Donald Trump

LordSutch

RoboKlopp wrote: »

It's worse this clown is getting.

Really appealing to the lowest form of voter.

Agreed, but yet he's getting perilously close to becoming the President of the United States!

seamus

LordSutch wrote: »

Agreed, but yet he's getting perilously close to becoming the President of the United States!

Nah, Clinton is speeding away from him in the polls. He's managed to lose the support of GOP voters, and it's only going to get worse.

There's even talk about GOP supporters funding another candidate as a technically "independent" one. That would be the end for Trump as that candidate will take conservative votes from him.

VinLieger

LordSutch wrote: »

Agreed, but yet he's getting perilously close to becoming the President of the United States!

If the election was tomorrow he would be destroyed going by current polls and that was from before this new 2nd amendment idiocy

El_Duderino 09

Of course the 2nd amendment thing was a joke. It was a double entendre which means he both said it and gives his supporters the opportunity to say he never said it. He did the same thing with a period joke on Megan Kelly and blood coming out if her...

It's his schtick.

VinLieger

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course the 2nd amendment thing was a joke. It was a double entendre which means he both said it and gives his supporters the opportunity to say he never said it. He did the same thing with a period joke on Megan Kelly and blood coming out if her...

It's his schtick.

Ohh completely, the problem is his suoprters are already his supporters and gonna vote for him, hes winning nobody new or undecided with garbage like this which is what a presidential campaign is all about, he can reinforce his base all he wants but it wont win him the election

Penn

His schtick is getting him schtuck.

El_Duderino 09

VinLieger wrote:

Ohh completely, the problem is his suoprters are already his supporters and gonna vote for him, hes winning nobody new or undecided with garbage like this which is what a presidential campaign is all about, he can reinforce his base all he wants but it wont win him the election

True.

I was saying all along that he will pivot to the centre and run people with his economic speeches and promises. He also needs the free publicity which he gets from saying controversial things. His free publicity is estimated at over $2b so far. It's easy to calculate because he has paid for almost none of his publicity. I don't know what Clinton's figure is.

I think its still early days yet as he only got the nomination last month. Time is ticking though. And if he keeps relying in free publicity which loses him voters, he needs to capitalise on the time when he's talking about the economy and normal presidential campaign stuff. That hasn't been working in the last few weeks.

The debates will be interesting. He might he waiting for them to change his rhetoric and pivot to the centre. Might, could, maybe. It's not looking good for the Donald at the moment

Bazzo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

True.

I was saying all along that he will pivot to the centre and run people with his economic speeches and promises. He also needs the free publicity which he gets from saying controversial things. His free publicity is estimated at over $2b so far. It's easy to calculate because he has paid for almost none of his publicity. I don't know what Clinton's figure is.

I think its still early days yet as he only got the nomination last month. Time is ticking though. And if he keeps relying in free publicity which loses him voters, he needs to capitalise on the time when he's talking about the economy and normal presidential campaign stuff. That hasn't been working in the last few weeks.

The debates will be interesting. He might he waiting for them to change his rhetoric and pivot to the centre. Might, could, maybe. It's not looking good for the Donald at the moment

His "free publicity" is currently tanking him in the polls and sending anyone remotely moderate and the all important swing voters running for the hills. Contrary to popular belief: not all publicity is good publicity.

El_Duderino 09

Bazzo wrote:

His "free publicity" is currently tanking him in the polls and sending anyone remotely moderate and the all important swing voters running for the hills. Contrary to popular belief: not all publicity is good publicity.

I take your point.

He could be dropping even faster if he was relying on going toe-to-toe with a policy wonk like Hillary. Saying crazy things won him the primary race.

Relying on the publicity from saying crazy things is a Faustian bargain. He needs to say something crazy to get the attention but once he has the attention he needs to capitalise by winning voters by saying normal campaign winning thngs. At the moment it's not working

El_Dangeroso

seamus wrote: »

There's even talk about GOP supporters funding another candidate as a technically "independent" one. That would be the end for Trump as that candidate will take conservative votes from him.

It's already happened:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-officer-evan-mcmullin-launches-independent-presidential-bid/story?id=41201256

He has missed the deadline for most ballots so can't win mathematically, but it's more about giving the GOP old guard an option rather than voting for the dreaded Hillary.

The GOP have already conceded this one. Trump was just too divisive, Hillary is too for her party but not by as much.

lee_baby_simms

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think its still early days yet

It really isn't though, whoever is leading 3 weeks after the conventions has usually gone on to win.

The Olympics will dominate a lot of tv and news for August unless Trump drops another gaffe...

Then you're into September and the debates. That's the last chance Trump has to make a positive difference but after that the polls will start to steady.

The GOP primary debates were all about show and sticking out from a large field. The debates next month will be completely different. Trump trotting out meaningless lines like making the wall higher and that "Mexico are the new China" will not wash. Not only does he not have any grasp of foreign policy, he has no interest in it. He could be shown to have very little depth at the debate.

Personally I think time is Trumps greatest enemy. The longer this campaign goes on the more likely he is to say something wildly inappropriate, turn off more voters that he desperately needs and trigger more high profile GOP defections. Then you add in his dodgy tax returns, Trump University trial...

He's painted himself into a political corner, his loyal base love the brash, freewheeling straight talker but unfortunately that character is destroying his chances to get votes from non-whites, women and college educated.

He needs a miracle as things currently stand.

Penn

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

The longer this campaign goes on the more likely he is to say something wildly inappropriate, turn off more voters that he desperately needs and trigger more high profile GOP defections.

That's what's really going to damage him imo. Each time Trump says something stupid, he loses some GOP'ers who had been supporting him up to that point, because they know the more they defend him, the worse it looks for them and the more damage it will do to them individually when it comes to their re-election, and to their party as a whole.

A Little Pony

Hillary does want to erode the 2nd Amendment. The American people would be entitled to defend themselves against a tyrannical President. It has happened before in American history.

Pro Hoc Vice

A Little Pony wrote: »

Hillary does want to erode the 2nd Amendment. The American people would be entitled to defend themselves against a tyrannical President. It has happened before in American history.

Can you give an example of a "tyrannical president" and the people using the 2nd amendment to defend themselves.

lee_baby_simms

Penn wrote: »

That's what's really going to damage him imo. Each time Trump says something stupid, he loses some GOP'ers who had been supporting him up to that point, because they know the more they defend him, the worse it looks for them and the more damage it will do to them individually when it comes to their re-election, and to their party as a whole.

Exactly yeah, a lot of republicans probably feel like they're at a fork in the road right now and have to look far beyond the current election and how sticking with Trump could possibly ruin their own careers.

If Trump goes down like the Hindenburg so too will the credibility of people like Paul Ryan, Pence, Chris Christie and Ben Carson.

A Little Pony

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Hillary does want to erode the 2nd Amendment. The American people would be entitled to defend themselves against a tyrannical President. It has happened before in American history.

Can you give an example of a "tyrannical president" and the people using the 2nd amendment to defend themselves.

War between the States.

lee_baby_simms

A Little Pony wrote: »

Hillary does want to erode the 2nd Amendment.

If eroding the 2nd Amendment means implementing thorough background checks then yes, you're right.

Pro Hoc Vice

A Little Pony wrote: »

War between the States.

I do not think any historian has accused Lincoln of being Tyrannical, nor did the 2nd amendment have much to do with it as the confederate constitution was the constitution they operated under, in 1861 they formed the confederate volunteer army after they created their own constitution.

Renegade Mechanic

I see the investigation into the death of the leaker of documents showing corruption in the DNC and preference/rigging for Hillary - Seth Rich - remains open and scantly reported.
Apparently it was a botched mugging/robbery in which he was shot a few times in the back, but had absolutely none of his belongings taken - not even cash.

I'm guessing out of respect for the dead...

Just another notch on the large list of people who have worked against the Clintons who have found themselves dead. I like how everyone focuses on Putin - not saying it's wrong - but completely ignores the amount of people that have met their ends around the Clintons. That list will get a lot bigger once they're back in.

