Clinton v Trump: stage is set on Long Island for first TV debate

[boomerangutang]

       On the Debate:  My strongest impression overall was HOW EXCEEDINGLY RUDE AND BULLYING TRUMP WAS.

 

       Ok, I already knew he was a pompous ass, but come on.  Interrupting repeatedly may impress redneck WWE fans (note: I once had a couple of rednecks come up to me and sincerely ask whether I thought WWE antics were faked.  Really?!  That gives an idea of how stupid they are).

 

      Trump is lower than crass.  I honestly wouldn't allow any kids younger than 16 to watch that debate, except to show them what ugly rudeness is.  When Gingrich said to Republican sheeple at the RNC, "you must be terrified....!"  he'd be right, if referencing the scary possibility of a Trump presidency.

 

If the presidency were won on rudeness and low-class, it would be a shoe-in for Trump.

 

 

[uptheos]

There is still the possibility of Julian Assange releasing what he describes as "an email that should put her in jail". Wikileaks wont release anything until it has been checked over and over again, to make sure it's perfectly true and genuine. Don't forget, love him or hate him Julian Assange is batting 100% Wikileaks has never released anything that wasn't correct, I just really hope he does have something on her that she can't wriggle herself out of and we all remember Debbie Whatshername...............ah I forget.

[boomerangutang]

15 minutes ago, uptheos said:

There is still the possibility of Julian Assange releasing.....

 I just really hope he does have something on her that she can't wriggle herself out of....

 

You're like the guy at the airport who sees someone being stopped and checked by authorities:  "I just really hope that guard will find at least a spent roach on that person.  It would be so enjoyable to see that person busted for something."

[Prbkk]

51 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Good headlines and links from poot. Allow me to develop that by filling in some content...

 

Dan Drezner*: “Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with Donald Trump in the first presidential debate Monday night. But it was the way in which she wiped the floor with him that was so interesting.”

 

 

Andrew Sullivan: “Clinton was not great at times; her language was occasionally stilted; she missed some obvious moments to go in for the kill; but she was solid and reassuring and composed… I’ve been a nervous wreck these past two weeks; my nerves are calmed now.”

 

 

Jonathan Chait: “The contrast between an obviously and eminently qualified public servant and a ranting bully was as stark as any presidential debate in American history.”

 

 

Glenn Thrush: “Trump is supposed to be the big meanie but it was Clinton who hit him where it hurt most. It doesn’t take a Jung (or even Dr. Phil after a couple of Bud Lights) to figure out that the GOP nominee – who boasts like a barfly – just might be over-compensating. Hence, Clinton, who started the debate a little tentatively, quickly launched into a carefully planned program of Freudian mind-games, contrasting her own middle-class businessman dad (who had his own issues) with Trump’s imperious, larger-than-life father Fred who launched his son’s business career but also was said to be extremely tough on him.”

 

 

Ross Douthat: “More, as ever in this campaign, he showed no ability to evade or duck or simply retreat on issues — his business dealings and his taxes, birtherism and racism — where long Trumpish answers make things only worse.”

 

 

Nate Silver: “My editor tells me that readers want my subjective impressions of the debate, knowing full well that they’re subjective. And my impressions are that Clinton became a more plausible president tonight and Trump became a less plausible one.”

 

 

Ezra Klein: “The first presidential debate featured a man who didn’t know what he was talking about repeatedly shouting over a woman who was extraordinarily prepared.”

 

 

Chris Cillizza: “This was a clear win for her on virtually every front.”

 

 

The Great Republican Train Wreck of 2016. 

 

 

*Dan Drezner is a professor, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Boston MA.

 

Yes, but what those people think doesn't count for much at the end of the day. What matters is how it was perceived by the disaffected and by Middle America.

I doubt that a single Trump supporter would have been persuaded to change on the basis of the debate itself let alone the commentary of a few journalists and professors.

Hillary didn't crash and burn: but did she say anything to capture the undecideds?

