Donald Trump

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Nope. Someone messes up, broadcast it. But you go ahead and assume otherwise. I'd just like to see the same treatment leveled at Hillary.
Generally won't happen because amongst the people backing her, are people who have vested interests in most of the countries media.

If they want her to win, they're hardly going to use their businesses to make her journey to the Whitehouse harder, are they?

Just what exactly did I assume in that post you quoted?

Every accusation that Trump and others have levelled at Hillary has been published. In fact, you just posted a link yourself.

You're whining about unfair media treatment of Trump by whining about an unfair media bias towards Clinton without actually pointing out what exactly she's been getting a free ride on.

Did it ever occur to you that Trump is getting more reportage because he only opens his mouth to change feet?

seamus

A Little Pony wrote: »

Once he gets her in the debates is when the tide will turn and shows Hillary to be the crook she is.

Megas Donald Trump!

Lol.

Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, but a shrinking violet she is not. In a head-to-head debate, she will/would crush Trump by showing him up as little more than a clueless narcissist. He will falter and talk nonsense in every question and make himself look like a complete moron.

CMOTDibbler

seamus wrote: »

Lol.

Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, but a shrinking violet she is not. In a head-to-head debate, she will/would crush Trump by showing him up as little more than a clueless narcissist. He will falter and talk nonsense in every question and make himself look like a complete moron.

He backed out of a debate with Bernie Sanders and seems to be laying the groundwork to back out of debates with Clinton. We'll see how that pans out.

Renegade Mechanic

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Just what exactly did I assume in that post you quoted?

Every accusation that Trump and others have levelled at Hillary has been published. In fact, you just posted a link yourself.

You're whining about unfair media treatment of Trump by whining about an unfair media bias towards Clinton without actually pointing out what exactly she's been getting a free ride on.

Did it ever occur to you that Trump is getting more reportage because he only opens his mouth to change feet?

Mate people - democrats - who were fighting for Sanders have resigned over her media coverage and are refusing their votes, rather than giving it to either Hillary or Donald.

seamus wrote: »

Lol.

Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, but a shrinking violet she is not. In a head-to-head debate, she will/would crush Trump by showing him up as little more than a clueless narcissist. He will falter and talk nonsense in every question and make himself look like a complete moron.

True in theory. She's an extremely intelligent woman, but if she tries to play Donald at his own game, on his level, he'll obliterate her because there's so much more **** to be flung at her than there is at Donald Gob.. She can't fight higher, for the same reason.
Like it or not, her only hope is to fight lower and dirtier, and take the chance that her average supporters are even more blind and braindead than Trump's.

K-9

stefanovich wrote: »

Look at the details. All skewed in favour of democrats. For instance in the last McClatchy/Marist poll there were a clear majority of strong democrats in the sample. This is repeated in all the polls.

A Fox News poll would be skewed in favour of Democrats? Find that hard to believe without some basis for it, some facts that is!

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Mate people - democrats - who were fighting for Sanders have resigned over her media coverage and are refusing their votes, rather than giving it to either Hillary or Donald.

No mate. They're complaining (quite rightly) that the Democratic party was supporting Clinton over Sanders when they're supposed to be neutral. Nothing to do with media coverage.

And all widely reported in the media. 22 percent of Sanders supporters said they'd vote for Trump.

But you didn't answer my question about what assumption you thought I was making.

K-9

seamus wrote: »

Lol.

Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, but a shrinking violet she is not. In a head-to-head debate, she will/would crush Trump by showing him up as little more than a clueless narcissist. He will falter and talk nonsense in every question and make himself look like a complete moron.

She admits herself she isn't a great debater or speech maker, if you listen to her last week she can be a bit shouty and screechy.

But really it comes down to her playing it safe, make no big boo boo and she should be fine if Trump keeps being Trump.

He isn't appealing to the groups he needs to, young voters, African Americans, Latinos etc.

He does appeal to Independents worried about jobs, Globalisation etc. Basically he needs to do a Bernie on it and cut out the crazy that would put open minded voters off.

Stuff like saying the election will be rigged only appeals to his base, he's assured of those votes come hell or high water anyway, just as Hillary is assured of her bases support.

