Shifting tone, Trump entertains the notion he could lose

[Ulysses G.]

5 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

The worst US president of your lifetime  and his family all hate Trump.

 

 

We know. He called Trump "woefully unfit" for the job. Of course, a lot of people have said the same about him.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Docno]

On 12/08/2016 at 10:08 PM, Bung said:

I have an feeling this is all part of some devilish plan on trumps part. 

 

He gets all fellow republicans to disown him by constantly making idiotic and controversial remarks then actually streaks ahead after putin releases those 30,000 emails he asked for.  He ends up winning the election and promptly fires all those who voted against him filling the positions with "his people".  Finally ridding Washington of wall street owned politicians he really does make America great again. 

 

Nah. 

 

I prefer this alternate reality:  Trump is just a Democrat mole (after all, he was a New York Democrat in the past). So he's recruited by the Dems to pretend to be a Republican, discredit that party's mainstream/core leadership, energise the nutwing/rightwing elements, and create general disorder on that side. Then once he becomes the party's nominee, he goes into even higher gear, acting more and more outrageously to the point he becomes unelectable. Then Hillary, despite all the skeletons falling out of her closet, can cruise to victory. Almost believable in an unbelievable election season...

 

 

 

[SheungWan]

On 12/08/2016 at 11:20 AM, Pimay1 said:

I was speaking with a Canadian friend of mine today about Trump might not be elected and he made a statement that is sad but true. He said "Rome ( or in this case Washington D.C.) is burning and HRC and Co. are fiddling. We are witnessing the end of Western civilization. Europe will be the first to go, then UK, then Canada and finally the United Sates.

I am an optimist but sadly I have to agree with my friend. 

 

So now you are a pessimist.

 

[Ulysses G.]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Pimay1 said:

I was speaking with a Canadian friend of mine today about Trump might not be elected and he made a statement that is sad but true. He said "Rome ( or in this case Washington D.C.) is burning and HRC and Co. are fiddling. We are witnessing the end of Western civilization. Europe will be the first to go, then UK, then Canada and finally the United Sates.

I am an optimist but sadly I have to agree with my friend.

 

We have two bad choices and you are right, it doesn't look good. I am apathetic about this election, but it is really an important one. I was never big on John Kasich, but now I wish he had won the nomination. He would have slaughtered Hillary, despite the MSM pumping out liberal propaganda.

[Pinot]

On 8/14/2016 at 0:49 AM, Ulysses G. said:

 Do you purposely include a falsehood in each and every post? Anyone who reads my posts know that I am not a Trump supporter and I do not intend to vote for him. I merely consider him the lesser of two evils. Try to get your facts straight for a change.

 

I'm not buying the I am not a Trump supporter and neither is anyone else who regularly reads your stuff. "Lesser of two evils" support is Trump support. Everything you write is in support of him. You condemn the MSM and that is the Trump thrust, along with the we're at war with Muslims nonsense. 

 

Come on, be a man. I don't intend to vote for him is a cop out. Every one of his positions, is your position. You've gone this far with the party line copping out now is just...

 

What are you a RINO? Wus 

[Ulysses G.]

25 minutes ago, Pinot said:

 

I'm not buying the I am not a Trump supporter and neither is anyone else who regularly reads your stuff.

 

This is just plain foolish, like most of your posts. I am hardly bashful about posting my opinion. If I was a supporter, I would not be so critical of him. Just look at the post right above yours for enlightenment.

 

By the way, claiming that, "Every one of his positions, is your position" is a blatant lie. I don't believe in banning abortion or getting rid of the federal minimum wage for a start. There is plenty more I disagree with him about.

The main reason I prefer him to Hillary is that - unlike her - he has never violated National Security and would probably make decent Supreme Court picks. Like I said, the lesser of two evils, but I do not intend to vote for him. It doesn't really matter, because the state I live in always votes for democrats. My vote would not matter anyway.

 

We all get it that you are totally partisan and would spam propaganda, non-stop, for anyone the democrats put up, but - luckily - some people on here have some integrity.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

 

Izzit true Trump would waterboard opponents in Congress if he were elected Potus? Dissenting justices of Scotus?

 

Generals who'd refuse to carpetbomb villages and cities suspected of having families of ISIS?

 

HRC??? 

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

14 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Izzit true Trump would waterboard opponents in Congress if he were elected Potus? Dissenting justices of Scotus?

 

Generals who'd refuse to carpetbomb villages and cities suspected of having families of ISIS?

