Donald Trump

CMOTDibbler

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

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.

To be fair to Bernie, his pants don't ever seem to have caught fire whilst Hillary burst into flames five times and Obama nine times.

No match for Trump though, who with 40 seems to be in dire need of asbestos underwear.

CMOTDibbler

Billy86 wrote: »

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/

You don't just trip over that webpage on your way to the indo front page. He went looking for some dirt to smear the Khans with and Breitbart was where that dirt trawl took him.

And it was completely irrelevant seeing as the issue was always Trump's reaction.

Billy86

Well, it appears Republicans are Trumpites are at it again, losing so badly in the polls that they have just gone and made their own up - http://www.vox.com/2016/8/5/12386128/trump-clinton-biased-polls

Clinton is also dominating national polls - a new one yesterday from the highly respected McClatchy-Marist has her 15 points clear - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article93763582.html

And she is dominating Trump in the battleground states - http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politics/clinton-leads-trump-three-states/index.html

Even in Georgia, one of the deepest of red states in recent decades, Clinton currently leads Trump - http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/clinton-leads-trump-georgia-poll/

Things are not looking good for Trump.

captbarnacles

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

The only way I'd have preferred Hillary over Trump is if all the Bloombergs, Buffets, Sunderlands, Soros', Rockefellers, Rothschilds, FR, Goldman Sachs et al, Media monopolies , and global corporations all came out in unified opposition to her, while using their media to make sure she was scrutinised in every way, while Trump wasn't.

That's the only way I'd consider supporting Hillary.
It has nothing to do with pathetic retards crying because 'he's offensive blub blub!' - like anyone cares what they or you or I think - and everything to do with the fact that people with their tentacles around the world are intensely disliking someone.

Although to support Hillary would also require her to not do things like yapping about women's rights while accepting millions from countries like Saudi Arabia but **** it, keep it simple..

Hilary most vetted candidate in US history. Republicans been trying to take her down for 20 years. They'll find something one of these days tho...i am sure of it....

Bobeagleburger

Trump probably needs an escalation in terrorism to win this election.

How he got this far is nuts

CMOTDibbler

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Trump probably needs an escalation in terrorism to win this election.

Don't be giving him ideas. :eek:

Renegade Mechanic

Billy86 wrote: »

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/

Lol Snopes is on the same level as Breitbart, just on the other side.
http://prntly.com/2016/06/24/snopes-and-politifact-exposed-bombshell-shows-staff-routinely-lie-about-trump/

Amazing what a little prejudice does really, and I say that in the full knowledge I dislike Clinton more than Trump. Whoever wins isn't going to change much, while being blamed for the effects leveled by the multi billionaires with real power, but that's not a reason to support the person who actively wishes to do their bidding. With Sanders out, (thank ****, even if he's better than Hillary..) that leaves Trump.

PopePalpatine

Good ol' post-factual politics is raising its head again. :rolleyes:

InTheTrees

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Whoever wins isn't going to change much.

Tell that to the 14 million people who will lose health insurance if trump wins.

There's a host of issues that would spell disaster for the country if republicans manage to win. And now theres a chance of not just the senate turning Democratic but also the house of representatives.

K-9

Billy86 wrote: »

Well, it appears Republicans are Trumpites are at it again, losing so badly in the polls that they have just gone and made their own up - http://www.vox.com/2016/8/5/12386128/trump-clinton-biased-polls

Clinton is also dominating national polls - a new one yesterday from the highly respected McClatchy-Marist has her 15 points clear - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article93763582.html

And she is dominating Trump in the battleground states - http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politics/clinton-leads-trump-three-states/index.html

Even in Georgia, one of the deepest of red states in recent decades, Clinton currently leads Trump - http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/clinton-leads-trump-georgia-poll/

Things are not looking good for Trump.

Polls were good during the primaries (too many seasoned tipsters ignored them) but now bad.

As for Obama care, so many are just against it because well, Obama. Advantages and indeed disadvantages don't really come into it. This also applies the other way too, bias is like that!

Frank101

Donald Trump - an embarrassment to the male gender??

First of all, I actually think, that if he played his cards smarter, he could have won. But ultimately, he isn't very smart, and does not have the ability to deceive people. It actually seems as if he's gotten far more stupid with age. I know it's a different kind of stupidity when compared to Enda Kenny, or George Bush, but he's far dumber. I can't really see him admitting defeat either. Perhaps he might have some excuse that he was cheated.

Aside from the fact that he has no viewpoint, he does have a few alpha male traits in the way he carries himself. So if a man like this is going to catastrophically lose, then what message does it send to any men who'd be likely to aspire to a similar stereotype. And by that stereotype, I don't mean the fact that he's spoiled and lacking of the ability to empathise with people!

If he is one of the few of his kind left, then when he fails, there'll be less hope for his kind. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's just I doubt he sees it that way... that everything he does is counter-productive, both to him and his cause.

Sand

Frank101 wrote: »

Donald Trump - an embarrassment to the male gender??

First of all, I actually think, that if he played his cards smarter, he could have won. But ultimately, he isn't very smart, and does not have the ability to deceive people. It actually seems as if he's gotten far more stupid with age. I know it's a different kind of stupidity when compared to Enda Kenny, or George Bush, but he's far dumber. I can't really see him admitting defeat either. Perhaps he might have some excuse that he was cheated.

Aside from the fact that he has no viewpoint, he does have a few alpha male traits in the way he carries himself. So if a man like this is going to catastrophically lose, then what message does it send to any men who'd be likely to aspire to a similar stereotype. And by that stereotype, I don't mean the fact that he's spoiled and lacking of the ability to empathise with people!

If he is one of the few of his kind left, then when he fails, there'll be less hope for his kind. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's just I doubt he sees it that way... that everything he does is counter-productive, both to him and his cause.

If you mean narcissists its a mental disorder - its not a conscious behaviour that Trump or anyone else aspires to. Given we are talking about empathy, Trump is actually in need of help but given his narcissism he is unable to seek help. The very nature of his illness blinds him to his need to try to cure it.

If you're talking about alpha males - that's a very loaded term that's essentially meaningless, but a thin skinned, jealous individual so unsure of themselves that he desperately seeks validation and adoration doesn't fit with the class of character traits normally associated with it in my opinion.

K-9

I'd say it looks like he is a bit of a one trick pony and that got him so far, and that's quite an achievement btw, so I'm not running him down.

He could still turn it around, but that would take some self awareness and listening to his campaign team and others, something his ego may not allow him to do for long. The other thing is I don't think he even thought he'd win the nomination himself, so all this is unexpected which explains the shambolic nature of it at times.

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Lol Snopes is on the same level as Breitbart, just on the other side.
http://prntly.com/2016/06/24/snopes-and-politifact-exposed-bombshell-shows-staff-routinely-lie-about-trump/

LOL indeed

You've just linked a pro-Trump website page run by a convicted drug dealer that doesn't seem to know the difference between taxation in general and corporation tax. Your 'sources' seem to be getting closer and closer to the bottom of the barrel.

Calina

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say it looks like he is a bit of a one trick pony and that got him so far, and that's quite an achievement btw, so I'm not running him down.

He could still turn it around, but that would take some self awareness and listening to his campaign team and others, something his ego may not allow him to do for long. The other thing is I don't think he even thought he'd win the nomination himself, so all this is unexpected which explains the shambolic nature of it at times.

He endorsed Paul Ryan last night. And two others. It looks like the party machinery at least have some interest in turning it around.

The impression I am getting is that the Reps have written off the presidency but they are damnned if they will write off Paul Ryan.

ampleforth

One thing is for sure, if he become boss, Bush'es promise will be fullfilled that we will see the greatness of his work only after some time... I think he predicted the Don in some weird and strange way.

Compared with Trump, Bush will feel like a smart, elegant statesman who wisely lead the country to a better <fill anything you like in here>.

Another thing is also for sure, when he becomes president, I will start watching CNN and Fox again. I am sure he can make us laugh at least once a day (while doing the unhealthiest things to his country without noticing it). It could be serious fun...

K-9

Calina wrote: »

He endorsed Paul Ryan last night. And two others. It looks like the party machinery at least have some interest in turning it around.

The impression I am getting is that the Reps have written off the presidency but they are damnned if they will write off Paul Ryan.

Yep, 3 or 4 days after saying he wasn't sure. Seemed a petty dig at Ryan because he held out on endorsing Trump a few months back, rather than any strategy. That's the type of thing he has to stop doing to stand a chance.

CMOTDibbler

Calina wrote: »

He endorsed Paul Ryan last night. And two others. It looks like the party machinery at least have some interest in turning it around.

The impression I am getting is that the Reps have written off the presidency but they are damnned if they will write off Paul Ryan.

They're really afraid of losing their majorities. A landslide for Hillary could carry through to the Senate and Congressional elections. Although the GOP have a pretty large majority in Congress, their Senate majority is tighter.

Calina

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They're really afraid of losing their majorities. A landslide for Hillary could carry through to the Senate and Congressional elections. Although the GOP have a pretty large majority in Congress, their Senate majority is tighter.

Paul Ryan is Congress though. Trump did also endorse McCain who is the current Speaker of the Senate as well but the newsworthy endorsement seems to be Ryan. So I don't think this is just Congress related. I expect 2020 will see Ryan choreographed into the nomination and there will not be 15-16 nominations next time.

Roanmore

Calina wrote: »

He endorsed Paul Ryan last night. And two others. It looks like the party machinery at least have some interest in turning it around.

The impression I am getting is that the Reps have written off the presidency but they are damnned if they will write off Paul Ryan.

It wasn't the most convincing of endorsements for Paul Ryan. Reading it off script, 2 thumbs and a stupid grin.

take everything

Polls showing Hillary way ahead (even Fox ones).

He'll be no match for her but it'll still be good fun watching him.

Reebrock

Whilst polls are looking good for HC in many states, worth noting how different the reality to polls tends to be. I think this is going to be a close race.

briany

How has Trump managed to hoodwink so many of his blue-collar supporters into believing he cares about them in any conceivable way beyond their being his route to the presidency? Everything about him says 'old money', much more, even, than the usual politician. Trump's a notorious clean freak, and dislikes shaking hands for that reason, so the thought of him having to shake hands with supporters on the campaign trail, and come off like he enjoys it is pretty funny. You can imagine a lot of hand sanitiser being brought along. Not even shaking hands, but just being in their proximity I doubt he finds appealing.

But somehow, you have a large swathe of people totally ignoring that because of some cynical and pie-in-the-sky promises he's making. Bringing jobs back to America, when it's been well-established that he's one of the people who exported jobs as a business man. Building a wall that has huge doubts even on its effectiveness before the project even gets off the ground. Plans that have no plan behind them. Has any presidential candidate ever ran on the platform of basically, "It's going to be great, trust me."?

Rjd2

briany wrote: »

How has Trump managed to hoodwink so many of his blue-collar supporters into believing he cares about them in any conceivable way beyond their being his route to the presidency? Everything about him says 'old money', much more, even, than the usual politician. Trump's a notorious clean freak, and dislikes shaking hands for that reason, so the thought of him having to shake hands with supporters on the campaign trail, and come off like he enjoys it is pretty funny. You can imagine a lot of hand sanitiser being brought along. Not even shaking hands, but just being in their proximity I doubt he finds appealing.

But somehow, you have a large swathe of people totally ignoring that because of some cynical and pie-in-the-sky promises he's making. Bringing jobs back to America, when it's been well-established that he's one of the people who exported jobs as a business man. Building a wall that has huge doubts even on its effectiveness before the project even gets off the ground. Plans that have no plan behind them. Has any presidential candidate ever ran on the platform of basically, "It's going to be great, trust me."?

Its people who felt they have been left behind in the last few years especially under the Obama reign, Hilary for many represents the continuation of that, while Trump is the opposite. Its easy to sneer, but if desperate then people like Trump are are very appealing.

Worth a watch the below, majority of the Trump supporters interviewed seem like normal people who are looking for a saviour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRW6rhmFAXc

My name is URL

briany wrote: »

How has Trump managed to hoodwink so many of his blue-collar supporters into believing he cares about them in any conceivable way beyond their being his route to the presidency?

People can relate to him.

He talks about walls... I've got walls in my house

What's not to like? /s

It's pretty much the movie Idiocracy coming to life.

Samaris

Do people reckon that this is showing a certain rot to American politics, or rather, the style they've headed to in the past few decades?

I've muttered before in this thread about two-party political systems, and while I don't agree that this could be THE END of the Republican party (I highly doubt it), I do wonder if it could be a big enough kick up the ass for those who don't really like either party's extreme opinions enough for a third party to pick up some steam?

How about the Democratic Republican Party (or indeed the Republican Democratic Party). A party who takes from both parties the ideals that lurk somewhat in the middle of the extremes, that does not see one other party as The Enemy, but can work with either or call either of them out as it wishes.

Historical set-up works strongly against it, I grant.

Edit: to MY post this time, really sorry about that, My Name is URL!

Actually, an alternate could be that the Trumpist party sets up by itself and raves about walls and evil foreigners and gives the unfortunate moderate (and rather embarrassed) Republicans some breathing space to sort themselves out and not look like a laughing stock. Trump has caused them a lot of damage by highlighting and pushing forward the most extreme right-wing ideals. It's like having a Youtube comments section running for president as a representation of the entire internet. The Democrats would be in an equally bad way if a maddened left-wing extremist ran.

Pro Hoc Vice

Samaris wrote: »

Do people reckon that this is showing a certain rot to American politics, or rather, the style they've headed to in the past few decades?

I've muttered before in this thread about two-party political systems, and while I don't agree that this could be THE END of the Republican party (I highly doubt it), I do wonder if it could be a big enough kick up the ass for those who don't really like either party's extreme opinions enough for a third party to pick up some steam?

How about the Democratic Republican Party (or indeed the Republican Democratic Party). A party who takes from both parties the ideals that lurk somewhat in the middle of the extremes, that does not see one other party as The Enemy, but can work with either or call either of them out as it wishes.

Historical set-up works strongly against it, I grant.

Edit: to MY post this time, really sorry about that, My Name is URL!

Actually, an alternate could be that the Trumpist party sets up by itself and raves about walls and evil foreigners and gives the unfortunate moderate (and rather embarrassed) Republicans some breathing space to sort themselves out and not look like a laughing stock. Trump has caused them a lot of damage by highlighting and pushing forward the most extreme right-wing ideals. It's like having a Youtube comments section running for president as a representation of the entire internet. The Democrats would be in an equally bad way if a maddened left-wing extremist ran.

American political history is littered with the remains of what at a time used to be big parties. In fact many of the founding fathers including Washington did not agree with political parties. In 1792 the "Democratic Republican Party" was founded.

CMOTDibbler

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

American political history is littered with the remains of what at a time used to be big parties. In fact many of the founding fathers including Washington did not agree with political parties. In 1792 the "Democratic Republican Party" was founded.

It's past the point of broken now. Effectively you've got two conservative parties, one of which is very conservative and the other is slightly liberal. There is a rabid hatred of anything that looks even slightly socialist, so there really is no appetite for a genuinely left of centre political movement; the only political space that's actually available.

The system itself doesn't really allow for it. It takes big money to run for even the lowest rank on the political ladder and massive funding for a presidential campaign. As long as that pertains, there will be no meaningful change in the political landscape of the USA.

Trump is just the inevitable consequence of a system that's become an exercise in mud-slinging and negative campaigning. Real issue can't be discussed because there is always some interest group, you're going to alienate.

State funding of political parties would be a start. At least it would take the big money interests out of the equation.

Pro Hoc Vice

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's past the point of broken now. Effectively you've got two conservative parties, one of which is very conservative and the other is slightly liberal. There is a rabid hatred of anything that looks even slightly socialist, so there really is no appetite for a genuinely left of centre political movement; the only political space that's actually available.

The system itself doesn't really allow for it. It takes big money to run for even the lowest rank on the political ladder and massive funding for a presidential campaign. As long as that pertains, there will be no meaningful change in the political landscape of the USA.

Trump is just the inevitable consequence of a system that's become an exercise in mud-slinging and negative campaigning. Real issue can't be discussed because there is always some interest group, you're going to alienate.

State funding of political parties would be a start. At least it would take the big money interests out of the equation.

in 1964 it was Goldwater, who failed to win the GE, but in reality set the tone of the Republican party for the following 40 plus years. Funny Goldwater was anti the religious right and turned out to be pro gay rights, funny that. Yet he took the Republican party down a path it is on now. Maybe Washington was right and there should be no political parties, the first president was not a member of any party, and his vice president was the person who came second. Much has changed and much will change, but you are right on one thing big money is one of the real problems.

It must also be remembered Lincoln was a Republican, its funny what that same party stood for in the south some 100 years after.

BorneTobyWilde

Trump needs to stick to what got him there
Sort out the borders
Take hard line on illegal immigration and the flow of drugs
Take out ISIS
Sort out medical insurance
Support for veterans
Never seems to mentions this now. Needs to get back on topic.
Should of ignored Khan , would have blown over in a few hours.