Christy42

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Mate people - democrats - who were fighting for Sanders have resigned over her media coverage and are refusing their votes, rather than giving it to either Hillary or Donald.



True in theory. She's an extremely intelligent woman, but if she tries to play Donald at his own game, on his level, he'll obliterate her because there's so much more **** to be flung at her than there is at Donald Gob.. She can't fight higher, for the same reason.
Like it or not, her only hope is to fight lower and dirtier, and take the chance that her average supporters are even more blind and braindead than Trump's.

The man comes up with childish nicknames. You don't go lower. You can't as Trump will simply come back with a statement saying he is rubber and Hillary is glue. They went the high Road with the convention speeches and it worked. I fail to see why changing tack now would help.

MadYaker

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Mate people - democrats - who were fighting for Sanders have resigned over her media coverage and are refusing their votes, rather than giving it to either Hillary or Donald.

Maybe some campaign staffers and the Bernie or bust crew have. But I think most of them will see sense eventually.

Trump on the other hand can't even get the support of his own party. While many have endorsed him it's clear they loath him. One republican congressman has even endorsed Clinton over Trump, John Hanna from New York. I think that must be first time in a long tme thats happened.

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

True in theory. She's an extremely intelligent woman, but if she tries to play Donald at his own game, on his level, he'll obliterate her because there's so much more **** to be flung at her than there is at Donald Gob.. She can't fight higher, for the same reason.
Like it or not, her only hope is to fight lower and dirtier, and take the chance that her average supporters are even more blind and braindead than Trump's.

She won't try and play him at his own game. All she has to do is make the debate about policy issues and specifics and not be baited by any of his immature insults and Trump will implode. She's a skilled debater and won;t have to work to hard to make Trump destroy himself. She got under Bernie's skin pretty easily and Trump is ten times more narcisstic and sensitive than Bernie is.

CMOTDibbler

MadYaker wrote: »

She won't try and play him at his own game. All she has to do is make the debate about policy issues and specifics and not be baited by any of his immature insults and Trump will implode. She's a skilled debater and won;t have to work to hard to make Trump destroy himself. She got under Bernie's skin pretty easily and Trump is ten times more narcisstic and sensitive than Bernie is.

Interesting quote from a former CIA chief (I know ) about Trump in the NYT today.

These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.
The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.

Plenty of soft spots there for a seasoned debater.

ricero

I honestly feel the donald is the lesser of two evils not hilary

El_Duderino 09

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

Nothing shocks me anymore about him. I do believe we are watching a man having a mental breakdown right in front of us. I think it's sad actually and whoever can should do the right thing and stop this candidacy.

He's having the time of his life! He's a sociopath and a narcissist who has the entire world talking about him and as much as 45%of the voters eating out of his hand.

The breakdown could come after he loses and has peaked in terms of publicity. I doubt it though.

VinLieger

ricero wrote: »

I honestly feel the donald is the lesser of two evils not hilary

Is Hillary not what she appears to be? Yes she has a agenda she tries to hide but do you want someone who is calculated and clever over someone who is arrogant and mindlessly aggressive? I know my answer.

Trump is reported to have asked foreign policy and military experts in a meeting "if we have the nuclear weapons why can't we use them?" Now its very possible that the quote is false however from what we know of trump and his persona and speeches its also possible it could be true and that fact that we can't be sure if its definitely fake surely should scare people?

K-9

ricero wrote: »

I honestly feel the donald is the lesser of two evils not hilary

Trump is more of an unknown though. Hillary is a hawk but is there anything that says he'll keep the US out of military strikes and wars? There's a lot of mixed signals from him, Putin and Muslims plus he goes after the veteran vote hard, well as long as they aren't Muslims!

CMOTDibbler

ricero wrote: »

I honestly feel the donald is the lesser of two evils not hilary

Well the best way to help you decide is to make a list of the things that are positive and negative for both candidates and weigh them up. That CIA chief had a few things to say about Clinton as well:

Prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.

For balance, here are the reasons not to elect her provided by a Gallup poll in 2014.

For Trump, we have that video from John Oliver, which is good for a laugh as well.