 

 

Sounds a lot like a hallucination. Get that Kool-Aid tested right away.

[Publicus]

 

If HRC wins by 7% the Senate flips to Democratic majority control with breathing room instead of a 50-50 tie which is the best the D's had hoped for until now.

 

If the margin of the win gets to 9% good-bye Republican majority control of the House...the probability would be pretty great at any rate.

 

Meanwhile the Trump effort continues to shuffle about ever so listlessly...

 

First Read: “These kind of shake-ups don’t happen when a presidential campaign is winning. The last time we remember when such an overhaul took place so late in the game was back in 2004, when John Kerry made significant changes to his campaign team. And here’s the current reality for Trump: He’s trailing in national polls by an average of about seven points, per RealClearPolitics; he’s behind in almost every battleground-state poll we’ve seen, including our NBC/WSJ/Marist polls from last week; and he’s losing to Clinton in the NBC battleground map.

 

Today's NBC poll has HRC up by 8%.

 

Facts.

 

Reality.

 

Landslide.

[Pinot]

I just hope the Democrats come out. Imagine a Congress that actually wants to accomplish something? I do. 

 

Just keeping talking Trump and we'll do it. 

 

You gotta believe, it's going to be hard for many Republicans to come out and vote for Cheeto Jesus, if they know he's going to lose (and the fact that he's a repulsive idiot). Republicans stay home is the other side of the coin and that's not getting measured by the polls and probably a bigger possibility than Democrats voting in big numbers. 

 

We're going to win. We want the House and Senate. A couple of different ways to get that done. 

[Jingthing]

I find the notion that trump will lose (hopefully lose HUGE) entertaining as well. 

[Publicus]

 

National exit polls in 2012 indicated 89% of Republicans supported Romney.

 

The new NBC poll out today finds 71% of Republicans support Trump.

 

That's like 90 - 70 as the difference in R support of Romney and of Trump. Trump has lost 20% of Republicans, who are the minority anyway. Trump thus comes out of the conventions in a hole.

 

HRC is enjoying the rare air of 92% of support among Democrats which as the larger party is driving this election as the deciding factor. The Republicans in gerrymandered House districts in Blue states will have a swarm of D's voting in this November that they haven't had in any previous November. A lot of R's will get knocked off as the direct consequence, gerrymandering notwithstanding. The only question is how many.

 

D's need to net gain 32 House seats. In 1994 R's led by Newt Gingrich and the religious right knocked off 42 D's to win majority control. That was a mid-term election, which always favors the Republicans.

 

Potus election years strongly favor Democrats in every respect. As the Democrats found out in 1994, gerrymandering works effectively but only up to a certain point. Gerrymandering is not infallible, it is not an absolute guarantee, it is not immune to a wave election tsunami that sweeps away both the protective barrier walls, the buildings behind the barrier walls, and the hills beyond besides. 

 

The pros such as Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, and the relative newcomer Nate Silver won't make these calls until a couple of weeks before the election. We'll know more then. I suspect we'll know a lot more then. (Maybe sooner.)

[Buzzz]

2 hours ago, Pinot said:

 

I'm not buying the I am not a Trump supporter and neither is anyone else who regularly reads your stuff. "Lesser of two evils" support is Trump support. Everything you write is in support of him. You condemn the MSM and that is the Trump thrust, along with the we're at war with Muslims nonsense. 

 

Come on, be a man. I don't intend to vote for him is a cop out. Every one of his positions, is your position. You've gone this far with the party line copping out now is just...

 

What are you a RINO? Wus 

 

Don't be so hard on the ill informed Trump supporters. I now have sympathy for them. 

They grew up watching fake news or right wing conspiracy media. 

Talking down to them is similar to Trump mocking the handicapped. 

 

Not it their fault  they are stupid. 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

48 minutes ago, Buzzz said:

 

Don't be so hard on the ill informed Trump supporters. I now have sympathy for them.

They grew up watching fake news or right wing conspiracy media.

Talking down to them is similar to Trump mocking the handicapped.

 

Not it their fault  they are stupid.

 

 

 

 "Not it their fault they are stupid". That's a real classic.

[keemapoot]

2 hours ago, Buzzz said:

 

Don't be so hard on the ill informed Trump supporters. I now have sympathy for them. 

They grew up watching fake news or right wing conspiracy media. 

Talking down to them is similar to Trump mocking the handicapped. 

 

Not it their fault  they are stupid. 

