Donald Trump

Dick phelan

Sweetemotion wrote: »

People want change.

What point won't I address?

What kind are you looking for? Because Trump will change things but very much for the worse, Your actually considering electing a bloke who's never held political office as president, it's like a fortune 500 company making the new intern CEO

Sweetemotion

Billy86 wrote: »

And it's probably cost him any remaining chance he had. Which in turn is, as you see it anyway (and I'm not saying rightly or wrongly), will make things a lot worse globally. But that's the kind of person the Republicans wanted, because that's exactly who he has been since day one of his campaign for the nomination.

It's just amazing the GOP nominated this guy. Had this come out in the primaries they would possibly have celebrated it as 'Oh, Donald!'. There is so, so much wrong with the psyche of all of American politics, but that party and it's base in particular.

And if the democrats went with Sanders instead of Hilary, they would have won easily.

Why pick Hilary?

SimonTemplar

Dick phelan wrote: »

i am not a fan of Clinton in fact i would say i dislike her but i'm honestly baffled at how anybody can vote for Trump, he's a racist, extremly sexist and frankly creepy man, amazingly thin skinned, ego maniac, he's never held political office in his life, has failed several times in business has literally no plausable plan about anything. It's worrying America is so stupid this lunatic could actually become leader, i don't think he will win but the fact it's still possible at this stage is a terrible indigent of American society.

Well said. He got this far purely on brand recognition which was far stronger than any of his republican rivals, including the damp squib that was Jeb Bush.

Sweetemotion

Dick phelan wrote: »

What kind are you looking for? Because Trump will change things but very much for the worse, Your actually considering electing a bloke who's never held political office as president, it's like a fortune 500 company making the new intern CEO

Stop funding ISIS for a start.

Billy86

Sweetemotion wrote: »

And if the democrats went with Sanders instead of Hilary, they would have won easily.

Why pick Hilary?

Not sure if you get it - they've won easily with Clinton too. This election is a race to the bottom and the Republicans have won that race in extraordinary fashion, despite the Democrats best efforts.

Sweetemotion

Billy86 wrote: »

Not sure if you get it - they've won easily with Clinton too. This election is a race to the bottom and the Republicans have won that race in extraordinary fashion, despite the Democrats best efforts.

Maybe they have but nobody knows till the result.

You can call people racists and bigots in public and they will deny it.

All that matters is what they think in the privacy of that ballot box.

Billy86

Parachutes wrote: »

I did say the negative coverage of Trump is mostly fair. The political spin in the subtext of most articles about Trump is fairly obvious and certain outlets (The Atlantic, New York Times) have come out and endorsed Clinton. They're bias is fairly blatant.

Even if you take the first debate for example, Lester Holt asked Trump 15 individual questions and demanded follow ups, whereas he asked Clinton a grand total of two.

I'm not defending Trump, but to say there is no double standard or coverage gap when compared to Clinton is just wrong.

The NYT have endorsed a candidate in every single election since Lincoln was around. The Atlantic have done so because of how utterly useless and feckless Trump is, something that shows itself day after day after day. If the media was as biased as some like to believe, we'd be hearing ALL about Trump's multiple upcoming trials for defrauding the American public of millions... but we haven't. We've heard a hell of a lot about Clinton's emails though, strange if they were so biased against him?

They have been reporting him the same since the primaries, where it worked wonders for him because the GOP base are very different to the general electorate as a whole. Ever since, that exact same coverage when played to a wider audience has fallen flat on it's face in terms of his numbers.

Clinton answered the questions, so Holt didn't need to ask her again. Trump refused to do so because he was not prepared, and that's been killing him in the polls ever since. That is how debates work - in fact, what he should have been doing was allowing the candidates to talk, rather than allowing Trump interrupt Clinton 51 times in 90 minutes.

He's done this to himself, basically. The exact same thing that won him the nomination is the exact same thing that has cost him any chance of presidency, barring an utter miracle at this point. The GOP primaries are a race to see who can get furthest to the right, which makes it too hard to get back to the middle afterwards - and Trump has not really even attempted to do so.

Billy86

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Maybe they have but nobody knows till the result.

You can call people racists and bigots in public and they will deny it.

All that matters is what they think in the privacy of that ballot box.

