Because he is running against Hillary. He definitely gave the wrong answer there though.
Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
Because he is running against Hillary. He definitely gave the wrong answer there though.
You think if he were running against someone half as controversial that he would have a chance?
I think her issues do keep him in the race with independents and disgruntled Republicans/Democrats. A candidate without any of that controversy would be more likely to chip away at that group.
or they just don't like her personally
Hillary's too competent, so of course they're afraid of her.
Sure. That is possible. It's also possible they don't like Trump.
It boggles the mind. Imagine, just imagine, if Obama or Hillary had done the same thing as Trump when talking about the Khans and his personal "sacrifice." They'd be positively roasted. Right-wing media would be fully mobilized and not let up. But Trump is allowed to say stupid crap like this, and then backtrack later with carefully-couched damage control, with his support intact.
Instead it's the Khans and the democrats who draw the ire of Trump's supporters.
Didn't he say that he could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and people would still love him? Sheesh. It's disgusting.
This is the sort of person that will, if elected, represent the US on official foreign visits. Tone-deaf, self-aggrandizing, smug... *sigh*
Instead it's the Khans and the democrats who draw the ire of Trump's supporters.
Didn't he say that he could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and people would still love him? Sheesh. It's disgusting.
This is the sort of person that will, if elected, represent the US on official foreign visits. Tone-deaf, self-aggrandizing, smug... *sigh*
Which would mean Reagan stole it from Kennedy.
Didn't Clinton at one point say she was going to have press conferences?
I have a saying, Trump whines more than a newborn puppy.
Now, he's complaining about the schedule of the upcoming debates. They were scheduled a year ago, Trump! Stop whining!
Now, he's complaining about the schedule of the upcoming debates. They were scheduled a year ago, Trump! Stop whining!
Thank you for demonstrating Trump's point about people always blindly excusing his horrific behavior. In what way are those two things remotely comparable? Trump has sued, threatened, harassed, and mocked reporters and made it a part of his campaign platform to alter the Constitution to suppress freedom of the press.
Yes, Clinton is wrong for avoiding the more open format of press conferences where anything goes question-wise, but she has done hundreds of interviews with reporters and town-halls with audiences who can ask anything, and even has an interview with Fox News coming up, which is hardly a friendly setting. So, while she is not being totally open with the press, which is wrong and something she needs to fix in the coming months, she's not denying the press access either.
Trump on the other hand is perfectly willing to be fully open to the press because the man has no shame or need to consider his remarks, and unlike Hillary his negative press is often his best promotional tool. That has been demonstrated repeatedly with his cultish followers, apologists, and people too cowardly to break their traditional party voting habits even when it's going to elect a fascist who doesn't give a damn about most of the things conservatives are supposed to stand for. They don't care about what racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, Islamophobic, treasonous, libelous, slanderous, ignorant, arrogant, greedy, elitist shit spews forth from his mouth so frequently the controversies literally overlap. No, that means he's speaking his mind and not being PC, not that he's a uncontrollable maniac.
In what other situation would a Presidential candidate in 2016 be allowed to publicly ask a hostile nation like Russia to commit espionage against his political rival in order to influence the election and get away with it with conservative supporters? Or publicly threaten to weaken our NATO treaty responsibilities which again benefits Russia, the nation who is the only one who will finance his business ventures anymore after all his bankruptcies and who employed his chief campaign spokesman Paul Manafort (who works with other dictators too)? Or make fun of disabled reporter? Or accuse a sitting judge in his case of bias simply because he's of Mexican descent? Or call Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists? Or say a female journalist is off base with her legitimate questions because she's having her period? Or threaten to ban, put in internment camps, or force Muslims to register depending on what day you catch him? Or defraud thousands of people with a fake university course? Or not immediately repudiate white supremacist supporters and continue to court their vote with hateful rhetoric? Or to openly praise, quote, and emulate dictators from around the world, past and present? Or to threaten to alter the Constitution to suppress journalists? Or to creepily come-on to your daughter multiple times in public? Or to attack the parents of a deceased Muslim soldier? Or to hold back charity funds people raised for veterans through his money-making scheme The Trump Foundation? Or to praise Brexit in the country that overwhelmingly voted against it and might leave Britain because of it? Or accuse the sitting President of not being a legitimate US citizen capable of holding office? Or accuse his campaign rival of not being a legitimate citizen either, and then accuse his father of being involved in the JFK assassination, and then attack his wife's appearance and threaten to blackmail them with secret information? Or attacks a former POW turned Senator because he thinks being captured makes him a "loser"? There are literally too many things for me to list.
