too big to be influenced significantly by one person. My vote is going to Hillary. Her entire cotrie is made up of anti India individuals.Her election campaign reminded me of sickular Indian parties.No one in US will be negative to India,but Clinton will not be supportive either.She will stall important decisions and will not lean on allies to support India's cause as well.
Muloghonto Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: Her entire cotrie is made up of anti India individuals.Her election campaign reminded me of sickular Indian parties.No one in US will be negative to India,but Clinton will not be supportive either.She will stall important decisions and will not lean on allies to support India's cause as well. I don't think so. India is critical to the 'US pivot to Asia' and i highly doubt that Hillary will jeopardize the future of her country due to some half-qualified Pakistani hawks who make up her coterie. Plus you are forgetting the NaMo factor. if HRC and NaMo form a good rapport, it completely neutralizes her anti-India coterie.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: I don't think so. India is critical to the 'US pivot to Asia' and i highly doubt that Hillary will jeopardize the future of her country due to some half-qualified Pakistani hawks who make up her coterie. Plus you are forgetting the NaMo factor. if HRC and NaMo form a good rapport, it completely neutralizes her anti-India coterie. LOL.Hiliary is massively anti NaMo.Massive Massive Anti Namo.Read about how she sponsored NGOs to go to Gujarat and dig up dirt on Modi,including finding any mass graves. The Clintons are the pinnacle of hyphenating India with Pakistan. They believe that India shuld not be advantaged in anyway so that Pakistan dont have to take any steps to neutralise that advantage..It was Bill Clinton who blocked the Arrow BMD deal to India,else today India would have already had a BMD shield and Pakistani wouldnot have been blackmailing us.
Muloghonto Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 8 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: LOL.Hiliary is massively anti NaMo.Massive Massive Anti Namo.Read about how she sponsored NGOs to go to Gujarat and dig up dirt on Modi,including finding any mass graves. The Clintons are the pinnacle of hifenating India with Pakistan. They believe that India shuld not be advantaged in anyway so that Pakistan dont have to take any steps to neutralise that advantage..It was Bill Clinton who blocked the Arrow BMD deal to India,else today India would have already had a BMD shield and Pakistani wouldnot have been blackmailing us. The dynamics change when one HAS to deal with NaMo as the PM of India vs the option to dealing with a state-level leader. As i said, you really think Hillary is going to miss the big picture for the US, which is containing China and be anti-India simply due to Huma Abedin and a few others ? Sorry, but no. Besides, it wasnt Clinton, but Bush who blocked the Arrow deal, which was in 2002.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 23 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: The dynamics change when one HAS to deal with NaMo as the PM of India vs the option to dealing with a state-level leader. As i said, you really think Hillary is going to miss the big picture for the US, which is containing China and be anti-India simply due to Huma Abedin and a few others ? Sorry, but no. Besides, it wasnt Clinton, but Bush who blocked the Arrow deal, which was in 2002. Arrow deal was blocked in 2001. And as i said Hiliary is like those sickular parties of India or the elitist who hate a chaiwala.She hate NaMo. And Hiliary wont be the first US President who will be pursuing her own personal foreign policy agenda.And Hiliary and her entire coterie led by Abedin is Anti indian.
Muloghonto Posted November 6, 2016 Posted November 6, 2016 57 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: Arrow deal was blocked in 2001. And as i said Hiliary is like those sickular parties of India or the elitist who hate a chaiwala.She hate NaMo. And Hiliary wont be the first US President who will be pursuing her own personal foreign policy agenda.And Hiliary and her entire coterie led by Abedin is Anti indian. George W Bush became the 43rd President of USA on January 1st, 2001. So why are you blaming it on Clinton ?
Malcolm Merlyn Posted November 6, 2016 Posted November 6, 2016 9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: George W Bush became the 43rd President of USA on January 1st, 2001. So why are you blaming it on Clinton ? Bush became President on 20th Jan. Clinton blocked the arrow sale despite the Pentagon not having any issues with it.Arrow system was up for sale way back in 1998.US was so commited to block it that Ilan Biran the then DG of Israel Defence Ministry was summoned and told in no uncertain terms that the deal cant go through.The Clinton admin even blocked the sale of Israeli Awacs to India. It was only after Bush came that the AWACS deal was signed in 2004 and also his administration allowed the sale of the Green Pine Radars to India which formed the base of Indian BMD. The Clintons believe in giving nothing to India,so that they balance Pakistan.
Muloghonto Posted November 6, 2016 Posted November 6, 2016 33 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said: Bush became President on 20th Jan. Clinton blocked the arrow sale despite the Pentagon not having any issues with it.Arrow system was up for sale way back in 1998.US was so commited to block it that Ilan Biran the then DG of Israel Defence Ministry was summoned and told in no uncertain terms that the deal cant go through.The Clinton admin even blocked the sale of Israeli Awacs to India. It was only after Bush came that the AWACS deal was signed in 2004 and also his administration allowed the sale of the Green Pine Radars to India which formed the base of Indian BMD. The Clintons believe in giving nothing to India,so that they balance Pakistan. I still don't see why its the Clintons, given that the deal was blocked in February 2002 when Bush was the president.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted November 6, 2016 Posted November 6, 2016 I still don't see why its the Clintons, given that the deal was blocked in February 2002 when Bush was the president. Baba the Deal was first mooted in 1998 and blocked by Clintons.Bush partially allowed the deal with sale of Green Pine Radars.
Tibarn Posted November 6, 2016 Posted November 6, 2016 Assassination attempt on Trump at his rally today... Also, a compilation of Anti-India actions by the Clintons at the link below: https://storify.com/Kal_Chiron/anti-india-and-anti-hindu-record-of-clintons#publicize
Recommended Posts