Being very well-prepared made her look better than expected but people are not going to be swayed by her capacity to trade blows/score points.

What continues to resonate with voters is the simple but effective message of the Trump campaign, in many ways similar to Brexit. 

If Clinton thinks she has it in the bag, she won't be saying so and would be hoping for polls that show a lead but not a landslide: she needs to get people to the polls ( including the notoriously fickle Milleniums, again similar to Brexit and to one UK election in the early 1970s).

Trump is unlikeable but not unelectable

Edited September 28, 2016 by Prbkk
Word change

[Ulysses G.]

9 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

It would be so enjoyable to see that person busted for something."

 

Hillary has gotten away with do much. How could anyone feel otherwise?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

54 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Good headlines and links from poot. Allow me to develop that by filling in some content...

 

Dan Drezner*: “Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with Donald Trump in the first presidential debate Monday night. But it was the way in which she wiped the floor with him that was so interesting.”

 

 

Andrew Sullivan: “Clinton was not great at times; her language was occasionally stilted; she missed some obvious moments to go in for the kill; but she was solid and reassuring and composed… I’ve been a nervous wreck these past two weeks; my nerves are calmed now.”

 

 

Jonathan Chait: “The contrast between an obviously and eminently qualified public servant and a ranting bully was as stark as any presidential debate in American history.”

 

 

Glenn Thrush: “Trump is supposed to be the big meanie but it was Clinton who hit him where it hurt most. It doesn’t take a Jung (or even Dr. Phil after a couple of Bud Lights) to figure out that the GOP nominee – who boasts like a barfly – just might be over-compensating. Hence, Clinton, who started the debate a little tentatively, quickly launched into a carefully planned program of Freudian mind-games, contrasting her own middle-class businessman dad (who had his own issues) with Trump’s imperious, larger-than-life father Fred who launched his son’s business career but also was said to be extremely tough on him.”

 

 

Ross Douthat: “More, as ever in this campaign, he showed no ability to evade or duck or simply retreat on issues — his business dealings and his taxes, birtherism and racism — where long Trumpish answers make things only worse.”

 

 

Nate Silver: “My editor tells me that readers want my subjective impressions of the debate, knowing full well that they’re subjective. And my impressions are that Clinton became a more plausible president tonight and Trump became a less plausible one.”

 

 

Ezra Klein: “The first presidential debate featured a man who didn’t know what he was talking about repeatedly shouting over a woman who was extraordinarily prepared.”

 

 

Chris Cillizza: “This was a clear win for her on virtually every front.”

 

 

The Great Republican Train Wreck of 2016. 

 

 

*Dan Drezner is a professor, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Boston MA.

None of which will change the fact that just under half the country ( according to polls ) hate her and everything she represents. A majority don't trust her.

A few comments from establishment surrogates isn't going to change that.

 

I've never seen so much desperation to convince themselves from so many posters ever before. However, they're not going to change anyone else's minds.

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

These though are the two best statements I've seen since yesterday...

 

 

First Read: “Maybe the most damaging part of last night’s debate for Trump was that it only extended the tax and birtherism stories, which are bound to come up again at the VP and second presidential debate over the next two weeks. On taxes, not only did Trump suggest that he’d release his taxes if Clinton releases her emails (so it’s not the audit after all?), he also seemed to admit that he indeed pays no taxes.”

 

“And on birtherism — Trump’s longstanding charge that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States and thus potentially illegitimate to be president — he (falsely) accused Clinton’s ’08 campaign of starting the issue. He also said he brought it to an end after getting Obama to produce his birth certificate. But he never apologized or explained what changed his mind (from 2011-2016 to two weeks ago) that Obama was indeed born in the U.S.”

 

 

And this one sums up Trump very well....