 

 

 

Did you ever watch The Rush Limbaugh show when it was on TV in the early nineties? It was produced by Roger Ailes, and it was fascinating to watch all the "Ditto-heads" robotic uniformly agreeing with EVERYTHING that came out of Rush's mouth. I used to watch in wonder at how is it possible to captivate an audience like that where they are like groupies, and wondered if I could learn that myself to use in my career. Unfortunately, my audiences are not so easily manipulated.

 

Fox news took that to another level, with a constant spoon-fed diet of pretty and smart ladies as the setup, then funneled into the fast food intellectual nonsense of Hannity, etc., , tasty to these masses, cheap and non-nutritious. 

[Ulysses G.]

17 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

 

Fox news took that to another level, with a constant spoon-fed diet of pretty and smart ladies as the setup, then funneled into the fast food intellectual nonsense of Hannity, etc., , tasty to these masses, cheap and non-nutritious. 

 

 

Hannity is a dishonest idiot. I never accept what he says without searching myself to verify it. However, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Bret Hume, Charles Krauthammer, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith and others are trustworthy and sincere. They are not always right, but they do not try to mislead viewers. There is plenty of real news and honest commentary on Fox News.

[Buzzz]

 

 

Funny.

Some people still don't realize FOX is a political disinformation arm of the Republican Party. 

 

Some people rode the short bus to school too. 

 

 

[keemapoot]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Hannity is a dishonest idiot. I never accept what he says without searching myself to verify it. However, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Bret Hume, Charles Krauthammer, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith and others are trustworthy and sincere. They are not always right, but they do not try to mislead viewers. There is plenty of real news and honest commentary on Fox News.

 

I agree to varying extents with those you mentioned, but they are all influenced and guided by the mission and vision at Fox News, which means there is always a slant or bias present. Of those you mention, Wallace, Kelly, Krathammer would flourish given an honest platform. As it is they are forced to revert to endorsing nonsense much of the time. The others are either blowhards or talking heads.

[Ulysses G.]

There is always a slant or bias at pretty much every news organization these days. Can you think of one that doesn't have one? CNN, the Washington Post and the NYT certainly do. Something like the Huffington Post or Salon is far worse.

[keemapoot]

30 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

There is always a slant or bias at pretty much every news organization these days. Can you think of one that doesn't have one? CNN, the Washington Post and the NYT certainly do. Something like the Huffington Post or Salon is far worse.

 

Yes, of course. However, Fox shamelessly calls itself fair and balanced, and pretends to position itself as something it is not. Moreover, it is as extreme right as MSNBC is extreme left. The difference is that MSNBC openly acknowledges this for many years, whereas Fox keeps up this idiotic pretense.

[Buzzz]

Agreed,

My beef with FOX is they call it 'news'. 

FOX is dishonest as they come by design. 

It's a disinformation right wing political arm of the Republican Party. 

 

Really sad what FOX has done to their viewers. 

I can spot an ignorant FOX viewer within minutes of meeting.

"Right wing hate parrots" doing their Hannity impression to anybody that will listen.

Pitiful that a devious political TV program can disguise itself as news and mould the viewers into mindless FOX zombies. 

 

The Chairman of FOX ( just resigned for sexual harassment) is a senior republican strategist. 

Not an honest piece of news ever was produced. His staff are the laughing stock of journalism. 

 

Remove the "news" title and refer to the show as conservative entertainment, like Rush Limbaugh would be a more honest approach. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Buzzz

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Buzzz said:

 

 

Funny.

Some people still don't realize FOX is a political disinformation arm of the Republican Party. 

 

Some people rode the short bus to school too. 

 

 

 

Sadly, Buzzz does not appear capable of simply having a dialogue that does not involve name-calling and disrespecting anyone who does not think just like him.

 

For this reason I am placing Buzzz on ignore. 

 

His constant negativity is something his family may be stuck with but not this old codger. 

[Ulysses G.]

As I said before, a number of the journalists ARE fair and balanced. Is everybody? No, but name a network that is. I jist like it that they offer a different perspective from all the liberal outlets. That is fair to me.

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Hannity is a dishonest idiot. I never accept what he says without searching myself to verify it. However, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Bret Hume, Charles Krauthammer, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith and others are trustworthy and sincere. They are not always right, but they do not try to mislead viewers. There is plenty of real news and honest commentary on Fox News.

 

Almost got a 'like', however there is nothing at all trustworthy and sincere about O'Reilly. He belongs right up there with Hannity, both are dishonest and an embarrassment to the term 'journalist'. They are both shocking.

[Buzzz]

2 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

Almost got a 'like', however there is nothing at all trustworthy and sincere about O'Reilly. He belongs right up there with Hannity, both are dishonest and an embarrassment to the term 'journalist'. They are both shocking.

 

Oreilly just wants to be a TV personality.

He would be going the same schtict on the liberal side if he had been offered the position. 

He is a just a talking head, playing his audience for fools. 

He's not stupid and can't believe the stuff he says. 

[Pinot]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Sadly, Buzzz does not appear capable of simply having a dialogue that does not involve name-calling and disrespecting anyone who does not think just like him.

 

For this reason I am placing Buzzz on ignore. 

 

His constant negativity is something his family may be stuck with but not this old codger. 

 

OMG! Another one bites the dust. My condolences Buzzz, I know you must be devastated. He did the same thing to me a couple of weeks ago and I've just been trying to find a  reason to go on since then. (sigh) Maybe we can start a mutual support group? I don't know. I don't know about anything anymore. 

 

There is a tendency to lump Huffington and MSNBC on one side of the fulcrum with Faux News on the other side. First of all MSNBC is not radical left wing, they are a legitimate news organization. If they make a mistake, they'll say they made a mistake. The people who watch MSNBC wouldn't let them be like Faux. I've never heard an MSNBC commentator give anything like what BillO does every night...lie. Lies are perfectly acceptable at Faux (and the rightwing echo chamber) and never acceptable at Huffington and MSNBC. 

 

This gets back to the weak arguments the wingnuts have against the "MSM". "They all lie...", No they don't. Faux lies. It's why people who don't watch any news at all are better informed than those who get the daily dose of Faux. There maybe a Democratic slant at Huffington and MSNBC but they speak the truth or at least try to. 

 

I'm going to go sit on the beach now and contemplate my navel. I feel for your pain Buzzz! So sad...

 

 

 

[Pinot]

6 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

National exit polls in 2012 indicated 89% of Republicans supported Romney.

 

The new NBC poll out today finds 71% of Republicans support Trump.

 

That's like 90 - 70 as the difference in R support of Romney and of Trump. Trump has lost 20% of Republicans, who are the minority anyway. Trump thus comes out of the conventions in a hole.

 

HRC is enjoying the rare air of 92% of support among Democrats which as the larger party is driving this election as the deciding factor. The Republicans in gerrymandered House districts in Blue states will have a swarm of D's voting in this November that they haven't had in any previous November. A lot of R's will get knocked off as the direct consequence, gerrymandering notwithstanding. The only question is how many.

 

D's need to net gain 32 House seats. In 1994 R's led by Newt Gingrich and the religious right knocked off 42 D's to win majority control. That was a mid-term election, which always favors the Republicans.

 

Potus election years strongly favor Democrats in every respect. As the Democrats found out in 1994, gerrymandering works effectively but only up to a certain point. Gerrymandering is not infallible, it is not an absolute guarantee, it is not immune to a wave election tsunami that sweeps away both the protective barrier walls, the buildings behind the barrier walls, and the hills beyond besides. 

 

The pros such as Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, and the relative newcomer Nate Silver won't make these calls until a couple of weeks before the election. We'll know more then. I suspect we'll know a lot more then. (Maybe sooner.)

 

With a new Supreme Court coming up after the election does gerrymandering get reexamined? I know it gets struck down when it gets completely ridiculous but it doesn't seem to be a problem for the Supreme Court now. Or is this purely a states issue and they do what they want to? It seems so inherently unfair to let a state gerrymander one political party to perpetual rule. 

[mtls2005]

Has the Trump-Hannity Town Hall program infomercial (taped, but postponed) been aired yet?

[Srikcir]

8 minutes ago, Pinot said:

it doesn't seem to be a problem for the Supreme Court now.

Many of the gerrymandering efforts regardless of political party get stopped by federal courts that override state court rulings. Many appeals of federal court decisions are refused by the US Supreme Court, in effect preventing gerrymandering without hearing the case in full. The US Supreme Court just recently dismissed an appeal to hear Virginia Wittman v. Personhuballah, termed as the most gerrymandering in the country.

So yes, not a problem for the USSC.

https://thinkprogress.org/one-of-the-most-aggressive-gerrymanders-in-the-country-just-lost-in-the-supreme-court-ef6dc1fd76f3#.l38c1stca

[Ulysses G.]

35 minutes ago, Pinot said:

First of all MSNBC is not radical left wing, they are a legitimate news organization.

 

 

What a joke. Fox News has about 8 hours per day of hard news. MSNBC does not have ANY.