Trump sticks to attacks, insults, hoping to overtake Clinton

[dunroaming]

I think that many of the posters here are not really that far apart.  Most would agree that HRC is a terrible choice for POTUS and most would also acknowledge that Trump is also a disaster.

 

Our difference is who would do the most damage if elected.  The vitriol for one must have a balance with the capabilities of the other.  If the main reason for people voting for Trump is because they are tired with the establishment lying and failing to deliver then ask yourselves this.  Will Donald deliver the kind of America I want to live in?

[boomerangutang]

       One of the big ironies underlying all the email frenzy is:  Republicans don't really give a gnat's ass about whether some emails may have been seen by the Russkies or Chinese or Iranians.   For starters, Trump openly asked the Russies to look at an American's emails.  That alone should prove it's not really an important issue.  Every day, the Chinese alone hack into more important stuff than the worst HRC is accused of revealing, if she revealed anything at all.  Comey and the FBI don't know. So we certainly don't know.  

 

         Once in awhile, it's revealed that someone in the Federal gov't or military has intentionally played loose with confidential data (they're called spies).  That person is charged, goes to trial and punished if found guilty.  What do Trump fans and Congressional Republicans do or say about it?   Nothing, or at most, some politician makes a brief comment. They don't care.  

 

          HRC has not intentionally done anything remotely in the spy category.  Regarding her lapse of judgement (using a private server); she has apologized repeatedly, and there is zero indication that any of her emails gave useful data to America's enemies.  Zero.  100% of the hot air devoted to this topic is mean-spirited speculation by desperate Trump fans who can't find anything worse on HRC.  They tried with repeated investigations of Benghazi, and found nothing incriminating (despite spending tens of millions of dollars and untold amounts of wasted time).   Same with the email dead-end.  Both issues wouldn't be worth a fart if Republicans weren't so OCD fanatic to try and get mud to stick to HRC.  

 

        When compared to the more dire issues surrounding Trump, it's clear which is worse.  If a majority of Americans vote Trump into office, they deserve all the damage he will bring to the country.  Even more so than Brexit, a majority vote for Trump can't be undone by having a re-vote.   Thank Bob HRC will win, but it's still spooky to see how close the US came to the edge of the cliff of a disastrous Trump presidency.

[boomerangutang]

16 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Trump has lived a good life with the money he's made. Warren Buffett likes diet coke…trump likes to live it up….so what?   People don't care because he doesn't hide his human-ness or imperfections like Crooked Hillary. They have had a gutfull of the clintons for 30 years…time to say goodbye.

 

So, one of the big reasons you like Trump is his so-called 'human-ness'  Well, thanks for sharing.  At least now we have a better idea of why you dislike HRC so much.  As you might have guessed, I don't agree with you.  I think HRC is rather genuine.   But more important, to me, is her record of implementing policies which have tangibly helped women and children improve their lives.  She's been doing such things since before she was out of college.  She knows how to get things done, and her heart is pretty much in the right place.  She's also knowledgeable on a raft of issues which Trump doesn't know diddly-squat about.

[Publicus]

 

HRC is going to be a very good Potus.

 

First and foremost, Hillary Clinton is conscientious. She's the girl in the class nobody liked but voted her class president cause she wasn't perfect.

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, Anthony5 said:

 

Did you notice that end of October has passed, and there are since new headlines in the press?

 

Opinion poll gives Trump a one point lead

 

This poll has its own unique history....

 

 

ABC News: “Although the election is close at this point, vote preference results a week out are not necessarily predictive of the final result. Mitt Romney was +1 vs. Barack Obama in comparable tracking poll results in 2012, for example, and John Kerry was +1 vs. George Bush a week out in 2004.”

 

 

 

Meanwhile, the HuffPost Pollster average shows Clinton leading Trump by six points, 48% to 42%.

 

 

Many among us know what is realistic in this election campaign. Others have a different reality.

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

This poll has its own unique history....

 

 

Just ignore any poll that does not say what you want it to say and find one that does. Exceptional spin job.

[Publicus]

 

29 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Just ignore any poll that does not say what you want it to say and find one that does. Exceptional spin job.

 

It's the same poll youse cite as presently having Trump one point ahead.