 

“When Clinton said he’d wanted to take advantage of the real estate crisis, he said that was ‘called business, by the way.’ He wouldn’t say if Russia is responsible for hacking Democratic email systems, instead raising the specter of a hypothetical 400-pound hacker. He said not paying federal income taxes ‘makes me smart.’ He defended not paying contractors who have worked on his properties. He rekindled a feud with Rosie O’Donnell, whose appearance he has insulted, saying she ‘deserves’ it. And he defended his long-running questioning of President Obama’s birthplace, arguing that he actually cleared up the controversy by getting Obama to release his birth certificate.”

 

“Trump, in other words, handed reinforcements to the Clinton campaign in several different areas: foreign policy, Trump’s treatment of women, his business dealings, and to what extent he pays taxes. Democrats in the post-debate spin room were openly celebrating the material Trump had handed them for future attack ads.”

 

 

So the fun is just beginning. Two more debates to watch Trump start out strong then wilt as the debate goes deeper in. HRC meanwhile was fresh, bright, easily showed her stamina and was excellently measured and paced. In other words, Trump shot his wad during the first 20 minutes while HRC was doing aerobics throughout.

It's irrelevant what the already committed to Clinton think. The only thing that counts is if she was able to convince the undecided to vote for her.

Based on her performance, IMO not a single extra vote was gained.

As for Trump, no one that was going to vote for him is going to change their mind based on that debate.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

 

       He's about as competent as Chris Christie doing the pole vault.   Trump fans don't have to like HRC when she becomes prez. But what they'll do, and what Republicans are so adept at, is attack, attack attack, mostly for no good reasons.  Already, Trump is denigrating blacks, their poorer neighborhoods, US military commanders, and its military prowess. He also denigrates the Iran deal, which is keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.   

 

     Until the age of 22, I spent half my life in Europe and half in the US, so I have a good perspective on how Europeans think. I can say, unequivocally, that thinking Europeans see Trump is a complete dufus. The only Europeans who think Trump is halfway decent are a handful of hard right wingers.   As an American, I resent that Trump continually depicts the US as third world with a weak military.  Anyone, other than a decrepit redneck knows that's untrue and damaging to the US's interests.   .....almost as much as praising Putin while denigrating a popular US president and a future president.   I can't think of a worse example for American kids and kids around the world.  Pol Pot is a better role model than Trump.

 

 

You prove my point. Trump's sheeple fans can't face up to HRC on issues and policy proposals, so all they're left with is denigrating her appearance, the wrinkles in her 68 yr old face, or her choice of clothes.

 Pol Pot is a better role model than Trump.

By using a mass murdering maniac to denigrate Trump, you cheapen the terror visited on the Cambodian people. I'm sure you know better than that.

[stander]

Michael Moore has his money on Trump after first debate; his warning to ‘Hillary gloaters’…

 

It’s getting hard to decipher which presidential candidate Michael Moore is rooting for.

Monday night’s presidential debate likely did little to sway many minds. Those in Hillary’s camp were convinced she won, and Trump supporters viewed his authentic style as a welcomed change.

While Hillary fans celebrated her robotic, and often times smug performance, it was ultra-Liberal Michael Moore who heeded a warning call to Hillary “gloaters,” because according to him, “Trump is gonna win.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09/27/michael-moore-money-trump-first-debate-warning-hillary-gloaters-394636#ixzz4LVeb6ziT

[stander]

I’m not sure there is any way to prove that Clinton got the debate questions in advance. Nevertheless, would you be surprised if she did?

 

http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/

[Publicus]

 

Supporters of The Ignoramus seem to believe I posted certain quotes in my own belief the statements were going to change minds. They would be dead wrong. I post to the reader, not to the set in concrete poster -- I've always posted to the reader primarily at TVF, not to the convinced and absolutely certain rightwhingenut poster.

 

The rightists and other awesome critique makers of my posting of quotes need to point out where in my comments in the posts I said the statements were going to change the minds of voters, much less the fiercely political rightwhingenoid posters everywhere.

