2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

People shouldn't have to waste their time providing links to well known information. Will we have to provide links to the results the day after Clinton destroys Trump in the election?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/donald-trump-roger-ailes.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/08/report-roger-ailes-advising-donald-trump-ahead-of-debates-227060
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roger-ailes-advising-trump-debates-formal-campaign-role/story?id=41429274

Welcome to my world.

I see no wrong with a woman defending her husband against rape allegations.

Do you also see no wrong with Hillary threatening and destroying the lives of the women who have accused him of sexual abuse?

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Welcome to my world.



Do you also see no wrong with Hillary threatening and destroying the lives of the women who have accused him of sexual abuse?

We only ask you for links because you have a habit of posting a bunch of delusional nonsense that needs to be backed up.

It depends. Was Bill Clinton convicted of raping them in the end? Or did they not press charges because the allegations were made up?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

It depends. Was Bill Clinton convicted of raping them in the end? Or did they not press charges because the allegations were made up?

I'd say it was because they feared for their lives and livelihoods.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/flashback-hillary-clinton-threatened-bills-accusers-in-1998/

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

We only ask you for links because you have a habit of posting a bunch of delusional nonsense that needs to be backed up.

And you don't? I can see you asking for links because most of you are hearing all these troubling truths surrounding Clinton for the first time thanks to our lovely media not doing their jobs, but mods demanding them is another story.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Welcome to my world.

Do you also see no wrong with Hillary threatening and destroying the lives of the women who have accused him of sexual abuse?

Indeed. Welcome to the twenty year old Republican smear campaign against he Clinton's.

Republicans living off their nonsense conspiracy theories are possibly a direct cause of the current slide downwards. They've been heading this direction since Ken Starr and his witch hunt.

And look where its got them? Hillary Clinton is likely to win the election in an historic landslide.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

So you don't believe any of it?

Perhaps you might believe this...
http://nypost.com/2016/08/15/hillarys-site-edits-sexual-assault-pledge-after-rape-claims-against-bill-resurface/

All hail the sexual abuse enabler, because none of that matters, because... well... just because she isn’t Trump. That's what you're all telling me, right?

Was there a reason you lead with the comedy newspaper in that case?

You spent ages saying how you are the only one that has had to supply links and then come out with the daily mail. I have absolutely no way of knowing what in the daily mail is false or taken out of context/ presented in a misleading way.

A link to that site means I have to research it all myself which is the same as not posting a link.

In spite of being called out on some entirely unreliable links and yet you keep going back to these same sites.

Edit: and in fact your citation was from a site that has announced it supports Trump
http://nypost.com/2016/04/14/the-post-endorses-donald-trump/

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

And you don't? I can see you asking for links because most of you are hearing all these troubling truths surrounding Clinton for the first time thanks to our lovely media not doing their jobs, but mods demanding them is another story.

No I don't. Would you like to give examples of my posts that qualify as delusional nonsense?

These aren't "troubling truths", I've heard these conspiracy theories before. This isn't an example of the media not doing its job, its an example of the media not running with conspiracy theories. Did you complain when the New York Times and Washington Post didn't run 9/11 truther pieces after 9/11?

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

I understand if there was to any advisory by Ailes, that it is informal.

I don’t understand the second part of your question. Ailes is obviously an intelligent person who know how to create winners. Is the problem you have because Ailes has been accused of sexual harassment by women from FoxNews, who have previously praised him in books? And if that’s the case, I don’t understand why anyone would take umbrage with Ailes, yet stay silent on Bill Clinton, who has been reported to be a serial abuser of women, who is married to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary has stated Bill would have an important role in her administration. If there was any real outrage over a powerful man's mistreatment of women, it should be directed at Bill Clinton, and his enabling wife.

Trump has sky high unfavourable ratings amongst women.

But anyway, you can't try and explain the rational without bringing up Bill so you've answered for me anyway, there is no logic to it!

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

I can see you asking for links because most of you are hearing all these troubling truths surrounding Clinton for the first time thanks to our lovely media not doing their jobs,

Seriously? You think people haven't heard this nonsense?