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

abff

The case for Clinton over Trump is so compelling it's almost scary. It would defy all logic for Trump to win or even come close to winning, but the lack of logic in the the way he won the Republican nomination proves that anything is possible in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Renegade Mechanic

K-9 wrote: »

Trump is more of an unknown though. Hillary is a hawk but is there anything that says he'll keep the US out of military strikes and wars? There's a lot of mixed signals from him, Putin and Muslims plus he goes after the veteran vote hard, well as long as they aren't Muslims!

Who worked in law firms for Hillary Clinton and her ilk with ties to Clinton cash and happened to write peices showing inspiration for the Muslim Brotherhood and discussing the place/opportunities for advancement of Sharia within the US legal system. (FWIW there should never be one.)



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

Yeah it's breitbart, but it's their sources I care more about, than them.. Khizr Kahn can kiss my porky arse, the agenda'd git. His son can't tell us, but I doubt he died in a war Hillary voted for, so his parents could use his death as an example to support her.

Pro Hoc Vice

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Who worked in law firms for Hillary Clinton and her ilk with ties to Clinton cash and happened to write peices showing inspiration for the Muslim Brotherhood and discussing the place/opportunities for advancement of Sharia within the US legal system. (FWIW there should never be one.)



[/url]http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/[/url]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

Yeah it's breitbart, but it's their sources I care more about, than them.. Khizr Kahn can kiss my porky arse, the agenda'd git. His son can't tell us, but I doubt he died in a war Hillary voted for, so his parents could use his death as an example to support her.

My you are very bitter!

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Who worked in law firms for Hillary Clinton and her ilk with ties to Clinton cash and happened to write peices showing inspiration for the Muslim Brotherhood and discussing the place/opportunities for advancement of Sharia within the US legal system. (FWIW there should never be one.)



[/url]http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/[/url]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

Yeah it's breitbart, but it's their sources I care more about, than them.. Khizr Kahn can kiss my porky arse, the agenda'd git. His son can't tell us, but I doubt he died in a war Hillary voted for, so his parents could use his death as an example to support her.

This is typical 'play the man and not the ball' tactics. It's completely and utterly irrelevant what connection Khan has to the Clintons or Saudi or whatever (although clearly that connection brought him to the DNC). He made a speech at the DNC that asked a very pertinent question of Trump and Trump responded with anti-islamic slurs that got a lot of people very riled up.

How Trump responded is what's the issue, not the source of the irritant that Trump tried to squash.

All Trump had to say was something along the lines of "I grieve for their loss and salute their son who made the ultimate sacrifice, blah, blah..." and then put his own message forward. That would have been it, game over and no story that would last more than a day or two.

Of course they're supporters of Clinton, why else would they have bothered attending the DNC?

But you go ahead and throw your mud, it says a great deal about you.

K-9

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Who worked in law firms for Hillary Clinton and her ilk with ties to Clinton cash and happened to write peices showing inspiration for the Muslim Brotherhood and discussing the place/opportunities for advancement of Sharia within the US legal system. (FWIW there should never be one.)



[/url]http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/[/url]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

Yeah it's breitbart, but it's their sources I care more about, than them.. Khizr Kahn can kiss my porky arse, the agenda'd git. His son can't tell us, but I doubt he died in a war Hillary voted for, so his parents could use his death as an example to support her.

Well yeah, there are a few dodgy Hillary supporters, Trump has his fair share too. The above is great for political point scoring and the bases love it, but no good at winning votes. The polls show that is what Trump's campaign need to be doing. The Muslims are all sharia advocates only appeals to an already convinced section of the electorate, preaching to the converted basically!

Economics and jobs (lack of well paid ones) is what Trump should be concentrating at again and again.

Renegade Mechanic

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

This is typical 'play the man and not the ball' tactics. It's completely and utterly irrelevant what connection Khan has to the Clintons or Saudi or whatever (although clearly that connection brought him to the DNC). He made a speech at the DNC that asked a very pertinent question of Trump and Trump responded with anti-islamic slurs that got a lot of people very riled up.

How Trump responded is what's the issue, not the source of the irritant that Trump tried to squash.

All Trump had to say was something along the lines of "I grieve for their loss and salute their son who made the ultimate sacrifice, blah, blah..." and then put his own message forward. That would have been it, game over and no story that would last more than a day or two.