BoatMad

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Er... Which one's which

The orginal poster drew attention To clintons " shady past "

radia

Anyone else getting a real 'Springtime for Hitler' vibe from Trump's campaign?
I'm not sure when he started he really wanted anything more than publicity for himself, but as other contenders fell away he became more and more entangled.

I'd agree he has minimal chance of winning overall (and if he does, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a nasty 'accident' befell him before he had a chance to do anything much). But if he loses, it's pretty bad for his business interests: They're all about the Trump brand, which will become inevitably tainted by his 'Loser' status. So as not to lose, I reckon he'll pull out close to the last minute, citing some kind of conspiracy by 'Big Politics'.

Edit: I see Jimmy Kimmel's already been there:

BoatMad

A Little Pony wrote: »

War between the States.

I see , we should not touch any gun control because the US might re-introduce slavery requiring the citizenry to react

Shessh , to think there are prople that put forward " war between the states" as a reason against Clinton

20Cent

The NRA used to be for background checks and compulsory training/certification for buying a gun. This idea of buying an ar 15 and as much ammo as you want with no checksis a relatively new thing.
Saying regulations are taking away guns is like saying seatbelt requirements are taking away you car. Nonsense.

BoatMad

20Cent wrote: »

The NRA used to be for background checks and compulsory training/certification for buying a gun. This idea of buying an ar 15 and as much ammo as you want with no checksis a relatively new thing.
Saying regulations are taking away guns is like saying seatbelt requirements are taking away you car. Nonsense.

The paradox is that there is far far less gun control today in the US then 20-30 years ago.

Christy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

Hillary does want to erode the 2nd Amendment. The American people would be entitled to defend themselves against a tyrannical President. It has happened before in American history.

This is absolutely insane. The same was said about Obama and nothing happened. Crazy how upset Republicans get about someone saying that people with mental health problems shouldn't guns (to the point of suggesting civil war if I read the post correctly) but somehow 2 guys being in love is the mark of the devil.

The mental gymnastics to hold it all together must be exhausting.

K-9

LordSutch wrote: »

Agreed, but yet he's getting perilously close to becoming the President of the United States!

But he's dropping further and further behind, his campaign team must be having nervous breakdowns! Republicans were starting to support him after the convention, things were on the up but Trump can't help himself.

Hillary doesn't have to say or do anything atm to win, just sit back and watch.

seamus

A Little Pony wrote: »

Hillary does want to erode the 2nd Amendment. The American people would be entitled to defend themselves against a tyrannical President. It has happened before in American history.

This is where the gun lobby gets ridiculous.

A president who would remove or otherwise amend the 2nd Amendment would not be a tyrannical one. That's democracy.

You know what is tyrannical? Using violence to prevent a democractically-elected government from legally changing the constitution.

Considering the number of votes and hoops that would have to be jumped through to do anything to the second amendment, if it was to be changed, it would be the will of the people. Anyone who would oppose that using violence, is a terrorist.

K-9

20Cent wrote: »

The NRA used to be for background checks and compulsory training/certification for buying a gun. This idea of buying an ar 15 and as much ammo as you want with no checksis a relatively new thing.
Saying regulations are taking away guns is like saying seatbelt requirements are taking away you car. Nonsense.

As gun laws don't change they have to get crazier and more paranoid to convince people gun rights are under threat. BBC did a great podcast about them last year, detestable organisation but the yardstick in how to successfully lobby.

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

This is absolutely insane. The same was said about Obama and nothing happened. Crazy how upset Republicans get about someone saying that people with mental health problems shouldn't guns (to the point of suggesting civil war if I read the post correctly) but somehow 2 guys being in love is the mark of the devil.

The mental gymnastics to hold it all together must be exhausting.

On that note, Joe Biden got a temporary certification and officiated a marriage of two White House staffers in his home. Brian Mosteller and Joe Mahshie - "proud to marry Brian and Joe at my house. Couldn't be happier, two longtime White House staffers. Two great guys."

InTheTrees

K-9 wrote: »

As gun laws don't change they have to get crazier and more paranoid to convince people gun rights are under threat. BBC did a great podcast about them last year, detestable organisation but the yardstick in how to successfully lobby.

Right now the republican controlled Congress doesnt even allow any studies into the effects of gun violence.