What is it you want the media to do? Keep repeating the same rumours over and over?

conditioned games

With Hillarys erratic behaviour and health problems and Trumps opposition to the new world order and one world government it's unlikely the US elections will go ahead at all. It's now looking more likely the global elite will give the go ahead to crash the financial system before the election and keep their man Obama for a third term. When Obama eventually leaves office America will be an economic wasteland.

K-9

Suryavarman wrote: »

We only ask you for links because you have a habit of posting a bunch of delusional nonsense that needs to be backed up.

Mod:

Less of the personal stuff, that goes for everybody.


@conditioned games, no conspiracy stuff thanks, there's a CT forum on the site for that.

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

I'd say it was because they feared for their lives and livelihoods.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/flashback-hillary-clinton-threatened-bills-accusers-in-1998/

I got as far as to where it's sources were "it is commonly believed" that Clinton hired Private investigators.

Commonly believed is code for "I made that s**t up"

It is commonly believed around here that Trump does not have a brain between his two ears... but I would have to believe the medical reports that he does as medical report's can be backed up and verified.

Same crap Fox etc use to report any crap they want they just say "some people say" that moon is made of cheese and Hillary Clinton is the most evil person in the world. WHAT F****ing people say, they never say who these people are just an easy out for them to report crap.

Once again you are embarrassing yourself posting right wing conspiracy sites

Igotadose

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I got as far as to where it's sources were "it is commonly believed" that Clinton hired Private investigators.

Commonly believed is code for "I made that s**t up"

It is commonly believed around here that Trump does not have a brain between his two ears... but I would have to believe the medical reports that he does as medical report's can be backed up and verified.

Same crap Fox etc use to report any crap they want they just say "some people say" that moon is made of cheese and Hillary Clinton is the most evil person in the world. WHAT F****ing people say, they never say who these people are just an easy out for them to report crap.

Once again you are embarrassing yourself posting right wing conspiracy sites

Rude Pundit's just another conspiracy theory nutter. If it's the source of information, I ignore it. Someone on boards described these nutters as being part of 'the 20 year campaign to discredit the Clintons' and really, that's what it is, the tGOP has nothing else, no policies, no successes, just slime and dogwhistling, and they've been gifted with Trump. Really wish the election were next week as this is just getting tedious, nothing new coming from them and Hilary's just waltzing to the WH.

TheDoctor

I agree with the above that this election has now peaked.

Should just move it forward and get the inevitable result over with.

Suryavarman

InTheTrees wrote: »

Seriously? You think people haven't heard this nonsense?

What is it you want the media to do? Keep repeating the same rumours over and over?

I think Amerika wants the media to report on every baseless conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton while ignoring all of Trump's flaws as a candidate and as a human being.

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I got as far as to where it's sources were "it is commonly believed" that Clinton hired Private investigators.

Commonly believed is code for "I made that s**t up"

It is commonly believed around here that Trump does not have a brain between his two ears... but I would have to believe the medical reports that he does as medical report's can be backed up and verified.

Same crap Fox etc use to report any crap they want they just say "some people say" that moon is made of cheese and Hillary Clinton is the most evil person in the world. WHAT F****ing people say, they never say who these people are just an easy out for them to report crap.

Once again you are embarrassing yourself posting right wing conspiracy sites

There's always first-hand information, you know. But sadly, I don't think anything would suffice for the majority of people here.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264988-bill-clinton-rape-accuser-hillary-tried-to-silence-me

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

I think Amerika wants the media to report on every baseless conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton while ignoring all of Trump's flaws as a candidate and as a human being.

Nope, just want the media to do their jobs, report accurately, fairly, and evenly between the two candidates. Yeah, I'm asking for too much... I know.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Was there a reason you lead with the comedy newspaper in that case?

You spent ages saying how you are the only one that has had to supply links and then come out with the daily mail. I have absolutely no way of knowing what in the daily mail is false or taken out of context/ presented in a misleading way.

A link to that site means I have to research it all myself which is the same as not posting a link.