 

I posted the quotes for all to read. I made no claims in respect of any impact of the quotes. The rightwhinge needs to keep in mind I post primarily to the reader, not to the whingenut poster. I always post primarily to the visitor to the Forums who reads and who may not be a member of TV. Or a member of TV who seldom posts and who might be undecided. 

 

No one is going to change my vote to Donald Trump and no one is going to change the rightwhinge fanatics to vote Clinton. Anyone however can read.  I posted the quotes FYI, nothing more as far as the rightwhingenut posters should be concerned. Youse saw, youse read, youse missed the point entirely.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Supporters of The Ignoramus seem to believe I posted certain quotes in my own belief the statements were going to change minds. They would be dead wrong. I post to the reader, not to the set in concrete poster -- I've always posted to the reader primarily at TVF, not to the convinced and absolutely certain rightwhingenut poster.

 

The rightists and other awesome critique makers of my posting of quotes need to point out where in my comments in the posts I said the statements were going to change the minds of voters, much less the fiercely political rightwhingenoid posters everywhere.

 

I posted the quotes for all to read. I made no claims in respect of any impact of the quotes. The rightwhinge needs to keep in mind I post primarily to the reader, not to the whingenut poster. I always post primarily to the visitor to the Forums who reads and who may not be a member of TV. Or a member of TV who seldom posts and who might be undecided. 

 

No one is going to change my vote to Donald Trump and no one is going to change the rightwhinge fanatics to vote Clinton. Anyone however can read.  I posted the quotes FYI, nothing more as far as the rightwhingenut posters should be concerned. Youse saw, youse read, youse missed the point entirely.

Given that your post may be referring to me, in part, please stop referring to us as rightists and rightwhinge. I am insulted to be linked to capitalists. I am a socialist and proud of it. I oppose HRC because she is the opposite of a socialist, and is a fully paid up member of the 1%. I would have supported Bernie, had he not been backstabbed by the Clinton clique in the DNC.

[tuktuktuk]

16 minutes ago, stander said:

Michael Moore has his money on Trump after first debate; his warning to ‘Hillary gloaters’…

 

It’s getting hard to decipher which presidential candidate Michael Moore is rooting for.

Monday night’s presidential debate likely did little to sway many minds. Those in Hillary’s camp were convinced she won, and Trump supporters viewed his authentic style as a welcomed change.

While Hillary fans celebrated her robotic, and often times smug performance, it was ultra-Liberal Michael Moore who heeded a warning call to Hillary “gloaters,” because according to him, “Trump is gonna win.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09/27/michael-moore-money-trump-first-debate-warning-hillary-gloaters-394636#ixzz4LVeb6ziT

Is Michael Moore going to vote for Trump or is he in the leaving the US camp?  I hope he votes for Trump and leaves the country. I guess it depends on where he lives. Supposedly he lives in Michigan, but I suspect he actually lives on the left coast. A Trump vote there won't do us much good. I'm generally a gun control supporter. Bowling for Columbine almost got me to change my mind. 

[Pinot]

1 hour ago, uptheos said:

There is still the possibility of Julian Assange releasing what he describes as "an email that should put her in jail". Wikileaks wont release anything until it has been checked over and over again, to make sure it's perfectly true and genuine. Don't forget, love him or hate him Julian Assange is batting 100% Wikileaks has never released anything that wasn't correct, I just really hope he does have something on her that she can't wriggle herself out of and we all remember Debbie Whatshername...............ah I forget.

 

The wingnuts are praying to baby jesus for Assange to pull the election out for them. It's cute, like wanting a pony for Christmas or in this case a unicorn. 

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

None of which will change the fact that just under half the country ( according to polls ) hate her and everything she represents. A majority don't trust her.

A few comments from establishment surrogates isn't going to change that.

 

I've never seen so much desperation to convince themselves from so many posters ever before. However, they're not going to change anyone else's minds.

 

Desperation to convince themselves? Oh my, we weren't paying attention to the complete incompetence of poor sniffles up there during the debate, were we? 