Obama gets called a traitor by Fox News and right wing media all the time for the most meaningless shit like whether he bowed too low, and then you have a Presidential candidate who is being openly treasonous and encouraging Russia to spy on us to influence our election process but that's okay because he's now officially got an (R) next to his name, despite shitting all over the Republican politicians who are now kissing his feet like cowards.
So yeah, sadly I think it's only mild hyperbole, if that, for Trump to gleefully brag about how he could get away with murdering someone on a public street and not lose much support, especially if that someone was from one of the many groups he's singled out for discrimination in order to make lower income white men angry about their place in the world feel better about themselves at the expense of others.
You don't have to vote for Hillary, but for God's sake, don't vote for Trump. Do you really want to have to explain to your kids and grandkids why you were on the wrong side of voting for a fascist after he wins and things go to shit? Because even with checks and balances on his power, he's going to have a lot of influence on the economy, international relations, military deployments, etc. and that's with a Republican Congress to roll right along with him. At a minimum his vague fiscal policies, which have been denounced by every financial organization and media outlet, will destroy all the recovery in the economy over the past eight years while his terrible temperament and love of dictators will damage our international alliances.
Don't vote for Trump just because he's the Republican nominee and that's how you've always voted. Take note of all the prominent Republicans who didn't want to be part of the convention this year because Trump repulses them. The Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, is more closely in tune with traditional conservative values than anything Trump has proposed. Vote for him. You'll sleep better.
Plenty of horrific behavior to go around. While Trump is certainly no picnic, I don't really care for Hillary's "what difference does it make at this point" attitude either.
I realize Snopes says the above is "mostly untrue," but additional videos below seem to indicate it is mostly true. Hillary went to the lengths of smearing a 12 year old girl to get her rapist 2 months/time served. You can still argue that Hillary was just doing her job at the time, but I can understand some voters wanting to steer away from a career politician with Hillary's background.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
Gotta love the double standard.
Hillary was ordered by a judge to take the case, and it's been corroborated that she was uncomfortable taking it in the first place.
Moreover, if she hadn't done her job, it would be held against her that she hadn't done her job.
This is just more of throwing shit against the wall just to see what sticks. There's a whole lot of nothing here, except Hillary obeying the law and following legal ethics. It makes me admire her all the more for doing her job, even when it involves shit-stains like the client that she'd been assigned. Of course Republicans want to sink her, because she has a history of doing the right thing.
Gotta love the double standard.
Hillary was ordered by a judge to take the case, and it's been corroborated that she was uncomfortable taking it in the first place.
Moreover, if she hadn't done her job, it would be held against her that she hadn't done her job.
This is just more of throwing shit against the wall just to see what sticks. There's a whole lot of nothing here, except Hillary obeying the law and following legal ethics. It makes me admire her all the more for doing her job, even when it involves shit-stains like the client that she'd been assigned. Of course Republicans want to sink her, because she has a history of doing the right thing.
What is relevant to me is that she went to the lengths of trashing this 12 year old on the stand after she was severely beaten and raped, and then managed to swing a time served for this guy even knowing that he was guilty. Even if she was just doing her job, this is not the character of a person that many people would want to be President. Calling her behavior ethical is a stretch.
Ignorant reply is ignorant.
Ignorant of what? Name-calling reply is name-calling. lol
No, that wasn't name-calling. There was nothing directed at you, only at your post, which was full of both misinformation and disinformation; that's an elaboration of what I meant by "ignorant reply."
Engaging you is pointless, since you've already decided who you're going to vote for, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're capable of identifying yourself where the misinformation and disinformation in your posts on this subject are. I've provided a link to a refutation of the claims you are attempting to propagate, with citations, which is basically "mission accomplished" as far as I'm concerned on this point. Interested third parties will be able to judge for themselves.
Your link didn't refute the fact that she perpetuated a false image of the victim during the trial, or that she managed a 2 months/time served plea deal for a guy she knew was guilty. Those were the two points I highlighted in my post, and the news source links I posted supported that information.
My point is two fold...
1. The people we elect as politicians are typically not of the highest character (Hillary Clinton included)
2. Hillary is just as unfavorable an option to many as Donald trump is (for multiple reasons).
I don't think I am the only person in this thread who has made up their mind about who they will vote for, but that is not the point of the thread anyhow.
- Status
Similar threads