In spite of being called out on some entirely unreliable links and yet you keep going back to these same sites.

Edit: and in fact your citation was from a site that has announced it supports Trump
http://nypost.com/2016/04/14/the-post-endorses-donald-trump/

I honestly don’t know much about the Dail Mail. I usually only provide sources I’ve seen referenced at some point in RealClearPolitics.com or Allsides.com, because they seem to be somewhat reputable. But come to think if it, they also reference articles from MediaMatters, Slate, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone and The New York Times... so you may have a point.

More than 50 US newspaper have endorsed Hillary so far, with more to come. I guess we should not trust any of them by your standards, right? Pretty soon we won't be able to trust any of the media. Hmmm... Maybe it's too late already.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

I honestly don’t know much about the Dail Mail. I usually only provide sources I’ve seen referenced at some point in RealClearPolitics.com or Allsides.com, because they seem to be somewhat reputable. But come to think if it, they also reference articles from MediaMatters, Slate, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone and The New York Times... so you may have a point.

More than 50 US newspaper have endorsed Hillary so far, with more to come. I guess we should not trust any of them by your standards, right? Pretty soon we won't be able to trust any of the media. Hmmm... Maybe it's too late already.

Is there a list, since you have a number? It would be handy as yes I don't think a paper should endorse a candidate. For instance I can't find any endorsement by the Washington post but admittedly I have not looked that hard. I only looked up the nypost when you linked it.

The daily mail is well known gutter tabloid blaming immigrants for everything under the sun.

None of that actually defends the points you were trying to make before.

K-9

The Daily Mail, much as I don't like it, is the most read British newspaper on the net. Debate the article and point out the flaws please, rather than a debate every second day over what media organisation is too left/right, populist, garbage, pc etc.
It's getting very old!

Amerika

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey of likely US Voters now shows Clinton with 41% support to Trump’s 39%. Lately, it seems when Trump keeps off of Twitter and stays on script at his speeches, his poll numbers rise. Perhaps he should stick to that game plan until the debates. (Does that make me an informal adviser to his team?)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Rjd2

Amerika wrote: »

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey of likely US Voters now shows Clinton with 41% support to Trump’s 39%. Lately, it seems when Trump keeps off of Twitter and stays on script at his speeches, his poll numbers rise. Perhaps he should stick to that game plan until the debates. (Does that make me an informal adviser to his team?)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Rasmussen I think would be somewhat right wing, someone will be along to clear up for me soon enough.

Is that the only poll recently that is of any hope for him?

Amerika

I wonder how the situation of the mounting tensions between Ukraine and Russia will play out in the US general election. Reports are Putin is placing 40,000 troops and armored vehicles along the Ukraine border. Putin probably sees a weakness in the US right now brought about by all the discord in the election, and views Obama as unwilling to do anything, so an opportunity exists for him to flex his muscles. Is Putin planing new incursions into the Ukraine so as to provide a buffer zone between NATO and Russia? I think both Trump and Clinton would be more heavy handed in their responses than Obama (who will probably just send more blankets). The situation will probably take a greater spotlight on the campaign in the coming days and weeks. Both will probably call for sanctions against Russia if they do move their militarily farther into the Ukraine. The question I have is would either call for a ramping up of funding to the Ukraine so they could purchase more military equipment?

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I wonder how the situation of the mounting tensions between Ukraine and Russia will play out in the US general election. Reports are Putin is placing 40,000 troops and armored vehicles along the Ukraine border. Putin probably sees a weakness in the US right now brought about by all the discord in the election, and views Obama as unwilling to do anything, so an opportunity exists for him to flex his muscles. Is Putin planing new incursions into the Ukraine so as to provide a buffer zone between NATO and Russia? I think both Trump and Clinton would be more heavy handed in their responses than Obama (who will probably just send more blankets). The situation will probably take a greater spotlight on the campaign in the coming days and weeks. Both will probably call for sanctions against Russia if they do move their militarily farther into the Ukraine. The question I have is would either call for a ramping up of funding to the Ukraine so they could purchase more military equipment?