Of course they're supporters of Clinton, why else would they have bothered attending the DNC?

But you go ahead and throw your mud, it says a great deal about you.

Really? You reckon they just "showed up" randomly in support, just like her other supporters?
For Christ sake I can't even say that about Trumps "examples"..

Anyway it says precisely what I want it to say, I'm used to not being popular. (The **** you've to do, believing and thinking like ye do just ain't worth it..) Shariah has no place in the west. Never, ever will. It poses no threat to us right now, and won't for some time. No reason not to keep it that way...

And I watched Trumps response. He was a lot cruder than he had to be, but he didn't say anything false. At least on that occasion..

Renegade Mechanic

K-9 wrote: »

Well yeah, there are a few dodgy Hillary supporters, Trump has his fair share too. The above is great for political point scoring and the bases love it, but no good at winning votes. The polls show that is what Trump's campaign need to be doing. The Muslims are all sharia advocates only appeals to an already convinced section of the electorate, preaching to the converted basically!

Economics and jobs (lack of well paid ones) is what Trump should be concentrating at again and again.

That's true, he originally came out swinging on the jobs aspect, putting even more vigour into attacking that than "the wall", even if the sections of his speech televised on the news simply chose to broadcast the latter..
But he has lost some focus recently.
That's what made me take note. I believe in knowing your enemy. Much more important is that you give them the respect they command.

I looked into him to see what he was about, to see what else I could dislike about him. My dislikes never really changed but the more I looked, the more arrogance and petulance I saw from everyone else.

He literally explains how he operates in his book. Beating him would be as easy as looking it up and using some aspects against him. Like, one.. Stop falling for hyperbole. He keeps dragging them into areas where they **** themselves up by discussing things they would never normally discuss, just so they can "gotcha!!!" without realising what they're doing. At one point he exclaimed I'm so good at this, I can make my enemies tell the truth'.
I've got no choice but to respect that tbh.

But people are just too self absorbed and arrogant. I'm more virtuous than you because I say so and that's all that matters, I'm going to throw money at stuff against you, because that's all I need to do because I'm considerably wealthier than you...

The more attention I pay to the man, the more I'm cemented in the belief I always held that he's an arsehole, but the more I'm also vindicated in seeing just how much worse his remaining competition is...

Samaris

Just to mention, the reason the Khans were supporting Clinton was not because of the war; they were saying that Trump's policies regarding banning all Muslims from the US would, if introduced back when they were trying to immigrate, have prevented their son, who died fighting for America, from entering, and that there are others like them. Also that it's unconstitutional, although I don't know if that's so or not.

He dishonestly changed their statements to poke a straw man.

K-9

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

That's true, he originally came out swinging on the jobs aspect, putting even more vigour into attacking that than "the wall", even if the sections of his speech televised on the news simply chose to broadcast the latter..
But he has lost some focus recently.
That's what made me take note. I believe in knowing your enemy. Much more important is that you give them the respect they command.

I looked into him to see what he was about, to see what else I could dislike about him. My dislikes never really changed but the more I looked, the more arrogance and petulance I saw from everyone else.

He literally explains how he operates in his book. Beating him would be as easy as looking it up and using some aspects against him. Like, one.. Stop falling for hyperbole. He keeps dragging them into areas where they **** themselves up by discussing things they would never normally discuss, just so they can "gotcha!!!" without realising what they're doing. At one point he exclaimed I'm so good at this, I can make my enemies tell the truth'.
I've got no choice but to respect that tbh.

But people are just too self absorbed and arrogant. I'm more virtuous than you because I say so and that's all that matters, I'm going to throw money at stuff against you, because that's all I need to do because I'm considerably wealthier than you...

The more attention I pay to the man, the more I'm cemented in the belief I always held that he's an arsehole, but the more I'm also vindicated in seeing just how much worse his remaining competition is...

Hillary is ignoring his crazier stuff and that's the right way to go, the Republicans messed up by trying to out Trump him and ended up with Cruz!

He pisses people off but for me he's getting boring now, I just roll my eyes at stuff like the election will be rigged. Who is that appealing to? Maybe it's looking at disaffected Sanders supporters but they also tend to be liberals so not a tight fit.