 

35 minutes ago, stander said:

I’m not sure there is any way to prove that Clinton got the debate questions in advance. Nevertheless, would you be surprised if she did?

 

http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/

 

Always with the conspiracies, a new one everyday. That's what the right wing media is there for, to feed the hungry wingnuts their daily manna.  It's a way of life. You know what? She didn't need them. 

[CaptHaddock]

1 hour ago, Prbkk said:

 

Yes, but what those people think doesn't count for much at the end of the day. What matters is how it was perceived by the disaffected and by Middle America.

I doubt that a single Trump supporter would have been persuaded to change on the basis of the debate itself let alone the commentary of a few journalists and professors.

Hillary didn't crash and burn: but did she say anything to capture the undecideds?

Being very well-prepared made her look better than expected but people are not going to be swayed by her capacity to trade blows/score points.

What continues to resonate with voters is the simple but effective message of the Trump campaign, in many ways similar to Brexit. 

If Clinton thinks she has it in the bag, she won't be saying so and would be hoping for polls that show a lead but not a landslide: she needs to get people to the polls ( including the notoriously fickle Milleniums, again similar to Brexit and to one UK election in the early 1970s).

Trump is unlikeable but not unelectable

 

You fail to grasp the dynamics of this election.  At all times Hillary has commanded the lead.  She does not have to recruit Trump supporters to win, because she is winning already.  Trump on the other hand has been losing consistently and continues to lose.  His only hope was to shake loose some of HRC's support, perhaps in an outstanding debate performance, but rising to a challenge like that is hopelessly beyond Trump, who is, you have to admit, as dumb as a box of rocks.

 

In 2008 McCain took the lead in the polls briefly after the Republican convention before sinking out of sight.  Trump will never even manage that.

 

[CaptHaddock]

45 minutes ago, stander said:

I’m not sure there is any way to prove that Clinton got the debate questions in advance. Nevertheless, would you be surprised if she did?

 

http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/

 

I knew the debate questions in advance.  Didn't you?

[Prbkk]

15 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

You fail to grasp the dynamics of this election.  At all times Hillary has commanded the lead.  She does not have to recruit Trump supporters to win, because she is winning already.  Trump on the other hand has been losing consistently and continues to lose.  His only hope was to shake loose some of HRC's support, perhaps in an outstanding debate performance, but rising to a challenge like that is hopelessly beyond Trump, who is, you have to admit, as dumb as a box of rocks.

 

In 2008 McCain took the lead in the polls briefly after the Republican convention before sinking out of sight.  Trump will never even manage that.

 

 

The greater concern for Clinton is to get people to turn out to vote. The Trump people will show up in 3 feet of snow; the Luke-warm Clinton people will be sipping a latte on their home espresso machine . That will be more the case if they believe she is well ahead.

Something similar happened in the UK in the early 70: Labour well ahead in the polls, dreadful weather on election day, Tories won easily ( a bit similar to Brexit). 

 

[CaptHaddock]

52 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that your post may be referring to me, in part, please stop referring to us as rightists and rightwhinge. I am insulted to be linked to capitalists. I am a socialist and proud of it. I oppose HRC because she is the opposite of a socialist, and is a fully paid up member of the 1%. I would have supported Bernie, had he not been backstabbed by the Clinton clique in the DNC.

 

Oh now there's a cogent case for you.  As a proud socialist you support a racist psychopath like Trump who got rich bribing politicians and exploiting tax loopholes while taking advantage of subcontractors and foreign workers?   And who wants to lower taxes even further on the rich?  HRC's platform is the most progressive since LBJ while Trump wants to make America white again.

 

It beggars belief that anyone calling himself a socialist could support Trump's policies.  Why not call yourself an aardvark?  Makes as much sense.

[CaptHaddock]

13 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

 

The greater concern for Clinton is to get people to turn out to vote. The Trump people will show up in 3 feet of snow; the Luke-warm Clinton people will be sipping a latte on their home espresso machine . That will be more the case if they believe she is well ahead.