Is this the same Trump that wants to withdraw from NATO and said he was open to recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea?

The question came from Mareike Aden, a German reporter, who asked him whether a President Trump would recognize Crimea as Russian and lift sanctions on Moscow imposed after its 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory. The candidate’s reply: “Yes. We would be looking at that.”

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

Is this the same Trump that wants to withdraw from NATO and said he was open to recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea?

The very same. He is also the same Trump that wants Mexico to build the wall for him. You may like or loathe Mr Trump but he certainly knows how to get you to listen.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The very same. He is also the same Trump that wants Mexico to build the wall for him. You may like or loathe Mr Trump but he certainly knows how to get you to listen.

I think he was arguing against the claim Amerika made that Trump would be more heavy handed against Russia than Obama. Certainly to me it seems an odd claim.

He does certainly know how to get people to listen but in a two way race (unlike his primary) that skill isn't needed so much as both candidates will get plenty of attention.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Is this the same Trump that wants to withdraw from NATO and said he was open to recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea?

Sometimes when I read responses like this I think I'm looking at news through some alternative universe. I don't recall Trump saying he wanted to withdraw from NATO. I do recall him saying NATO countries must be willing to pay their NATO bills if they expect support from other NATO countries. And after the reported statement, Ukraine's ambassador Valeriy Chaly met with the Trump campaign in Cleveland during the GOP convention for a clarification, and he was assured the Republicans did not accept Russia's claim to Crimea.

"I met with them, and Mr. Trump's team, and everybody told me that 'everything's okay, we keep this position, we reject any annexation of your territory in Crimea from Russian side"

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Sometimes when I read responses like this I think I'm looking at news through some alternative universe. I don't recall Trump saying he wanted to withdraw from NATO. I do recall him saying NATO countries must be willing to pay their NATO bills if they expect support from other NATO countries. And after the reported statement, Ukraine's ambassador Valeriy Chaly met with the Trump campaign in Cleveland during the GOP convention for a clarification, and he was assured the Republicans did not accept Russia's claim to Crimea.

"I met with them, and Mr. Trump's team, and everybody told me that 'everything's okay, we keep this position, we reject any annexation of your territory in Crimea from Russian side"

Donald Trump, in a New York Times interview published Thursday, outlined a sharp break in US foreign policy tradition, suggesting the US wouldn't defend NATO allies like the Baltic states against Russian aggression if they haven't "fulfilled their obligation to us."

Sorry. He doesn't want to withdraw from NATO, he just doesn't wan't to defend them when attacked. He still wants the US to be in NATO, it just wouldn't do the one thing NATO was set up for. Even though all the other countries in NATO invaded Afghanistan with the US after the US was attacked.

So the Ukranian Ambassador is a more authoritative source on Trump's foreign policy than Trump is?

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

Sorry. He doesn't want to withdraw from NATO, he just doesn't wan't to defend them when attacked. He still wants the US to be in NATO, it just wouldn't do the one thing NATO was set up for. Even though all the other countries in NATO invaded Afghanistan with the US after the US was attacked.

So the Ukranian Ambassador is a more authoritative source on Trump's foreign policy than Trump is?

Unfortunately NATO did not use the time to pursue the terrorists into Pakistan until the Obama presidency and he came under some criticism for taking that action. America held off putting pressure on Pakistan. Has any media outlets asked Mr Trump was is his position on an other American ally that is rarely mentioned India a "secular democracy" that also has a problem with Jihadists.

Akrasia

Trump is an utter buffoon who is incapable of seeing past the immediate future.

He just reacts to whatever stimulus is closest to him, like a venus fly trap. He's incapable of understanding the medium or long term consequences of his actions

NATO is there to prevent European and other strategic countries from becoming allies, or being subsumed by America's biggest military rival.

The price of a war against russia is infinitely higher than the cost of subsidizing NATO

If America nit picks about NATO fees, all he's doing is driving allies into the arms of his enemies.

Trump doesn't play chess. He plays Snap.