And as the polls show, it's extraordinarily unlikely to the point of being almost unrealistic that they will go in Trump's favour. Those same polls had Trump easily winning the GOP nomination by the way, just to pre-empt that response - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2016_presidential_primaries#Polls_conducted_in_2016

Only a few weeks ago people were talking about Virginia as a key state. Clinton's lead there is now bigger than Trump's is in Texas. The maths is looking borderline impossible for him at this point, barring an absolute miracle - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

If he is still around on Sunday night, I expect him to eat his own head to an extent that will make his first shambles of a debate look presidential by comparison.

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

And as the polls show, it's extraordinarily unlikely to the point of being almost unrealistic that they will go in Trump's favour. Those same polls had Trump easily winning the GOP nomination by the way, just to pre-empt that response - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2016_presidential_primaries#Polls_conducted_in_2016

Only a few weeks ago people were talking about Virginia as a key state. Clinton's lead there is now bigger than Trump's is in Texas. The maths is looking borderline impossible for him at this point, barring an absolute miracle - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

If he is still around on Sunday night, I expect him to eat his own head to an extent that will make his first shambles of a debate look presidential by comparison.

I can't see him dropping out. I agree his odds are dropping quickly though.

Sweetemotion

Billy86 wrote: »

And as the polls show, it's extraordinarily unlikely to the point of being almost unrealistic that they will go in Trump's favour. Those same polls had Trump easily winning the GOP nomination by the way, just to pre-empt that response - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2016_presidential_primaries#Polls_conducted_in_2016

Only a few weeks ago people were talking about Virginia as a key state. Clinton's lead there is now bigger than Trump's is in Texas. The maths is looking borderline impossible for him at this point, barring an absolute miracle - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

If he is still around on Sunday night, I expect him to eat his own head to an extent that will make his first shambles of a debate look presidential by comparison.

Be honest. Have you no doubt that Clinton will win?

Billy86

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Be honest. Have you no doubt that Clinton will win?

I'd give Trump somewhere between a 2-5% chance at this point - it would take a miracle. I have a feeling that by Monday morning, it will be less than 1%.

Sweetemotion

Billy86 wrote: »

I'd give Trump somewhere between a 2-5% chance at this point - it would take a miracle. I have a feeling that by Monday morning, it will be less than 1%.

I want to thank you for your replies, they are informative.

Monday will be interesting.

Rjd2

Billy86 wrote: »

I'd give Trump somewhere between a 2-5% chance at this point - it would take a miracle. I have a feeling that by Monday morning, it will be less than 1%.

That would mean he would be close to 100/1 with the bookies, no chance whatsoever, and even the most ardent Trump hater would be straight onto Paddy Powers if they seen that price.

Realistically he has about 20% of winning which is what the odds will reflect, he will probably bomb the Sunday Night debate as only he can, but he will still pull on a reasonable amount of voters, whether its devoted or the never Hilary republicans who will consider him the lesser of 2 evils.

Paul Krugman a Hilary supporter for the NYT was adamant that he expects 90% of the Republican base to vote for Trump, he isn't happy about it obviously, but its a reminder that Trump still has a squeak.

Ideally he somehow needs to survive the 2nd debate, and pray for gold in the wikileaks.

Parachutes

Billy86 wrote: »

The NYT have endorsed a candidate in every single election since Lincoln was around. The Atlantic have done so because of how utterly useless and feckless Trump is, something that shows itself day after day after day. If the media was as biased as some like to believe, we'd be hearing ALL about Trump's multiple upcoming trials for defrauding the American public of millions... but we haven't. We've heard a hell of a lot about Clinton's emails though, strange if they were so biased against him?

They have been reporting him the same since the primaries, where it worked wonders for him because the GOP base are very different to the general electorate as a whole. Ever since, that exact same coverage when played to a wider audience has fallen flat on it's face in terms of his numbers.

Clinton answered the questions, so Holt didn't need to ask her again. Trump refused to do so because he was not prepared, and that's been killing him in the polls ever since. That is how debates work - in fact, what he should have been doing was allowing the candidates to talk, rather than allowing Trump interrupt Clinton 51 times in 90 minutes.

He's done this to himself, basically. The exact same thing that won him the nomination is the exact same thing that has cost him any chance of presidency, barring an utter miracle at this point. The GOP primaries are a race to see who can get furthest to the right, which makes it too hard to get back to the middle afterwards - and Trump has not really even attempted to do so.