 

Same poll had Romney ahead by one point one week before he lost in 2012.

 

Same poll had Kerry one point ahead one week before he lost in 2004.

 

Your post omits the chart I posted. Your post is badly slanted and woefully incomplete.

 

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

 

It's the same poll youse cite as presently having Trump one point ahead.

 

 

 

I did not cite any poll. Please pay attention.

It is not 2004 or 2012. The democratic candidate was not under investigation by the FBI and Wikileaks was not airing all their dirty laundry right before voting day. This is a far different election.

[Ulysses G.]

8 hours ago, dunroaming said:

I think that many of the posters here are not really that far apart.  Most would agree that HRC is a terrible choice for POTUS and most would also acknowledge that Trump is also a disaster.

 

Our difference is who would do the most damage if elected.  The vitriol for one must have a balance with the capabilities of the other.  If the main reason for people voting for Trump is because they are tired with the establishment lying and failing to deliver then ask yourselves this.  Will Donald deliver the kind of America I want to live in?

 

 

I agree with much of what you have to say. However, there are other reasons to vote for Trump. Supreme Court picks will keep the court from going far to the left and most people do not want a criminal who has violated national security numerous times in the Oval Office.

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

I did not cite any poll. Please pay attention.

It is not 2004 or 2012. The democratic candidate was not under investigation by the FBI and Wikileaks was not airing all their dirty laundry right before voting day. This is a far different election.

 

Tell us something we don't already know.

 

Even you know Trump is behind the 8-ball in this one. Trump is running behind Romney's pace and Romney lost -- decisively.

[Publicus]

 

Romney didn't have a campaign headquarters in the Kremlin either, as Trump does.

 

Not to mention Putin's propaganda arm, Wikileaks. Speaking of which, Assange will continue to live his life in a closet in London.

[Ulysses G.]

Obama was not under investigation by the FBI with all his secrets being published by Wikileaks. It will be harder or the dishonest MSM and democratic party to pull one over on voters this time.

[lannarebirth]

32 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Romney didn't have a campaign headquarters in the Kremlin either, as Trump does.

 

Not to mention Putin's propaganda arm, Wikileaks. Speaking of which, Assange will continue to live his life in a closet in London.

 

Ya know, you and others like to claim and insert innuendo that Trump has ties to Putin. Presumably for money, as we all know he doesn't have any personal ideology beyond making money. The thing is, of he were elected, and he was for sale, there's a lot more money to be made here in the US and he'd take it from the Dems just as quick as the Reps. So I think that whole "Russian" argument is likely bullshit.

[Publicus]

38 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Obama was not under investigation by the FBI with all his secrets being published by Wikileaks. It will be harder or the dishonest MSM and democratic party to pull one over on voters this time.

 

Curious what Trump will do with that rat-bastud MSM once he gets into the Trump White House.

 

Youse guyz on the whinging right have been bitching about the MSM every day and every hour of every day for 40 years so you've got a lot pent up, with a long list of scores to settle.

 

Trump and His Purifiers. 

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, Anthony5 said:

Yes, may be Vlad will also get a birthday party in Washington, because after Trump's election Russia and the US will be friends instead of arch rivals.  It's one of Trump's election promises.

 

It's one thing for the US to have friendly relations with Russia, it's completely different to be too close.    Actually, if you listen to another presidential contender; Jill Stein advocates friendly relations with Russia with a non-sword-jangling overview.   In contrast, HRC takes a tougher stance more akin with; mutual respect by constant wariness.   In further contrast, Trump says things a 5 year old would say, "Putin says nice things about me, so I'll say nice things about him."  or "Russia won't go into Ukraine, you can take that to the bank" (at the time Russia had already annexed a portion of Ukraine)  or "Putin and I are friends" (T has never met Putin) or "I know nothing about Russia" ....while Trump was allegedly having clandestine correspondence with one of Putin's buddies via Alpha Bank based in Moscow.   Several other times recently, Trump has said Putin has been a lot better leader than Obama.  

 

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

I agree with much of what you have to say. However, there are other reasons to vote for Trump. Supreme Court picks will keep the court from going far to the left and most people do not want a criminal who has violated national security numerous times in the Oval Office.

 

           Americans, as a whole, are moving to the left and are generally more liberal in their ideas and tolerance.  The Supreme Court should reflect that.  The Justices are not in their positions to uphold their individual biases, but instead to represent Americans' best interests.  That's why it's such a relief that two of the three ultra-right-wingers are off the bench, and there's only Thomas to give archaic opinions that would make Stennis, Wallace, Trump and David Duke smile.   Note, Thomas doesn't speak up or ask questions during Supreme Court testimonies.  He's already made up his mind beforehand, so why ask questions of attorneys representing plaintiffs or defendants in an open forum?   Americans want less stuck-in-the-mud justices - that's why it will be much better for HRC and her staff to recommend open-minded Justices.

[Ulysses G.]

18 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Ya know, you and others like to claim and insert innuendo that Trump has ties to Putin. Presumably for money, as we all know he doesn't have any personal ideology beyond making money. The thing is, of he were elected, and he was for sale, there's a lot more money to be made here in the US and he'd take it from the Dems just as quick as the Reps. So I think that whole "Russian" argument is likely bullshit.

 

Good point. 

[Boon Mee]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Good point. 

If anyone has close ties to Moscow it's Crooked Hillary and her bunch - stockpiles of US uranium sold to them etc., etc.

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

If anyone has close ties to Moscow it's Crooked Hillary and her bunch - stockpiles of US uranium sold to them etc., etc.

 

With the approval of nine other government agencies:

 

Quote

 

Trump is also wrong that Clinton alone allowed the transfer.

 

The Kremlin’s 2010 purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.  That included Clinton as secretary of state, but also the secretaries of the Treasury (the chairman of the committee), Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security as well as the the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The deal also had to be okayed by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator.

 

 

But don't let facts get in the way of a good smear.

 

 

[SgtRock]

In light of my post on page 2 regarding the UK Press reporting on Trump taking a lead in the polls.

 

I will throw this one in here.

 

Quote

Almost All Last-Minute Bets Are for Trump, Paddy Power Says

 

Quote

Thoughts of Brexit may be the reason 91% of gamblers are putting their money on the Republican nominee.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-02/91-percent-of-last-minute-bets-are-for-trump-paddy-power-says

 

91% of bets going on Trump winning. That is massive.

[boomerangutang]

You gotta laugh along. . . . . . 

 

 

[Publicus]

11 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

In light of my post on page 2 regarding the UK Press reporting on Trump taking a lead in the polls.

 

I will throw this one in here.

 

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-02/91-percent-of-last-minute-bets-are-for-trump-paddy-power-says

 

91% of bets going on Trump winning. That is massive.

 

This poster rarely cites odds-making after the national convention of each major party. Tracking the odds during the primaries and caucuses of each party has value. After each convention, there's some value in it, but it's of only a slight value.

 

The reason is that once one chosen nominee establishes him/her self as the leader, the oddsmakers always begin to tilt the betting to try to direct the money toward the nominee that is running behind. Outside the USA, it's all about the green of the USA.

 

The odds in the post reflect the fact.

 

Reality is that in Las Vegas the 71 year old definitive oddsmaker Jimmy Vaccaro -- who said last week he voted for Trump in the early Nevada voting -- has HRC as the -400 favorite and Trump as the +350 trailer. This puts Trump trailing badly by American odds numbers and figuring.

 

In American odds, minus is the leader, plus is the trailer.

 

So in placing odds on HRC, one has to put down $400 to win $100. For Trump, one simply puts down $100 to hit the bonanza of $350. The upshot is besides that for Trump to come even of HRC, there has to be a change of a total of 750 basis points. That's 7.5% of the vote in the election shifting to Trump.

 

Rotsa ruck with that. Youse guyz should really really consider holding onto your wallets in this one. Youse also have to figure out what to do with the Republican Party after November 8th.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, SgtRock said:

 

91% of bets going on Trump winning. That is massive.

 

It's not "massive", whatever that even means.

 

Clinton is still favored to win, so bets for Clinton offer a much smaller return.  Trump is the longshot, and thus is a more risky bet but with a higher return if he does win.  Put simply, folks are gambling on the longshot.

 

I'm not a gambler but that is my take on it.