One reason most sane people are appalled by Trump is because he is playing into the hands of Putin, and Putin is ruthless, and much much smarter than Donald Trump

AbusesToilets

Can we just close this thread already. Clinton is clearly going to win. Everyday it's 5 posts bashing Trump to 1 post bashing Clinton. Both candidates are disgusting and an utter embarrassment.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey of likely US Voters now shows Clinton with 41% support to Trump’s 39%. Lately, it seems when Trump keeps off of Twitter and stays on script at his speeches, his poll numbers rise. Perhaps he should stick to that game plan until the debates. (Does that make me an informal adviser to his team?)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Rasmussen Reports is run by a died in the wool republican, I'm not saying he biased but
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a46328/rasmussen-poll-trump-up-5-points/

"As early as 2010, Nate Silver—then of The New York Times—called them "biased and inaccurate." In that election, Rasmussen missed the final margin between candidates by an average of 5.8 points, and almost always leaned towards Republican candidates. In 2012, the firm overestimated Mitt Romney's strength in polls by an average of 4 points"

The very fact that Rasmussen is even saying Clinton is in the lead which he has been doing for last few weeks is amazing.

K-9

I think Rasmussen maybe the ones who poll through land lines and that leaves reliability questions.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

The latest Rasmussen Reports

K-9 wrote: »

I think Rasmussen maybe the ones who poll through land lines and that leaves reliability questions.

5 November 2012 Rasmussen Reports predicted: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily."

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can we just close this thread already. Clinton is clearly going to win. Everyday it's 5 posts bashing Trump to 1 post bashing Clinton. Both candidates are disgusting and an utter embarrassment.

The election is another three months away so it wouldn't make much sense to close the thread now.

Clinton is actually quite a good candidate. Far from disgusting or embarrassing.

K-9 wrote: »

I think Rasmussen maybe the ones who poll through land lines and that leaves reliability questions.

They are well known for their Republican house effect. That they are showing a lead for Clinton says much about how badly Trump is doing.

Regardless of their bias I think the trend in their polling numbers should be informative. Although Black Swan would be better positioned to comment on that.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can we just close this thread already. Clinton is clearly going to win. Everyday it's 5 posts bashing Trump to 1 post bashing Clinton. Both candidates are disgusting and an utter embarrassment.

The thread isn't being closed. I suggest you abstain from viewing it if you don't like it.

K-9

Suryavarman wrote: »

Clinton is actually quite a good candidate. Far from disgusting or embarrassing.

But Trump is making her look good, I'm struggling to think of anything notable or memorable she has said or done. But that isn't her fault, as the old sporting cliché goes, "you can only play what's in front of you" and she's doing it well.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Seriously? You think people haven't heard this nonsense?

What is it you want the media to do? Keep repeating the same rumours over and over?

I’ve said over and over again that the mainstream media has an agenda, and that is to destroy Trump (this time around). And they do us all a disservice with their bias. The bias of the media is a major factor in this election, and it isn’t going away, no matter how many here wish it would. We can’t rely on the media to admonish their own actions, so it is beholding to those on the negative end of media bias to continue and beat the drum to the voters who are being robbed of journalistic integrity in this election.

Yesterday, Trump gave an excellent speech. He was humble, on point and even expressed regret for hurtful statements he has made in the past. There have been reports throughout the media that the new people Trump has brought into the campaign were extremists and would cause him to go even further off the cliff. But if his speeches over the last few days are any indication of their influence, then the media is wrong... once again.

I have linked his entire speech at the end of this post for anyone brave to read or watch it, instead of merely relying on the bias and negative talking points of our media in their efforts to take him down.

Trump even took on media bias again (section noted below) yesterday. The same message as he has given before, but this time done in a manner that reaches and resonates the general population and not just Republicans. If Trump keeps up with the type of message format, and continues with the form of speeches he’s given in the past few days, I firmly believe you will see his numbers rise and Clinton’s fall at a pretty sharp pace over the next few weeks.

"The establishment media doesn’t cover what really matters in this country, or what’s really going on in people’s lives. They will take words of mine out of context and spend a week obsessing over every single syllable, and then pretend to discover some hidden meaning in what I said.

Just imagine for a second if the media spent this energy holding the politicians accountable who got innocent Americans like Kate Steinle killed – she was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.

Just imagine if the media spent this much time investigating the poverty and joblessness in our inner cities.

Just think about how much different things would be if the media in this country sent their cameras to our border, or to our closing factories, or to our failing schools. Or if the media focused on what dark secrets must be hidden in the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton deleted.

Instead, every story is told from the perspective of the insiders. It’s the narrative of the people who rigged the system, never the voice of the people it’s been rigged against.

So many people suffering in silence. No cameras, no coverage, no outrage from a media class that seems to get outraged over just about everything else."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/18/watch_live_donald_trump_gives_first_campaign_speech_since_hiring_stephen_bannon.html

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve said over and over again that the mainstream media has an agenda, and that is to destroy Trump (this time around). And they do us all a disservice with their bias. The bias of the media is a major factor in this election, and it isn’t going away, no matter how many here wish it would. We can’t rely on the media to admonish their own actions, so it is beholding to those on the negative end of media bias to continue and beat the drum to the voters who are being robbed of journalistic integrity in this election.

Yesterday, Trump gave an excellent speech. He was humble, on point and even expressed regret for hurtful statements he has made in the past. There have been reports throughout the media that the new people Trump has brought into the campaign were extremists and would cause him to go even further off the cliff. But if his speeches over the last few days are any indication of their influence, then the media is wrong... once again.

I have linked his entire speech at the end of this post for anyone brave to read or watch it, instead of merely relying on the bias and negative talking points of our media in their efforts to take him down.

Trump even took on media bias again (section noted below) yesterday. The same message as he has given before, but this time done in a manner that reaches and resonates the general population and not just Republicans. If Trump keeps up with the type of message format, and continues with the form of speeches he’s given in the past few days, I firmly believe you will see his numbers rise and Clinton’s fall at a pretty sharp pace over the next few weeks.

"The establishment media doesn’t cover what really matters in this country, or what’s really going on in people’s lives. They will take words of mine out of context and spend a week obsessing over every single syllable, and then pretend to discover some hidden meaning in what I said.

Just imagine for a second if the media spent this energy holding the politicians accountable who got innocent Americans like Kate Steinle killed – she was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.

Just imagine if the media spent this much time investigating the poverty and joblessness in our inner cities.

Just think about how much different things would be if the media in this country sent their cameras to our border, or to our closing factories, or to our failing schools. Or if the media focused on what dark secrets must be hidden in the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton deleted.

Instead, every story is told from the perspective of the insiders. It’s the narrative of the people who rigged the system, never the voice of the people it’s been rigged against.

So many people suffering in silence. No cameras, no coverage, no outrage from a media class that seems to get outraged over just about everything else."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/18/watch_live_donald_trump_gives_first_campaign_speech_since_hiring_stephen_bannon.html

Definitely a better , more structured speech from Trump , but still totally lacking in the "How" of everything he says he'll do.

It's easy to give the Salesman pitch of "Absolutely , everything will work and if there are any problem, we'll fix it right away".. far less easy to actually deliver on those promises...

Where is the specific detail??

And then there's this..

But one thing I can promise you is this: I will always tell you the truth.

I speak the truth for all of you, and for everyone in this country who doesn’t have a voice.

I speak the truth on behalf of the factory worker who lost his or her job.

I speak the truth on behalf of the Veteran who has been denied the medical care they need – and so many are not making it. They are dying.

I speak the truth on behalf of the family living near the border that deserves to be safe in their own country but is instead living with no security at all.

Doesn't really align with this now does it?

True (4%)
Mostly True (11%)
Half True (15%)
Mostly False (15%)
False (36%)
Pants on Fire (19%)

Less than a third of what he says manages to make it past "Half True"...

Calina

Manafort has resigned.

B0jangles

Manafort has resigned

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/paul-manafort-resigns-from-trump-campaign-227197

It's going to be a Breitbart-managed campaign from now one.

The mind boggles.