What trials? If you're referring to Trumps tax breaks what he did was completely legal. The same loopholes were used by Hillary and Bubba Bill too. Many famous individuals like Warren Buffett, Oprah and Bill Gates have used them also. You may not agree with billionaires paying zero federal income tax but Trump didn't put the system in place, as a business person you'd have to be completely mad not to take advantage of laws that would save you millions upon millions of dollars over a span of years, not to mention he has paid millions in other taxes such as sales tax, corporation tax, property tax. The fact is the tax system in America is inefficient and needlessly complicated. Under Trump's policy it would be amazingly simplified (details can be found on his website) Hillary would not change a thing.

And we haven't heard nearly enough about Clinton's emails, let's be honest. She's colluded with the Obama administration to protect herself from prosecution, taken donations from foreign countries with interests counter to the U.S, Put American soldiers lives in jeopardy. The many scandals of the Clintons are glossed over or excused by the media, whatever you think about Trump this can't be denied. Trump's comments about (Insert Gaffe here) have gotten more coverage than Clinton's emails.

She actively worked with the media to put out negative coverage about Sanders http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/clinton-email-leak-hillary-campaign-worked-with-bloomberg-reporter-on-anti-sanders-story/ If you don't think that she is doing the same to Trump you either don't have an opinion based in reality or are incredibly naive.

This isn't me defending Trump, it's simply a fact that the media coverage between the two has not been consistent.

Billy86

Rjd2 wrote: »

That would mean he would be close to 100/1 with the bookies, no chance whatsoever, and even the most ardent Trump hater would be straight onto Paddy Powers if they seen that price.

Realistically he has about 20% of winning which is what the odds will reflect, he will probably bomb the Sunday Night debate as only he can, but he will still pull on a reasonable amount of voters, whether its devoted or the never Hilary republicans who will consider him the lesser of 2 evils.

Paul Krugman a Hilary supporter for the NYT was adamant that he expects 90% of the Republican base to vote for Trump, he isn't happy about it obviously, but its a reminder that Trump still has a squeak.

Ideally he somehow needs to survive the 2nd debate, and pray for gold in the wikileaks.

Bookies are not a good sign of probability at all though. 538 had him on 15% earlier today I believe, and this video is going to drop him a good bit more again. And we all know he's not going to react well. Then there are the debates, which caused this YUGE shift last time around, with him melting down for over an hour in front of the whole country and repeatedly being caught out lying.

And then a brief mention of Alicia Machado cost him to implode for days on end. This video is going to come up, and it's going to come up a lot during the second debate. And Anderson Cooper is not going to be as wishy-washy as Lester Holt, which does not bode well for Trump. It bodes absolutely terribly, in fact.

As for the Republican base, there simply are not enough there to win an election. He's won them over at the cost of alienating pretty much everyone else. That's the GOPs major issue - their primaries have become an exercise in celebrating the biggest lunatic in the room (Ted Cruz came second for crying out loud!) and then trying to seem normal when it comes to the general. Problem is, Trump has forgotten the second part and has only become more and more maniacal, particularly in the last few weeks.

He'll need diamond encrusted gold in those wikileaks emails at this point, but the issue there is -whether right or wrong- they seem to be becoming diminishing returns as Assange looks eager for attention more than anything else. Whatever is in there would have to be absolutely gigantic, to be mild about it.

Billy86

Parachutes wrote: »

What trials? If you're referring to Trumps tax breaks what he did was completely legal. The same loopholes were used by Hillary and Bubba Bill too. Many famous individuals like Warren Buffett, Oprah and Bill Gates have used them also. You may not agree with billionaires paying zero federal income tax but Trump didn't put the system in place, as a business person you'd have to be completely mad not to take advantage of laws that would save you millions upon millions of dollars over a span of years, not to mention he has paid millions in other taxes such as sales tax, corporation tax, property tax. The fact is the tax system in America is inefficient and needlessly complicated. Under Trump's policy it would be amazingly simplified (details can be found on his website) Hillary would not change a thing.

And we haven't heard nearly enough about Clinton's emails, let's be honest. She's colluded with the Obama administration to protect herself from prosecution, taken donations from foreign countries with interests counter to the U.S, Put American soldiers lives in jeopardy. The many scandals of the Clintons are glossed over or excused by the media, whatever you think about Trump this can't be denied. Trump's comments about (Insert Gaffe here) have gotten more coverage than Clinton's emails.

She actively worked with the media to put out negative coverage about Sanders http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/clinton-email-leak-hillary-campaign-worked-with-bloomberg-reporter-on-anti-sanders-story/ If you don't think that she is doing the same to Trump you either don't have an opinion based in reality or are incredibly naive.

This isn't me defending Trump, it's simply a fact that the media coverage between the two has not been consistent.

Thank you for proving my point. I wasn't referring to his tax dodging at all. I was referring to this...

Trump University Fraud Suit to Go to Trial, Judge Rules
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-university-fraud-suit-to-go-to-trial-judge-rules-1461707442

Barely mentioned in the media at all. In fact, one of the only times it got traction was when he started berating the 'Mexican' judge over it being biased against him -- the same 'Mexican' judge who is actually American.

You didn't even know about them. Because the media have barely said a peep about them.

InTheTrees

Parachutes wrote: »

She actively worked with the media to put out negative coverage about Sanders . If you don't think that she is doing the same to Trump you either don't have an opinion based in reality or are incredibly naive.

Each campaign has an office full of people specifically researching negative stories about their opponent.

The negative ads are on TV all the time.

InTheTrees

Parachutes wrote: »

If you're referring to Trumps tax breaks what he did was completely legal.

I think it was his losing Nine Hundred Million dollars in one year that was most shocking.

Parachutes

InTheTrees wrote: »

Each campaign has an office full of people specifically researching negative stories about their opponent.

The negative ads are on TV all the time.

Big difference in doing negative ads (which is still questionable on ethical grounds) and researching an opponent than giving journalists false stories to run on them and planting 'operatives' as volunteers in the opposite campaign.

Besides, Trump has done a minute fraction of attack ads in comparison to Clinton. Trump will put a 20 second clip on his facebook whereas Clinton is spending 10's of millions in television ads against Trump. In regards researching, I doubt Trump's (very small) campaign has the resources to do it. Trump seems to rely on The Drudge Report and Infowars for all his Clinton fodder.

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think it was his losing Nine Hundred Million dollars in one year that was most shocking.

Well he's been working hard to make that back by defrauding the American public of millions of dollars via Trump University, which is set to go to trial only a few weeks after the election takes place. You'd think a 'super biased in Clintons pocket' media would be all over that, no?

I haven't seen a whole lot of coverage on him and his family constantly dipping their fingers into the cookie jar when it comes to charities with his name on it either.

What I have seen on the other hand, is a lot of the media simply repeating what Trump says.

Parachutes

Billy86 wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point. I wasn't referring to his tax dodging at all. I was referring to this...

Trump University Fraud Suit to Go to Trial, Judge Rules
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-university-fraud-suit-to-go-to-trial-judge-rules-1461707442

Barely mentioned in the media at all. In fact, one of the only times it got traction was when he started berating the 'Mexican' judge over it being biased against him -- the same 'Mexican' judge who is actually American.

You didn't even know about them. Because the media have barely said a peep about them.

Well I do know about Trump University, everyone does because CNN talked about it for a year straight. And fair enough, he should go to trial over that, what he did was completely wrong. I don't support Trump, my original point is about the lack of consistency in regards reporting on both candidates.

Billy86

Parachutes wrote: »

Well I do know about Trump University, everyone does because CNN talked about it for a year straight. And fair enough, he should go to trial over that, what he did was completely wrong. I don't support Trump, my original point is about the lack of consistency in regards reporting on both candidates.

Except for the part where they didn't, not compared to for example the email scandal. The only time it got much traction was when he started giving out about the 'Mexican' judge who wasn't even Mexican at all. Compare that to the coverage of Clinton's emails. There is no conspiracy, just "dumb guy says dumb sh*t = ratings = $$$."

The guy is on camera bragging about sexual assault, and you're on here claiming it's media bias that they show what he says.

fishfoodie

Bazzo wrote: »

The million dollar question.

Its really not that complicated.

The GOP has been taken over by the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is a bunch of utter wingbats, who are determined to push the party slighty right of Attila the Hun, & who are determined that any GOP candidate will be ideologically acceptable to them.

So; the GOP ends up with individuals like Cruz, Palin, & Bachmann dominating the internal party discussions, when the should be looking at candidates that are actually electable.

Trump just recognized that it would be a lot easier for him to win the GOP race for the nomination, rather than the Democratic one, & he build a legend, that he's always been a Republican, & a Conservative.

