HRC plays stupid and will say absolutely anything if she thinks itâll boost her numbers in the polls. Even having an email server, in her home, for official State Department correspondence is deception and Americans donât like that.
As a recent politician, Trump might say stuff about Mexicans which is ludicrous, but is saying the kind of loudmouthed unfiltered thing that people say at a bar. Itâs like around 20 years ago when media spin doctors were at their height and politicians made all sorts of insincere statements campaigning about a locality or an issue. People eat it up shit like that, they know deep down itâs complete shite but its what they wanted to hear. People like an âunfilteredâ approach in this day and age.
People find Hillary Clinton refusing to do a Press Conference for 275 days and a social media presence which is clearly written by her team vs. Trumpâs unfiltered openness on social media and giving daily press conferences as just pure deceptive. This is a post factual world, but with Hillary Clinton we are dealing with someone who comes across as a sneak (as well as a proven liar whilst IN PUBLIC OFFICE).
Trumpâs âsupportâ for the war comes in the form of an âI guess soâ when asked if he supported it 8 months before on Howard Stern. This was the reaction of most Americans at the time i.e. we are told this is a bad guy who can harm us so if thatâs what it takes then so be it. It was hardly an equivocal response with caveats or elaboration built in. Trumpâs statements on the war are almost entirely through their impact on the economy.
Using shit like Politifact is gas when we are comparing say Trump saying Mexico send their worst to the US vs. HRC on Benghazi when Secretary of State. Trump uses bombastic, wrestling heel language to make his points whilst HRC has a history of deception in office - yet PF judges statements.
Not an ad hominem attack, pal, and neither were any of my other posts tonight. Itâs a very fair and pertinent analogy and itâs clearly touched a nerve.
You on the other hand have been engaging in ad hominem attacks on me all night.
Youâre some man to dish it out but not be able to take it, classic Galway hurling style really.
And yet you stumble from one ad hominem to another. I suggedt you consult a dictionary.
You obviously never played hurling in Galway, as if you had you would know giving it and taking it is what is expected. Wouldnât expect a soft cock blow in to understand that though.
Mate, it;s 20fucking16. There is no âTraditional Irish Democratic voteâ.
Ryan would have stood a very good chance of beating Hillary. Most any half way sane Republican would have.
The Republicans seriously shot themselves in the foot this go around with their selection.
Trump hasnât a hope, and most Republicans know that and are involved in damage control to make sure the Hillary landslide doesnât cut into congressional racesâŚ
Agree on the myth of the Irish Democratic vote, dead as the Kennedys.
The Republicans had no choice over their chosen candidate. Anyone can register as a Republican and vote in a primary. The turnout was enormous compared to 2008 and 2012. If it had been a two horse race the RNC could have got behind their chosen candidate like the DNC did, but by the time they figured out Trump could win he had already won.
Look, how in the name of fuck is Trump going to win this thing?
Clinton is guaranteed the whole west coast, NY, NJ, all of NE, all the mid-Atlantic, IL, MN, MI, WI, PA.
She will more than likely take CO and NM. That gives her 256 electoral college votes.
Trump will take TX, OK north to ND, the other mountain states, most everthing from WV south to Georgia and west to LA. Heâll take IN too. That gives him 200 EC votes.
That leaves VA, NC, OH and FL up for grabs. She is leading in all of those states. She only needs to win ONE of them to get to the magic number. Trump has to run the boards and take them all.
Would @Tim_Riggins or one of the other Trump heads splain to me how the fuck he is going to win this?
Not a Trump head, and agree that the road to him winning is a narrow one. However, the mistake many are making is extrapolating from Obamaâs wins in 2008 and 2012. The primary reason Obama won is he drew an unprecedented turnout from minority voters, which was decisive in swing states. As the joint (with Trump) most unpopular candidate to ever run for the White House, Clinton hasnât a hope in hell of attracting the same turnout. I have seen estimates that she may get 30% less votes than Obamaâs 2012 total (I donât believe that, but it could be significantly down).
If the media are understimating the Clinton unpopularity factor, they may also be undersetimating the turnout Trump could get from white voters. For Trump to win, itâs not just the 4 states that you listed that need to be competitive, you have to include AZ, NV, WI, IA, MO, MI, GA, PA and NH in the mix. Of these , Trump is obviously targeting the rust belt, so the key battleground states are PA, OH, MI and WI. These are the states that have been hit hardest by globalization and free trade agreements, and have seen promises from both party candidates amount to nothing.
So, for Trump to win, he needs to attract a higher turnout of the white vote in the battleground states, and Clinton attract lower turnout of minority voters. Itâs by no means out of the question, but he does need to win the debates decisively.
In the latest CNN poll (from Tuesday, Sept 6), among registered voters, 50% ranked Trump as more honest and trustworthy compared to Hillary, while 35% ranked Clinton higher. This is an absolutely stunning reversal from early this year, when the numbers were reversed.
What is now becoming clear is what is hurting Clinton the most is not the email scandal, which is old news, itâs the revealed links between her State department and the Clinton foundation. Having her senior staff at the State department double jobbing at the Clinton foundation, and allegedly arranging âpay to play gigsâ for wealthy donors, may turn out to be a poisoned chalice that Independents and even a lot of Democrats cannot stomach.
Youâre the one who squealed like a big baby when they thought the were on the wrong end of an âad hominemâ, despite not even having a clue what that is.
In terms of being a soft cock, youâre the ultimate blow-out, you couldnât hack it in Galway, and neither can you hack it on here.
Do try and go more than two posts in a row without resorting to âyou wouldnât understand thatâ or variants of such. Weak repetition is the hallmark both of the poor debater and somebody with a limited vocabulary.
I know it irks you that your utterly bizarre worldview keeps getting shown up as the nonsense it is, but do try and keep your rage about such under wraps.
Heâs in meltdown mode pal, like all the Hillary fanboys. Itâs inconceivable to them that someone who is outspending her opponent 10:1 has still managed to fuck it up and is now tied at best in the polls.
Goldman Sachs today banned itâs senior employees from contributing to Trump/Pence. Wall Street nails itâs colors to the mast.