Amerika

B0jangles wrote: »

Manafort has resigned

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/paul-manafort-resigns-from-trump-campaign-227197

It's going to be a Breitbart-managed campaign from now one.

The mind boggles.

Did you read or see Trump's speech from NC yesterday? The mind boggles not. If that speech is any indication of a "Briebart-managed campaign" I think Hillary should be afraid... very afraid.

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

Did you read or see Trump's speech from NC yesterday? The mind boggles not. If that speech is any indication of a "Briebart-managed campaign" I think Hillary should be afraid... very afraid.

I did. It was impressive in that he managed to get to the end of a scripted speech without directly insulting any minority groups.

In your own comment on it thus:

" He was humble, on point and even expressed regret for hurtful statements he has made in the past"

Apologising for hurtful remarks is what normal people do, the fact that doing so (however belated and grudgingly) is a notable achievement for Trump says a lot about him.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Did you read or see Trump's speech from NC yesterday? The mind boggles not. If that speech is any indication of a "Briebart-managed campaign" I think Hillary should be afraid... very afraid.

Well he needs to keep at it and eventually the press will have nothing else to cover.

You can't expect the media not to cover meltdowns and campaign resignations. You've forgotten Hillary was getting all the bad press in 08 so a bit of confirmation bias going on there.

Suryavarman

K-9 wrote: »

But Trump is making her look good, I'm struggling to think of anything notable or memorable she has said or done. But that isn't her fault, as the old sporting cliché goes, "you can only play what's in front of you" and she's doing it well.

Her policies indicate that she will mostly proceed along the same path as Obama. I think Obama has been a good president and someone that offers a continuation of his policies is a good candidate. Stability is to be valued.

She was instrumental in getting CHIP passed as first lady. That is probably her most famous achievement.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Well he needs to keep at it and eventually the press will have nothing else to cover.

You can't expect the media not to cover meltdowns and campaign resignations. You've forgotten Hillary was getting all the bad press in 08 so a bit of confirmation bias going on there.

Oh, I didn't forget. The mainstream media was quite biased against Hillary in 2008 in favor of Obama. In deciding if it was their job to get the first black president elected or the first woman, race trumped gender, and both trumped journalistic integrity. Granted, the fact that Obama was left of Hillary also had a bit to do with it, but not a whole lot IMO.

But the bias back then against Clinton falls flat in comparison to them going “Full Palin” on Trump today.

K-9

But Trump keeps going full Palin, the press don't make him keep making these personal and policy mistakes.

A campaign is a grueling test of a politicians character to be President, I'm sure we can all think of examples on both sides were it got nasty and uncalled for. How a candidate reacts to that is part of the test.

Pro Hoc Vice

K-9 wrote: »

But Trump keeps going full Palin, the press don't make him keep making these personal and policy mistakes.

A campaign is a grueling test of a politicians character to be President, I'm sure we can all think of examples on both sides were it got nasty and uncalled for. How a candidate reacts to that is part of the test.

A very good point.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

But Trump keeps going full Palin, the press don't make him keep making these personal and policy mistakes.

A campaign is a grueling test of a politicians character to be President, I'm sure we can all think of examples on both sides were it got nasty and uncalled for. How a candidate reacts to that is part of the test.

Trump tackled the issue in his speech...

"As you know, I am not a politician. I have worked in business, creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods my entire adult life. I’ve never wanted to learn the language of the insiders, and I’ve never been politically correct – it takes far too much time, and can often make more difficult.

Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues."

I've read quite a bit today of the mainstream media's response to his speech yesterday. It appears they're devoting all their resources into one line "In this journey, I will never lie to you.," and ignoring all the rest. Just think of what we would find out if the media spent 1/10th the energy they put into Trump on a regular basis into investigating Hillary's lies.

B_Wayne

Not being politically correct for Trump is insulting ever demographic he can think of. The fact he can't even be slightly diplomatic is a pretty terrible sign of a president. The fact that he regularly expresses views that sound like Nixon's private phonecalls, once again a sign of a terrible president.

Amerika, you're annoyed that the media report what Trump says..