His stuff about globalism etc. is the right track but it his own goals that keeps him losing any ground he wins. He was doing quite well after the Republican convention, was behaving himself during the Democratic one and then had to take a dig about Mr. Khan's wife, a stupid assumption.

What made him so popular may end up losing him the actual election. Step away from the twitter Donald! It looked like he had given that over to his campaign team a few weeks back but I'd say his ego got the better of him.

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Really? You reckon they just "showed up" randomly in support, just like her other supporters?
For Christ sake I can't even say that about Trumps "examples"..

Anyway it says precisely what I want it to say, I'm used to not being popular. (The **** you've to do, believing and thinking like ye do just ain't worth it..) Shariah has no place in the west. Never, ever will. It poses no threat to us right now, and won't for some time. No reason not to keep it that way...

And I watched Trumps response. He was a lot cruder than he had to be, but he didn't say anything false. At least on that occasion..

I never said they just 'showed up', yet again you misquote me or infer something that's not there.

And. It. Is. Irrelevant. It seems that needs repeating Mr. Popular :P

Trump's response was a not so thinly veiled attack on their religion and their characters. He implied that the mother was not permitted to speak by the father. That got people pissed off. And it was clearly false. They repudiated it immediately. Unless you think they're liars of course, but that's not implausible from a soul-mate of Trump's.

I'm ignoring your irrelevant rant about Sharia law. It's not part of this conversation and I'm unsure why you feel you need to bring it up. Obfuscation perhaps?

Rjd2

Samaris wrote: »

Just to mention, the reason the Khans were supporting Clinton was not because of the war; they were saying that Trump's policies regarding banning all Muslims from the US would, if introduced back when they were trying to immigrate, have prevented their son, who died fighting for America, from entering, and that there are others like them. Also that it's unconstitutional, although I don't know if that's so or not.

He dishonestly changed their statements to poke a straw man.

Its irrelevant to why they shown up and what type of people they are. The fact is the veteran base is so important to Republicans and this idiot thought getting in a public fight with a father of a dead soldier would not be a big deal. Its not just the moderate republicans that are pissed, Sarah Palins son in law and Newt himself are pissed off over it.

Trump had Patricia Smith at the RNC to yell abuse at Clinton, she was probably fuming watching it but because she has some political nous she decided sensibly not to take the bait.

Trump has been bragging for ages, once he gets to Clinton the gloves would come off, and heh right now Hilary is destroying him, he wanted a dirty election so no pity whatsoever for him at the moment and I say that as someone who would not vote Clinton if you paid me.

Kermit.de.frog

Clint Eastwood praises Donald Trump and slams political correctness: 'F---ing get over it'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelBNtNm8l0

take everything

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well the best way to help you decide is to make a list of the things that are positive and negative for both candidates and weigh them up. That CIA chief had a few things to say about Clinton as well:



For balance, here are the reasons not to elect her provided by a Gallup poll in 2014.

For Trump, we have that video from John Oliver, which is good for a laugh as well.

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

Love that.
Oliver is hilarious.
So incisive.

El_Dangeroso

Saw this interesting graph from politifact, a political fact checking website:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co9AKiQXYAMu2YA.jpg:large

So Hillary is by far the most honest candidate in the 2016 elections, beaten only by Obama who's not running.

More honest than Bernie which I found surprising!

Like anyone needed confirmation Trump is liar liar pants on fire level of outright dishonesty.

Billy86

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Who worked in law firms for Hillary Clinton and her ilk with ties to Clinton cash and happened to write peices showing inspiration for the Muslim Brotherhood and discussing the place/opportunities for advancement of Sharia within the US legal system. (FWIW there should never be one.)



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

Yeah it's breitbart, but it's their sources I care more about, than them.. Khizr Kahn can kiss my porky arse, the agenda'd git. His son can't tell us, but I doubt he died in a war Hillary voted for, so his parents could use his death as an example to support her.

You're right, it is Breitbart. And that is why you shouldn't believe it, pretty much by default.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/03/khizr-khans-connections/
http://www.snopes.com/khizr-khan-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent/