Donald Trump

K-9

Reebrock wrote: »

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.

The polls called Trump winning the primaries when the "experts" ignored them, so why are they wrong a couple of months later?

They got Obama right in 08. They called Brexit being 50/50, they called FF in our election. Polls aren't an exact science, they measure a mood at a certain period of time. Trump is behind because he hasn't broadened his appeal from the Republican base he got in the primaries, simple as.

He has about 4% of the African American vote, 15% of Latinos if he's lucky, maybe 30% of women, 30% of young people. Of course he is behind in the polls, why wouldn't he be?

For Trump to win he has to run a perfect campaign and Hillary has to score an own goal, the reverse is happening at the moment. Trump is still dividing Republicans when he needs every single vote they have and the Democrats are running just a competent campaign, because that's all they need to do.

Trump has to focus on the economy, the economy and the economy after that again. Forget immigration and Muslims, he has that electorate sewn up now, no matter what he does. Stop seeking attention and start doing some politics. Is he capable of that?

I think he loves the drama too much.

Donald Trump

Feck off the lot of yiz. Leave me alone

Billy86

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

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.

And Snopes reply, which basically goes into detail on the utter level of drivel it is - http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/19/failed-daily-caller-writer-throws-temper-tantrum-about-being-debunked-by-snopes-com/

But of course, why trust Snopes to check themselves? Let's find some others... if you're curious, the Mikkelson's are the websites creators - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

David Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them. In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy.

The whole fact checking world must be in on the conspiracy, such is the 'liberal' bias (I do love the 'liberal' labeling of Hillary Clinton of all people!) that facts tend to have.

CMOTDibbler

Billy86 wrote: »

The whole fact checking world must be in on the conspiracy, such is the 'liberal' bias (I do love the 'liberal' labeling of Hillary Clinton of all people!) that facts tend to have.

That was exactly my point about the so-called two party system in the US. It's a nonsense really that you can have such a conservative party as the Democrats have now become referred to as 'liberal' and 'left'.

They are more liberal than the Republicans, who keep shifting rightwards in an attempt to stop the Democrats stealing their clothes. Hence Donald Trump... :rolleyes:

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=371ppiYpk1U

Sand

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?

Trumps support is understandable when you consider three interlinked issues: NAFTA destroyed a host of blue collar towns and regions, pulling the rug out from under the American dream for millions of people. Clinton is loathed because she and her husband presided over NAFTA. And they know the establishment of both parties hold them in contempt and despise them.

Trumps supporters are desperate - there is literally no one else speaking for them or their issues in their minds. When he says things are terrible, they respond because for them things are terrible.

I think Trump is a terrible candidate and a worse human being, but his voters and their issues are not going to go away. When Trump is defeated, both the Democrats and the Republicans need to urgently work towards addressing the increasingly nihilistic response of voters to the conditions they find themselves in. Otherwise some other crank will turn up and tap back into their despair.

K-9

Sanders captured a similar type vote too, problem is Trump is too divisive to capture it. There's a hell of a lot of disaffected Democratic vote that is seriously considering Trump, and is there to be won over. Trump keeps giving them reasons not to vote for him though, that's his problem.

The concerns are real, wages are stagnant, taxes are eating into any wage increases, so is rises in bills. It's slowly starting to dawn on people in the Republican party that competition, free trade, the American dream and right wing economics can be just as bad as big Government for jobs and incomes.

Maybe a bit like Brexit people are chasing a bygone era, but the concerns are real.

briany

Sand wrote: »

Trumps support is understandable when you consider three interlinked issues: NAFTA destroyed a host of blue collar towns and regions, pulling the rug out from under the American dream for millions of people. Clinton is loathed because she and her husband presided over NAFTA. And they know the establishment of both parties hold them in contempt and despise them.

Trumps supporters are desperate - there is literally no one else speaking for them or their issues in their minds. When he says things are terrible, they respond because for them things are terrible.

I think Trump is a terrible candidate and a worse human being, but his voters and their issues are not going to go away. When Trump is defeated, both the Democrats and the Republicans need to urgently work towards addressing the increasingly nihilistic response of voters to the conditions they find themselves in. Otherwise some other crank will turn up and tap back into their despair.

If Obama's plan to give Americans affordable healthcare, a relatively reasonable and achievable aim, was met with the resistance it was, then what the hell kind of pushback is Trump's alleged plans to bring jobs back to the US likely to bring? It seems to be the nature of business, especially large ones, to want to maximise profits by outsourcing, automating and whatever else, so Trump would have every large corporation in the US that stands to benefit from such moves lobbying against him. Trump's trying to say he can reverse Globalism and that just seems crazy. He'd be better off saying he's going to try and fix the cost of living issue so that an American worker can live off the same wage, in real terms, as the Mexican or Chinese equivalent can. I don't know if that's possible to even do - probably not without some upheaval, anyway, but it seems like the fundamental issue driving outsourcing, that 3rd/2nd world workers will work for less. Much less.

Alternatively, he could say that these people should re-train. We've all heard the phrase that the world does not owe one a living. It's usually leveled at people on welfare and so on, but it can be said to people in employment as well. If your job can be done by a machine, a person who'll work for 1/3rd of your wages, or your product becomes obsolete, why should I continue employing you?

Sand

briany wrote: »

If Obama's plan to give Americans affordable healthcare, a relatively reasonable and achievable aim, was met with the resistance it was, then what the hell kind of pushback is Trump's alleged plans to bring jobs back to the US likely to bring?

I don't think these people want to sit on welfare with affordable healthcare for the rest of their lives. They want to have hope and self respect that they can work and provide for their families, and their lives will be better than their parents, and their children's lives will be better than their own.

Trumps claim to bring jobs back addresses their actual complaint.

It seems to be the nature of business, especially large ones, to want to maximise profits by outsourcing, automating and whatever else, so Trump would have every large corporation in the US that stands to benefit from such moves lobbying against him. Trump's trying to say he can reverse Globalism and that just seems crazy.

Why is it crazy? Globalism in a world of national governments, border controls and all sorts of regulation and protectionism is not the norm. NAFTA is a political deal. It was not handed down by God at the mountaintop. It was negotiated. It can be renegotiated.

Look, a few years ago the US passed a law which demands all banks and credit institutions to identify and report their account holders to the IRS so they can detect and punish US citizens holding assets abroad. This law passed on immense expense and costs onto the banks/credit institutions who had to introduce new systems, train staff, train their clients, review tens of millions of existing account holders and implement entire new processes advised by lawyers charging by the minute. Absolutely crazy.

The IRS just went and dictated it. No apologies. And basically every bank that wants to stay on the good side of the IRS (i.e. all of them) complied. The USA is the single most powerful state on the planet, and has been a driving force for globalisation since WW2. Should the political winds in the US change, it can become a driving force against globalisation. Obama has already made a few complaints about US corporations avoiding taxes abroad. Trump would be on another level.

He'd be better off saying he's going to try and fix the cost of living issue so that an American worker can live off the same wage, in real terms, as the Mexican or Chinese equivalent can. I don't know if that's possible to even do - probably not without some upheaval, anyway, but it seems like the fundamental issue driving outsourcing, that 3rd/2nd world workers will work for less. Much less.

The key issue is that 3rd/2nd world suppliers have access to 1st world consumers. One of Fords famous sayings was that he wanted his workers to be well paid enough to afford to buy the cars they made. That's no longer necessary - for these 3rd/2nd world suppliers, their target market is not cut from the same cloth as their own staff.

Alternatively, he could say that these people should re-train. We've all heard the phrase that the world does not owe one a living. It's usually leveled at people on welfare and so on, but it can be said to people in employment as well. If your job can be done by a machine, a person who'll work for 1/3rd of your wages, or your product becomes obsolete, why should I continue employing you?

The problem with retraining is that a lot of these devastated communities are not going to become silicon valley, or turn into call centres, or open starbucks and various other high tech/service jobs that are left as possible 'careers' after manufacturing has been shipped to Mexico and China. There are entire towns and communities which are no longer economically viable without the low tech manufacturing that drove them previously - telling them to retrain, they actually need to move to the east or west coast. And there are people who are never, ever, ever going to be able to retrain to be IT or serve coffee. They need blue collar jobs. Telling them to retrain reminds me of the 'Let them eat cake' quote at the start of the French Revolution.

I'm in favour of globalisation - I think free trade is overall a positive force, and it has been overall positive for the US. However, it is absolutely devastating to the losers - they lose their jobs, they lose their communities and they lose their own identity. But they keep their votes. The wins of globalisation ought to be celebrated, but the obvious costs also need to be accounted for.

Trump is tapping into a lot of sullen rage from people who are not part of the overall positive. I think there is a lot to learn from it. There is a deliberate effort by different agendas to lower borders, weaken institutions and reduce barriers and let the cards fall where they may socially, economically and politically. It might be an overall positive eventually, but the losers are going to react, and you will have a nihilist reaction politically. We saw that in the UK, and the wider EU. And we are seeing it in the US.

El_Duderino 09

K-9 wrote:

They got Obama right in 08. They called Brexit being 50/50, they called FF in our election. Polls aren't an exact science, they measure a mood at a certain period of time. Trump is behind because he hasn't broadened his appeal from the Republican base he got in the primaries, simple as.

They did not call Brexit going 50/50.

I attended seminar presented by Ipsos Mori about 5 weeks before the referendum. The focus was on the data analytics used in balancing polling samples with the general population. Internet, phones, high street samples, demographics such as age, gender, education, social class, employment status, likelihood of actually voting and how will the undecided actually vote.

They had been wrong about the UK general election a year before so they were showing off all the changes they had made to improve the accuracy of their predictions. Bottom line was that they predicted a 5% win for remain.

The worrying thing is that the exit polls were wrong by 4%. The investment banks had commissioned exit polls and had got the same result. That's why the markets rallies in the day of the referendum. There is a real chance that people are lying to pollsters as they don't want to be seen as ignorant or racist.

The polls look good for Clinton but I don't think that tells the whole story. It could be a lot closer than. It looks right now.

Samaris

I totally agree with the whole issue of emotive issues giving odd results in polling (for pretty much exactly the Brexit reasons), but I am inclined to think the polls are reasonably accurate in terms of Trump's plummet. The man's utterly eaten his own head, particularly in the last week.

Latest articles (and a poll of all sitting Republicans) indicate that people are outright saying that they don't want him in charge. The poll I mentioned of sitting Reps was anonymous and allowed for comments, and the Reps were specifically giving reasons why they reckon Trump is a lost cause and that they either want him gone or want to distance the GOP from him and focus on not losing the House or Senate (where they have a very slim majority). It's happened once or twice before - Clinton(?) v Bob Dole I think was the last. Of course, sitting representatives don't necessarily represent the majority view, being as they are a specific demographic subset in themselves.

But on top of that, there's no denying that Trump is making himself wildly unpopular with basically everyone outside his core group. He's pissing off women, minorities, moderate Republicans and even the military (for a Republican, that is absolutely the definition of "eating your own head"). Women -alone- are actually a small majority of the electorate.

I think the only way he can actually win now is if Clinton does something absolutely Trump-level bonkers. She's a canny, seasoned politician, well-used to being under fire, and I highly doubt she'll do it directly. It would take something major to swing it against her now in any but hardcore Red states, some of which (Georgia, Arizona), she's currently showing a minor lead in.

Samaris

Oh, or people reckon that Clinton has it sewn up and refrain from voting (or protest vote) to stop her getting a potential landslide. That was something that also mucked up Brexit and I've seen a few people (on the internet, ofc!) saying that they would. That could really put a spanner into the works.

Pro Hoc Vice

Samaris wrote: »

Oh, or people reckon that Clinton has it sewn up and refrain from voting (or protest vote) to stop her getting a potential landslide. That was something that also mucked up Brexit and I've seen a few people (on the internet, ofc!) saying that they would. That could really put a spanner into the works.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-watch/

Brexit polls in final days showed the exit in front and on last day it was 50/50.

K-9

Ah yeah, polls do get it wrong from time to time, I had though the polls had shown Brexit was going to be close but I think there was a complacency among the Remain side that like Scottish independence momentum would sing there way. The last Irish Times poll in Ireland has called it impressively close in our last 2 elections here so it isn't all bad.

As for Trump, the polls called it right in the primaries and many "experts" ignored them until it was staring them in the face, so to question them now just because they show Trump trailing badly in inconsistent for me.

It's a different race now and it's sad to say it but demographics are very predictable. A NPR journalist I listened too reckons it could come down to something as simple as Hillary getting 30% of male vote and she wins. It comes down to both candidates being very unpopular with the opposite sex, it's just women hate Trump even more! He's even more unpopular among African Americans and Latinos than usual Republicans and that could be costly in the swing states, it really does come down to maybe 5 or 6 states deciding if you've a realistic chance of winning.

Trump needs to be keep going on about the economy and low paid jobs and keep doing it over and over. That's a huge issue among Independents and many Democrats who aren't exactly enamoured with Hillary. He has a chance, it's just his campaign so far isn't appealing to those sections of the electorate he needs to and it's totally his own fault.

Samaris

As for Trump, the polls called it right in the primaries and many "experts" ignored them until it was staring them in the face, so to question them now just because they show Trump trailing badly in inconsistent for me.

Mind you, in fairness to the experts, anyone can get thrown by a completely unprecedented act of lunacy. Looking at him now, can people really imagine that he would knock out seasoned veterans who...well, appear actually -sane-, by his loud rhetoric and frankly lousy policies? And yet he did. There was a build-up of factors that just swung it for him - rumbling discontent in what's become his core support group, feeling of being left behind, terrorism, immigration fears, blue-collar job losses over the past couple of decades etcetera. That particular group of factors (plus the various others that people have brought up in here) hasn't really happened in the US before to the extent that it did in the last couple of years and he played on it and got through. I can 't really blame the experts calling Trump wrong. He's a total loose cannon.

I actually enjoyed much of Trump's nomination campaign, I hoped his stuff about walls and banning Muslims was just an appeal to the lowest common denominator and he would revert to his previous more liberal views.

But his spat with the Khans was depraved, vile and disgusting, the actions of a man who is just out of control. To lack empathy for the parents of a soldier who had sacrificed his life...it's perverse beyond belief.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

I don't think these people want to sit on welfare with affordable healthcare for the rest of their lives. They want to have hope and self respect that they can work and provide for their families, and their lives will be better than their parents, and their children's lives will be better than their own.

Trumps claim to bring jobs back addresses their actual complaint.




Why is it crazy? Globalism in a world of national governments, border controls and all sorts of regulation and protectionism is not the norm. NAFTA is a political deal. It was not handed down by God at the mountaintop. It was negotiated. It can be renegotiated.

Look, a few years ago the US passed a law which demands all banks and credit institutions to identify and report their account holders to the IRS so they can detect and punish US citizens holding assets abroad. This law passed on immense expense and costs onto the banks/credit institutions who had to introduce new systems, train staff, train their clients, review tens of millions of existing account holders and implement entire new processes advised by lawyers charging by the minute. Absolutely crazy.

The IRS just went and dictated it. No apologies. And basically every bank that wants to stay on the good side of the IRS (i.e. all of them) complied. The USA is the single most powerful state on the planet, and has been a driving force for globalisation since WW2. Should the political winds in the US change, it can become a driving force against globalisation. Obama has already made a few complaints about US corporations avoiding taxes abroad. Trump would be on another level.



The key issue is that 3rd/2nd world suppliers have access to 1st world consumers. One of Fords famous sayings was that he wanted his workers to be well paid enough to afford to buy the cars they made. That's no longer necessary - for these 3rd/2nd world suppliers, their target market is not cut from the same cloth as their own staff.



The problem with retraining is that a lot of these devastated communities are not going to become silicon valley, or turn into call centres, or open starbucks and various other high tech/service jobs that are left as possible 'careers' after manufacturing has been shipped to Mexico and China. There are entire towns and communities which are no longer economically viable without the low tech manufacturing that drove them previously - telling them to retrain, they actually need to move to the east or west coast. And there are people who are never, ever, ever going to be able to retrain to be IT or serve coffee. They need blue collar jobs. Telling them to retrain reminds me of the 'Let them eat cake' quote at the start of the French Revolution.

I'm in favour of globalisation - I think free trade is overall a positive force, and it has been overall positive for the US. However, it is absolutely devastating to the losers - they lose their jobs, they lose their communities and they lose their own identity. But they keep their votes. The wins of globalisation ought to be celebrated, but the obvious costs also need to be accounted for.

Trump is tapping into a lot of sullen rage from people who are not part of the overall positive. I think there is a lot to learn from it. There is a deliberate effort by different agendas to lower borders, weaken institutions and reduce barriers and let the cards fall where they may socially, economically and politically. It might be an overall positive eventually, but the losers are going to react, and you will have a nihilist reaction politically. We saw that in the UK, and the wider EU. And we are seeing it in the US.

Excellent post and get out of my head!

States should work hand in hand in markets but over the last 8 years it has been austerity and cuts while people lost jobs or wages were cut, and new jobs are often low paid and in low skill services. People want to leave their kids better off, you often hear that many people genuinely don't believe the next generation will have it better if things keep going like this. Wages have been stagnant for 20 or 30 years in the US and left or right ideology can no longer mask that the middle class is shrinking, hence Sanders and Trump.

Hell, there is now evidence coming out that companies aren't even benefiting anymore, the rich getting richer may well apply to corporates as well as individuals.

I was listening to a great podcast about Obama's 8 years, the journalist went on a road trip interviewing people across America and discontent with the economy, low paid jobs, disfunctional welfare and immigration system is everywhere, regardless of party. Stuff like Obamacare isn't that big an issue, it is to diehards on both sides who unthinkingly are for or against it but as Bill Clinton said, "tis the economy stupid".

Those words should be coming back to haunt him but they aren't and it is down to Trump. Hillary is running an uninspiring, competent campaign and it looks like it will be enough. Then again you look at the alternatives to Trump and it would look like it's a GOP issue, it's just he makes it worse, not better.

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

But his spat with the Khans was depraved, vile and disgusting, the actions of a man who is just out of control. To lack empathy for the parents of a soldier who had sacrificed his life...it's perverse beyond belief.

It was the action of an extremely thin-skinned tyro who is used to being able to shout and rant his way out of problems by intimidating whoever is calling him on his crap.

If he was an ordinary person, I would have felt it a bit unwise to call them out, but I'd have moderate sympathy for his feeling got at. However, he's not, he's the Republican nominee and should act like it. He'd have done a hell of a lot better for himself if he'd treated the situation as a grieving family and acted with restraint and decorum.

However, these are words that can only be associated with Trump in the same way that they can be associated with forest fires.

K-9

Samaris wrote: »

Mind you, in fairness to the experts, anyone can get thrown by a completely unprecedented act of lunacy. Looking at him now, can people really imagine that he would knock out seasoned veterans who...well, appear actually -sane-, by his loud rhetoric and frankly lousy policies? And yet he did. There was a build-up of factors that just swung it for him - rumbling discontent in what's become his core support group, feeling of being left behind, terrorism, immigration fears, blue-collar job losses over the past couple of decades etcetera. That particular group of factors (plus the various others that people have brought up in here) hasn't really happened in the US before to the extent that it did in the last couple of years and he played on it and got through. I can 't really blame the experts calling Trump wrong. He's a total loose cannon.

There was a great interview with the young guy who has a website calling elections, he got every state right in 012. Why did he get Trump wrong? He was an outlier. The polls kept saying Trump is going to run away with this but experience, history and his gut kept saying Trump will fall away. There has been plenty of early front runners who fall away after 3 or 4 primaries, so perfectly understandable.

The alternatives were so poor, Jeb was the anointed one and he was terrible, we ended up with Cruz vs. Trump, Jaysus! That's all fine within the Republican party but come election time it isn't enough.

K-9

Samaris wrote: »

It was the action of an extremely thin-skinned tyro who is used to being able to shout and rant his way out of problems by intimidating whoever is calling him on his crap.

If he was an ordinary person, I would have felt it a bit unwise to call them out, but I'd have moderate sympathy for his feeling got at. However, he's not, he's the Republican nominee and should act like it. He'd have done a hell of a lot better for himself if he'd treated the situation as a grieving family and acted with restraint and decorum.

However, these are words that can only be associated with Trump in the same way that they can be associated with forest fires.

Assumptions are dumb! His comment about Mr. Khan's was just crass and an example of why stereotyping 1 person because of religion and sex is stupid.

The thing was he did reasonably well in the polls after the convention, was getting the traditional bounce after them, he was even behaving himself up to that commenting on the Democratic one but he can't help himself. All that pent up rage came out!

Samaris

K-9 wrote: »

Assumptions are dumb! His comment about Mr. Khan's was just crass and an example of why stereotyping 1 person because of religion and sex is stupid.

The thing was he did reasonably well in the polls after the convention, was getting the traditional bounce after them, he was even behaving himself up to that commenting on the Democratic one but he can't help himself. All that pent up rage came out!

O.o Which assumption? Okay, I did call him some names there, but I think I can back them up by his actions :P

I agree his comments were crass and unreasonable, but all the more so because of his position. He does not seem to realise that he is representing the GOP to the entire nation (well, the western world at the moment), and that his actions and words reflect (mostly badly) on them.

Edit: Oh, did you mean his assumption about Ghazala Khan? That was pretty damn dumb.

Christy42

Samaris wrote: »

O.o Which assumption? Okay, I did call him some names there, but I think I can back them up by his actions :P

I agree his comments were crass and unreasonable, but all the more so because of his position. He does not seem to realise that he is representing the GOP to the entire nation (well, the western world at the moment), and that his actions and words reflect (mostly badly) on them.

Edit: Oh, did you mean his assumption about Ghazala Khan? That was pretty damn dumb.

Pretty sure he meant what your edit says. The thing is I am not sure it matters to Trump. He wanted to get the suggestion out into the minds of his voters. He doesn't care about whether or not it is true. I doubt he knew or cared whether his assumption was correct.

K-9

Yeah, sorry, post was unclear.

I can just imagine the campaign teams reaction to that. It's like puppy training, it was going so well and then...

alchemist33

Samaris wrote: »

It was the action of an extremely thin-skinned tyro who is used to being able to shout and rant his way out of problems by intimidating whoever is calling him on his crap.

If he was an ordinary person, I would have felt it a bit unwise to call them out, but I'd have moderate sympathy for his feeling got at. However, he's not, he's the Republican nominee and should act like it. He'd have done a hell of a lot better for himself if he'd treated the situation as a grieving family and acted with restraint and decorum.

However, these are words that can only be associated with Trump in the same way that they can be associated with forest fires.

He has one mode and one mode only. He has no idea how to de-escalate a situation because he's probably had that done for him by other people all his life. Empathy, or just being able to see a situation from someone else's point of view, is also something he seems incapable of. The Khan clusterf*ck should be enough on its own to tell people he's not fit to run a democracy.


Should.

K-9

Christy42 wrote: »

Pretty sure he meant what your edit says. The thing is I am not sure it matters to Trump. He wanted to get the suggestion out into the minds of his voters. He doesn't care about whether or not it is true. I doubt he knew or cared whether his assumption was correct.

Yep, all he was thinking was attack, not thinking it through. Really, all he had to do was bite his tongue, there was always only going to be 1 winner on that one. That's the downside of somebody like him on Twitter.

He had done a good job at appealing to veterans after his McCain comments. He'll probably recover coming up to the debates but the military are very important in those, you have to be seen to appeal to the army and veterans. Hillary just needs to remind them and the audience about what he has said.

Samaris

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, sorry, post was unclear.

I can just imagine the campaign teams reaction to that. It's like puppy training, it was going so well and then...

No worries, my brain is working at somewhat less than 100% today so I read it wrong Twigged it eventually though!

And yeah, I think that was the moment the tide really started to turn. People were Nervous before that, and his own campaign staff appears to be a bit sick of putting out fires, but that was just so nutty and unreasonable, especially when he KEPT DOING IT that I can imagine moderate, sane Republicans who have to be in the public eye and commenting on his gaffes curling up in corners and demanding not to be woken until November 10th.

The fire marshal thing? That was ungracious, rude and bitchy. Orange flag.
The crying baby business? Impatient, unpleasant but fairly minor although he can't keep a coherent thread with minor distractions going, god knows how he's going to cope with emergencies at 3AM. Yellow flag, might have just been a bad day.
Revenge on Paul ..gah, name. Refusing to endorse that guy. Childish, ungracious and bratty - at least an orange flag.
Attacking the Khans - brazen, ungracious, bratty, rude, bitchy and malevolent. Red flag.

All of these in pretty much the same WEEK, while running for president? Big crimson flag with foghorns and neon lettering!

take everything

Rjd2 wrote: »

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

Really good insight into ordinary people's thinking about Trump.
Not all of them rednecks either.

Pity Bernie didn't get through though.
Wouldn't have this problem now.

ToddyDoody

Anyone else donate to his campaign?

I'm not trolling I swear.

Renegade Mechanic

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Anyone else donate to his campaign?

I'm not trolling I swear.

No. But I sent an email telling him he better not be a Clinton plant

Bazzo

I heard a guy on the radio put it well a while back:

"After years of sowing dragon's teeth the Republican Party are shocked to discover they've actually managed to grow a dragon."

Trump is the product of the ****ing mess that is the American political system. Their population are completely entrenched against each other along party lines and the parties have spent years instilling us vs them mentalities in their members. The republicans are especially guilty of constantly moving to more and more extreme positions in order to distance themselves from "the enemy". It's a ludicrous situation.

And don't get me started on how the whole country treat the word "socialism" like it's the worst thing imaginable. The very people things like public healthcare are designed to help will march and rally against it because the god damn government can't tell them what to do! It beggars belief.