Until the GOP is freed of the loons in the TP, they're shagged, & America effectively becomes a one-party system in Presidential terms.

Dyr

fishfoodie wrote: »

Its really not that complicated.

The GOP has been taken over by the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is a bunch of utter wingbats, who are determined to push the party slighty right of Attila the Hun, & who are determined that any GOP candidate will be ideologically acceptable to them.

So; the GOP ends up with individuals like Cruz, Palin, & Bachmann dominating the internal party discussions, when the should be looking at candidates that are actually electable.

Trump just recognized that it would be a lot easier for him to win the GOP race for the nomination, rather than the Democratic one, & he build a legend, that he's always been a Republican, & a Conservative.

Until the GOP is freed of the loons in the TP, they're shagged, & America effectively becomes a one-party system in Presidential terms.

Has as much with americas new media foisting loony right wingers on the country because its good tv, the tea party head bangers were the result of Fox going full retard

Billy86

fishfoodie wrote: »

Its really not that complicated.

The GOP has been taken over by the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is a bunch of utter wingbats, who are determined to push the party slighty right of Attila the Hun, & who are determined that any GOP candidate will be ideologically acceptable to them.

So; the GOP ends up with individuals like Cruz, Palin, & Bachmann dominating the internal party discussions, when the should be looking at candidates that are actually electable.

Trump just recognized that it would be a lot easier for him to win the GOP race for the nomination, rather than the Democratic one, & he build a legend, that he's always been a Republican, & a Conservative.

Until the GOP is freed of the loons in the TP, they're shagged, & America effectively becomes a one-party system in Presidential terms.

This pretty much nails it on the head, and it's amazing how they just don't see their unbelievably obvious folly. Rather than learn from their error, each cycle just sees them double and treble down on it next time around. It's pretty amazing to watch in it's own way.

Kasich would have had this election wrapped up in August.

Parachutes

Billy86 wrote: »

Except for the part where they didn't. The only time it got much traction was when he started giving out about the 'Mexican' judge who wasn't even Mexican at all. Compare that to the coverage of Clinton's emails. There is no conspiracy, just "dumb guy says dumb sh*t = ratings = $$$."

The guy is on camera bragging about sexual assault, and you're on here claiming it's media bias that they show what he says.

If you type "Trump University" into google you get about 30 million results, if you type "Benghazi" you get about 20 million results. The story where some guy set up a dodgy school and some people felt ripped off (Clinton charges far more in speaking fees, believe me) vs a public officials incompetence and subsequent cover up of the deaths of American servicemen gets less coverage? Not to mention Benghazi was 3 years ago whereas the Trump University story only originated about a year ago.

I'm not claiming this audio shouldn't be covered, what I find odd is it gets leaked on the same day more Clinton emails come out and that's hardly being covered at all. Also, Trump has a sex drive? Big shocker. If you are a man you have talked like this in the past and if you claim you haven't you are a liar. This will get a lot of spin in the media and no doubt the Clinton campaign will get some great mileage out of it. The fact is that Trump's not your typical conservative evangelical republican candidate (a completely failing ideology) He's completely revolutionized a dying republican party and I believe this will be his lasting legacy if he doesn't win (which I'm sure he wont)

brooke 2

Christy42 wrote: »

Even if Trump himself did a complete 180 degrees and supported complete open immigration. No walls. No random bluster and insulting people. I still think he would retain his current base. Nothing will shake them. They want to vote for Trump the details after that seem unimportant.

Trump's basket of deplorables will vote for him, no matter what. That is why they are deplorable. :rolleyes:

InTheTrees

Parachutes wrote: »

I'm not claiming this audio shouldn't be covered, what I find odd is it gets leaked on the same day more Clinton emails come out and that's hardly being covered at all.

I'm sure the democrats released the story to maximize damage before the debate on sunday.

If trump can be goaded into a twitter rampage while he should be preparing then thats a bonus too.

Genius.

Trent Houseboat

One has to wonder how Roger Ailes' debate prep is going.

fishfoodie

Bambi wrote: »

Has as much with americas new media foisting loony right wingers on the country because its good tv, the tea party head bangers were the result of Fox going full retard

Rupert Murdock isn't pushing this because he's looking for ratings; he's doing it because he actually wants these people in Government ... scary eh ?

Just look at the previous candidates he's supported in the UK, US, & Oz to see the particular ideal candidate he has in mind for the rest of us. He makes DOB look positively benign. :eek: