Donald Trump

PopePalpatine

A Little Pony wrote: »

Lincoln had to be convinced to go with the 13th Amendment, the opposite to what the movie tells you. Lincoln invaded another country and locked up dissenters.

M'states' rights! Won't anyone do something for m'right to own slaves?!

InTheTrees

Penn wrote: »

Trump is very equatable to Brexit. Where even those who vote for him might wake up the next morning if he wins thinking "Dear Lord... what have we done..."

The big difference of course is that brexit was a concept that couldnt speak for itself. Donald Trump is out there with his foot in his mouth every day reminding us why he's such an idiot.

Brit voters may have been confused about what brexit meant, but US voters can look at trump and see exactly what they're getting.

A Little Pony

wes wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Lincoln had to be convinced to go with the 13th Amendment, the opposite to what the movie tells you. Lincoln invaded another country and locked up dissenters.

Invade another country? The CSA were secessionists, and it was a civil war. Lincoln whether you like it or not freed the slaves, and the CSA terrorist state was pro-slavery (a lot like ISIS if you think about it) and was rightly crushed. They lost, and yes some of them were locked up for there crimes. You use the term dissenters, I think violent terrorists would be a far more accurate term.

Obviously complete nonsense. Lincoln actually wanted to deport free slaves to new colonies. No one is disputing slavery, just that Lincoln was not 'Honest Abe'.

everlast75

the sad thing is that the blue collar workers believe that Trump is different to all other politicians, and that he will look after them... when he has spent his entire life stiffing them (*cough) every chance he gets.

Here's an interesting piece on the alleged wikileaks documents...

http://europe.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635?rm=eu

If the Democrats had had a fair primary, America wouldn't be in this situation.. Trump would have never stood a chance against Sanders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

He has come out and said she was a nuisance so he was trying to placate her.. Sure.

K-9

InTheTrees wrote: »

The big difference of course is that brexit was a concept that couldnt speak for itself. Donald Trump is out there with his foot in his mouth every day reminding us why he's such an idiot.

Brit voters may have been confused about what brexit meant, but US voters can look at trump and see exactly what they're getting.

That is this election summed up in one. It's alway 1 step forwards, 2 steps back with Trump. Every time he closes to 2 or 3% in the polls, he does a Donald and he's back to 5 or 6.

So, yes, in a normal election he'd still have a chance but this isn't your usual election, because Donald.

He'll need to get a bounce from the last debate, win the next one and hope something in Wikileaks sticks.

But, it's Trump, he'll fcuk up 2 or 3 times to throw it all away.

Plus the GOP is basically withdrawing support at state level. He's a gonner.

wes

A Little Pony wrote: »

Obviously complete nonsense.

To you and only you.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Lincoln actually wanted to deport free slaves to new colonies.

Yes, I know about Liberia, but the fact remains that he did free the slaves. Earlier abandoned plans are certainly interesting parts of history, but the fact remains was that it didn't happen.

A Little Pony wrote: »

No one is disputing slavery, just that Lincoln was not 'Honest Abe'.

You called him a despot, and complained about him invading another country, presumably the CSA given the context, who were pro-slavery.

Butters1979

Penn wrote: »

Just because they've put a timeframe on it (possibly) happening, still doesn't make it a good thing. The pound is crashing, they're not going to get anywhere near as good a deal as they want, and they're being made a laughing stock due to how they've handled it so far.

Trump is very equatable to Brexit. Where even those who vote for him might wake up the next morning if he wins thinking "Dear Lord... what have we done..."

While I agree Brexit is going to be economically bad for the UK, especially in the short to medium term, (there is an argument it could be good in the long term but I'm not sure) the issue was more of an immigration question.

There are plenty of Brexiter's who believed a negative economic impact was an acceptable price to pay for control of their borders. Also, those affected economically will not be spread evenly across the population, and plenty will not feel any affect at all.

The argument that Britain's economy will suffer and they will regret how they voted missed the point of why they voted in the first place.

Penn

Butters1979 wrote: »

While I agree Brexit is going to be economically bad for the UK, especially in the short to medium term, (there is an argument it could be good in the long term but I'm not sure) the issue was more of an immigration question.

There are plenty of Brexiter's who believed a negative economic impact was an acceptable price to pay for control of their borders. Also, those affected economically will not be spread evenly across the population, and plenty will not feel any affect at all.

The argument that Britain's economy will suffer and they will regret how they voted missed the point of why they voted in the first place.

Agreed, however, I'd say that to retain access to the single market, the EU will force them to accept free movement as it currently stands. Which means the country will likely be worse off and immigration won't even be solved.

That's why I'm still doubtful the triggering of Article 50 will happen. Britain simply won't get the deal they want.

Even if Trump were ahead in the polls, the lack of support from other leading Repubicans has to have an impact. He is almost pitted against both parties now. Maybe that will be worth something in the sympathy stakes, but think he needs something huge to happen Clinton. Not sure he can rely on continuous rumblings from wikileaks, so far they haven't brought up the headline grabber.

Butters1979

Penn wrote: »

Agreed, however, I'd say that to retain access to the single market, the EU will force them to accept free movement as it currently stands. Which means the country will likely be worse off and immigration won't even be solved.

That's why I'm still doubtful the triggering of Article 50 will happen. Britain simply won't get the deal they want.

Yes i know what you mean. The issue is that Brexit was about immigration control, if Britain do a deal with the EU that allows access to free market, in exchange for open borders, then what exactly have they changed?

There would be huge backlash and it would be seen as government ignoring a democratic process. It would be legally challenged. Theresa May is in a very tough spot right now.


As for the Trump polls, national polls don't matter. Although 40% of Americans saying they would vote for him is a concern. It's not even about most states, Texas is going Trump, New York is going Clinton etc.

It's about the polls in the swing states. Assuming Trump wins the swing states he's polling ahead of he also needs to win Florida, North Carolina and Ohio and Clinton is ahead all of them. Trump is very unlikely to win this election.

Edit: Did the math, he'd also need Wisconsin

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if Trump were ahead in the polls, the lack of support from other leading Repubicans has to have an impact. He is almost pitted against both parties now. Maybe that will be worth something in the sympathy stakes, but think he needs something huge to happen Clinton. Not sure he can rely on continuous rumblings from wikileaks, so far they haven't brought up the headline grabber.

This is it. There's be an awful lot of stuff but nothing bite-sized and devastating like what always comes up for Trump. Explaining the wikileaks stuff is impossible on CNN but talking about what Trump "said" about veterans is easy. It's also easy to run stories about Russia causing the leaks instead of talking about the leaks.

But separate to Wikileaks, there's another guy who says he has a video of her making "disparaging remarks" about black people and he's going to release it next week. Will be interesting if true.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

This is it. There's be an awful lot of stuff but nothing bite-sized and devastating like what always comes up for Trump. Explaining the wikileaks stuff is impossible on CNN but talking about what Trump "said" about veterans is easy. It's also easy to run stories about Russia causing the leaks instead of talking about the leaks.

But separate to Wikileaks, there's another guy who says he has a video of her making "disparaging remarks" about black people and he's going to release it next week. Will be interesting if true.

doesnt matter , the Duck is doomed, its increasingly like watching a drowning man ( who jumped out of his own boat ) screaming at the world around him, people are turning away

Grayson

So it turns out that the Russians released an email that "proved" that Hillary was complicit in Benghazi. However what they actually released was an email that had a copy of an article attached and they used quotes from the article as if they were the text of the email. (read the whole article. It's not long but it's very interesting)

http://europe.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635?rm=eu

To understand the full importance of the story—and how much Putin and his Kremlin cronies must have been dancing with delight—I have to quote the top few paragraphs:

In a major revelation from the second batch of WikiLeaks emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta it was learned that Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal believed that the investigation into Benghazi was legitimate because it was "preventable" and the result of State Department negligence.

In an email titled "The Truth" from Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the adviser writing to undisclosed recipients said that "one important point that has been universally acknowledged by nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable" in what may turn out to be the big October surprise from the WikiLeaks released of emails hacked from the account of Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta.

Then came the money quote: "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate," said Blumenthal, putting to rest the Democratic Party talking point that the investigation into Clinton's management of the State Department at the time of the attack was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.

Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote.

The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000-word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article. The Russians had carefully selected the “of course” paragraph, which mentions there were legitimate points of criticism regarding Clinton and Benghazi, all of which had been acknowledged in nine reports about the attack and by the former secretary of state herself.

BoatMad

the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya

The State dept has arguably failed to "protect " many 1000s of innocents all over the world , I see no line of Secretaries of state in front of judges being sentenced for such acts

Feline Grabber

Bazzo wrote: »

More than just a whiff of delusion floating about in this thread. If you want to convince yourself that the polls are somehow off by an absolutely historic amount good for you, I look forward to the impending meltdown.

They would be betting their life savings on Trump winning if they actually believed it.

Call Me Jimmy

Grayson wrote: »

So it turns out that the Russians released an email that "proved" that Hillary was complicit in Benghazi. However what they actually released was an email that had a copy of an article attached and they used quotes from the article as if they were the text of the email. (read the whole article. It's not long but it's very interesting)

http://europe.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635?rm=eu

Heads will roll for that.

Patser

Trump on twitter the last few hours laying into Paul Ryan and the senior Republican leadership for lack of support. Ending it by saying it's nice the shackles are now off and he can really fight.

That's brilliant, since he's been leading such a restrained, controlled campaign so far.

ablelocks

part of me wants trump to get elected, just to see what happens...

First Up

ablelocks wrote: »

part of me wants trump to get elected, just to see what happens...

Somewhere in the lower part of your anatomy I think.

Mr.Micro

ablelocks wrote: »

part of me wants trump to get elected, just to see what happens...

It would be very interesting indeed. They say people get the politicians they deserve.

everlast75

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It would be very interesting indeed. They say people get the politicians they deserve.

Well us Irish are a bunch of twats then...

Butters1979

The thing is, if Clinton gets elected, and all the anti Trump people cheer away, in 4 years time does anyone think the problems that led to this lunatic coming this close to the white house will be gone? Does anyone believe the trend will stop?

The swing to the right in Europe and America does not seem to be stopping anytime soon and the Republicans are aware of that. They know if Clinton wins this election that in 2020 they just need to come along with a mid-right slightly less insane candidate and they'll steam roll it.

Even before then, they'll likely retain control of the house and the senate and by the mid terms the Republicans will dominate the legislative branch completely.

Clinton will win, but will her presidency just be a one term, lame duck congress blocking legacy?

A Little Pony

wes wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Obviously complete nonsense.

To you and only you.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Lincoln actually wanted to deport free slaves to new colonies.

Yes, I know about Liberia, but the fact remains that he did free the slaves. Earlier abandoned plans are certainly interesting parts of history, but the fact remains was that it didn't happen.

A Little Pony wrote: »

No one is disputing slavery, just that Lincoln was not 'Honest Abe'.

You called him a despot, and complained about him invading another country, presumably the CSA given the context, who were pro-slavery.

He was a despot as seen by historical evidence of unconstitutional actions. It doesn't take a rocket science to see those things as despotic. Iraq was under the rule of a despotic ruler but George Bush still acted like a tyrant with his phoney war.

A Little Pony

Patser wrote: »

Trump on twitter the last few hours laying into Paul Ryan and the senior Republican leadership for lack of support. Ending it by saying it's nice the shackles are now off and he can really fight.

That's brilliant, since he's been leading such a restrained, controlled campaign so far.

Actually I think he has. The first debate showed that he was given orders to be more laid back. The second debate he just ignored the likes of Paul Ryan etc. The 3rd debate will go the same way as the 2nd with Trump dominating the screen and Clinton being forgettable.

ablelocks

First Up wrote: »

Somewhere in the lower part of your anatomy I think.

yup, my tibial tuberosity

InTheTrees

Butters1979 wrote: »

Clinton will win, but what will her presidency be like?

The Supreme court is the prize.

The end of the conservative majority will impact society for decades to come.

Trent Houseboat

Butters1979 wrote:

The thing is, if Clinton gets elected, and all the anti Trump people cheer away, in 4 years time does anyone think the problems that led to this lunatic coming this close to the white house will be gone? Does anyone believe the trend will stop?

The swing to the right in Europe and America does not seem to be stopping anytime soon and the Republicans are aware of that. They know if Clinton wins this election that in 2020 they just need to come along with a mid-right slightly less insane candidate and they'll steam roll it.

Even before then, they'll likely retain control of the house and the senate and by the mid terms the Republicans will dominate the legislative branch completely.

Clinton will win, but what will her presidency be like?

I think you've answered the question. WE could be looking at a blakanisation of the "right" in America. The Trump arm of the Republican party will continue the march of the tea party to the extreme right and the more moderate Ryans and Romneys of the establishment will try to appeal to the centre right. Republican primaries for the mid terms might set these two factions against each other.

pumpkin4life

Butters1979 wrote: »

The thing is, if Clinton gets elected, and all the anti Trump people cheer away, in 4 years time does anyone think the problems that led to this lunatic coming this close to the white house will be gone? Does anyone believe the trend will stop?

The swing to the right in Europe and America does not seem to be stopping anytime soon and the Republicans are aware of that. They know if Clinton wins this election that in 2020 they just need to come along with a mid-right slightly less insane candidate and they'll steam roll it.

Even before then, they'll likely retain control of the house and the senate and by the mid terms the Republicans will dominate the legislative branch completely.

Clinton will win, but what will her presidency be like?

A continuation of what Obama has done and has been doing, plus the start of a more economically turbulent time if I was to guess.

Billy86

Patser wrote: »

Trump on twitter the last few hours laying into Paul Ryan and the senior Republican leadership for lack of support. Ending it by saying it's nice the shackles are now off and he can really fight.

That's brilliant, since he's been leading such a restrained, controlled campaign so far.

Its even more brilliant to watch him push all and any traditional GOP voters that may have still clung on due to the godlike worship they have for anyone having the letter 'R' beside their name, away from him leading in the election.

Winning it went out the window quite a while ago, but he's less likely to break 100 EC votes than he is to get over 200 at this point.