Something similar happened in the UK in the early 70: Labour well ahead in the polls, dreadful weather on election day, Tories won easily ( a bit similar to Brexit). 

 

 

Your head is firmly in the sand.  The Democrats developed the best ground game in history during Obama's two runs while Romney's system crashed on election day.  Obama's database of all the voters in the country is available to the Hillary campaign who have an staff that vastly outnumbers Trump's who thought he could tweet his way to the White House.  And the effect of the Dem get-out-the-vote drive doesn't show up in the polls, but will on election day.  That's the basis on which I expect the Dems to take the Senate as well as the presidency.

[iReason]

Face it Deplorables.

He Bombed. Big Time.

For millions to see. 

It was glorious.

 

And many of the lunatic Bloviator's real gems were exposed.

 

Here, is one of my favorites:

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by iReason

[tuktuktuk]

Global 

26 minutes ago, iReason said:

Face it Deplorables.

He Bombed. Big Time.

For millions to see. 

It was glorious.

 

And many of the lunatic Bloviator's real gems were exposed.

 

Here, is one of my favorites:

 

I doubt he's right there, but global warming is a scam that makes organic foods and bottled water look like child's play. Try and read through the calculations. In about five minutes you'll be wondering yourself. The last time I looked at it somebody proclaimed 1.5 degrees C in 300 years. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't rank as a priority for me. Why are we willing to commit economic suicide for that? It was hot here today, but I'm not even in Thailand. The Chinese don't seem too worried. 

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, Prbkk said:

 

Yes, but what those people think doesn't count for much at the end of the day. What matters is how it was perceived by the disaffected and by Middle America.

I doubt that a single Trump supporter would have been persuaded to change on the basis of the debate itself let alone the commentary of a few journalists and professors.

Hillary didn't crash and burn: but did she say anything to capture the undecideds?

Being very well-prepared made her look better than expected but people are not going to be swayed by her capacity to trade blows/score points.

What continues to resonate with voters is the simple but effective message of the Trump campaign, in many ways similar to Brexit. 

If Clinton thinks she has it in the bag, she won't be saying so and would be hoping for polls that show a lead but not a landslide: she needs to get people to the polls ( including the notoriously fickle Milleniums, again similar to Brexit and to one UK election in the early 1970s).

Trump is unlikeable but not unelectable

Of course Trump supporters won't be swayed, and neither will Clinton supporters. These debates are much more aimed at the undecided. And only a fool would claim that Trump did himself any favors in that target group. Clinton did not say anything to capture the undecided, but Trump did do many things to send them to her camp.

[iReason]

^^^

@Post 382 tuktuktk

 

You have missed the point.

The lying Bloviator, during the debate, claimed he never said it.

[CaptHaddock]

Of all the writers struggling to come to grips with the vileness of Trump, I think Adam Gopnik of the "The New Yorker" best gets to the disgusting heart of Trump:

 

By 2011, Trump had simply succeeded in making this racist conspiracy theory so prevalent that Obama, who had released his birth certificate three years earlier, concluded that it was more efficient to end it for all time by asking Hawaiian officials for special permission to let him give out the “long form,” archival version than to let it go on. What Obama may not have realized was that in Trump’s world, since he is never wrong, it couldn’t end.

 

Yet Trump continued last night his self-congratulations for compelling the President to do this, along with the grotesquely racist notion that it was “good for him” (i.e., for the President). It slowly dawned on the listener that this was all of a piece with the rest of Trump’s racial attitudes: he believes that, as a rich white man, he had a right to stop and frisk the President of the United States and demand that the uppity black man show him his papers. Stop-and-frisk isn’t just a form of policing for Trump; it’s a whole way of life. The idea that he had a right to force a black man to go through what Obama rightly saw as the demeaning business of producing his birth certificate showed his fundamental contempt for any normal idea of racial equality. It was of a line with his equally bizarre notion that owning a country club that doesn’t actively discriminate against black people is not a minimal requirement of law but a positive achievement of the owner.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-problem-with-trump-isnt-his-debating-skills

[boomerangutang]

 

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 Pol Pot is a better role model than Trump.

By using a mass murdering maniac to denigrate Trump, you cheapen the terror visited on the Cambodian people. I'm sure you know better than that.

       

        I used Pol Pot as a comparison because he is one of the most despicable people ever.  Imagine this:  Trump as president, with his quick-to-anger, easily offended, vindictiveness ....and his finger on the buttons of the most awesome nuclear arsenal known to mankind.  It probably wouldn't happen, but I don't want to take the chance (only 1% chance? that's already too high) of a vindictive buffoon having the power to turn large cities into radioactive hubris.  Trump has said, several times, "Why do we have nuclear weapons, if we're not prepared to use them?"   

 

       If he was a halfway sage person, he would be making efforts to eradicate nukes worldwide.  That's what Gore and other sage people have been trying to do.  For Trump, nukes are like another bargaining chip in his sandbox.

 

      Imagine if Trump put 1/1000th of the amount of calories toward eliminating nukes worldwide - that he puts toward covering his bald head.....

 

Many of the people voting for Trump are doing so because of the entertainment value.  With him in the highest office, there will be faux pas and mistakes every day.  That's what he's good at: headline grabbing - and he likes it.   I've known rednecks who like being the center of attention.  They say and do outrageous things every chance they get.  Plus, Trump is in a world where everything is either Huge or Horrible.  Either love or hate.  I expect more maturity from a bratty 8 year old boy.

Edited September 28, 2016 by boomerangutang

[Pinot]

5 hours ago, stander said:

I’m not sure there is any way to prove that Clinton got the debate questions in advance. Nevertheless, would you be surprised if she did?

 

http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/

 

The Baltimore Gazette, a newspaper that existed very briefly just after the Civil War, has returned online as a site to spread fake news stories and other nonsense. 

 

The Baltimore Gazette, as well as the story are completely bogus.  

 

Wingnuts love to throw up the garbage links to prove their bizarre take on the world. Please try and use SOME discretion. Assume everything you read on right wing media is bullshit. It will make you smarter.  

[Jingthing]

Yep. Conspiracy theory right wing bubble. People living in their own false realities. 

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 Pol Pot is a better role model than Trump.

By using a mass murdering maniac to denigrate Trump, you cheapen the terror visited on the Cambodian people. I'm sure you know better than that.

Agree that a Pol Pot comparison is over the top. Trump may be dangerous, but on a different level than he was.

[Neurath]

5 hours ago, Prbkk said:

 

The greater concern for Clinton is to get people to turn out to vote. The Trump people will show up in 3 feet of snow; the Luke-warm Clinton people will be sipping a latte on their home espresso machine . That will be more the case if they believe she is well ahead.

Something similar happened in the UK in the early 70: Labour well ahead in the polls, dreadful weather on election day, Tories won easily ( a bit similar to Brexit). 

 

Did they have latte and expresso in the UK in the 70's? Didn't even know they had coffee - well, Nestle maybe. How were they able to discriminate the dreadful weather on election day from the dreadful weather on pretty much any other day? The Brits are a very peculiar people. Apparently they still think they have a seat at the big table - but really their chins (what there is of them) barely surface over the table top. Don't get me wrong - some of them, I suppose, are good people. 

[Neurath]

5 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

Oh now there's a cogent case for you.  As a proud socialist you support a racist psychopath like Trump who got rich bribing politicians and exploiting tax loopholes while taking advantage of subcontractors and foreign workers?   And who wants to lower taxes even further on the rich?  HRC's platform is the most progressive since LBJ while Trump wants to make America white again.

 

It beggars belief that anyone calling himself a socialist could support Trump's policies.  Why not call yourself an aardvark?  Makes as much sense.

Easy to understand. He just forgot to put "National" before "Socialist". Simple omission that's all.