How can Secretary Clinton be such a heavy favorite?
Quote: ams288Despite what the polls, gambling markets, common sense, etc. said.
..
Trump isn't going get nominated. I just think
it's funny he's taken seriously and is scaring
so many Dems.
Quote: EvenBobTrump isn't going get nominated. I just think
it's funny he's taken seriously and is scaring
so many Dems.
You have any evidence you want to cite of Democrats being scared?
Quote: harvson3You have any evidence you want to cite of Democrats being scared?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-the-democrats-will-do-and-say-anything-to-stop-donald-trump/
http://allenbwest.com/2015/08/are-dems-so-afraid-of-the-donald-theyre-getting-this-guy-to-run/
Most of the articles you find on Dems loving
Trump are 6-8 weeks old. Now that he has
a firm lead in the polls, and doing better all
the time, and Hillary is looking worse and
worse every day, times have changed.
I'm asking a serious question..... I am a Republican, and know many other Republicans, and know NONE who would vote for Trump in a Republican only contest. Is there a member of the forum that actually knows a person who is voting for Trump?
Also, EB, the articles you posted contained exactly two suppositions, unsupported by quotes from any single Democrat, saying that the Democrats are afraid of Trump. Naw, they're not.
Quote: SOOPOOonly because he will be seen, when helpful, with his Hispanic wife. ?
Right now Trump has got 35% of the Hispanic
vote, 4 points higher than Bush. I intensely
dislike Bush, I don't trust him. Way too much
of a pro politician, just like Hillary.
Quote: SOOPOOI'm asking a serious question..... I am a Republican, and know many other Republicans, and know NONE who would vote for Trump in a Republican only contest. Is there a member of the forum that actually knows a person who is voting for Trump?
My best friend is a Republican (believe it or not!).
He LOVES Trump. He plans on voting for him.
I asked him if he cares about Trump's prior Democratic donations and positions, and he said it doesn't bother him one bit. He likes what Trump is saying now.
I asked my mom and aunt (both Republicans) how they felt about him. This was right after his John McCain comments. They were very reserved with their opinions. They said they thought his business background was impressive but they wouldn't go all out and say they'd support him.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: liberals aren't afraid of Trump. Not one bit. This is the "liberals make fun of Sarah Palin because they fear her" fallacy all over again.
Jeb Bush and John Kasich are who I'm afraid of in a general election, not Trump.
Quote: ams288
I asked him if he cares about Trump's prior Democratic donations and positions, and he said it doesn't bother him one bit. He likes what Trump is saying now.
So you are saying he feels like Trump the same as gays do about Obama and Hillary who were against gay marriage right up until the end and they changed their minds?
Liberals fear Trump because he is resonating with more and more people, giving non-PC answers. The main reason Obama won in 2008 was he had a fired-up, high energy base. McCain couldn't light a candle with the energy he had. Liberals know Hillary inspires nobody. Trump is a liberal's nightmare.
Quote: AZDuffmanTrump is a liberal's nightmare.
Wrong. Always wrong.
Quote: NokTangSecretary Clinton had an "affair" with Vince Foster. He was later found in a park. He had cut his own head off, placed it on a park bench, run 10 years to a river bank and jumped in. It was ruled a suicide and that was the explanation.
What? Vince Foster died from a gun shot wound to the head and his body was found in the park. I have no idea where you get the head cutting off or river bank or anything else.
Quote: AZDuffmanLiberals know Hillary inspires nobody. Trump is a liberal's nightmare.
Trumps biggest asset is people like him. They
know him from 10 years on a very popular TV
show as a guy that speaks his mind and is
fearless. Remember when Jesse Ventura
was running for gov? People were rolling on
the floor with laughter. But he had the same
qualities as Trump, and he got elected twice
because of it. When Reagan ran for gov and
then pres, they roared with laughter too. An actor
in the WH?
Quote: AZDuffmanTrump is a liberal's nightmare.
Ha! You make me laugh, I love it. But seriously, we're not worried about Trump. In fact, we sincerely hoping you nominate him. Please, please, please nominate Trump.
Honestly, we're far more worried about Kasich, Jeb!, Walker, or Christie. (Mostly Kasich. A moderate former Congressman & sitting Governor of an extremely important swing state with 18 electoral votes? All jokes aside, Kasich is a legitmate threat to Hillary.)
Now when liberals insist they're not worried about Trump, there are 3 possibilities:
A) Liberals are lying about their fear of Trump
B) Liberals are joking/sarcastic about their fear of Trump
C) Liberals are in denial about their fear of Trump
D) All of the above
Which is it?
The man is radioactive. No one in the race is as universally disliked as The Donald:
Quote: renoHa! You make me laugh, I love it. But seriously, we're not worried about Trump.
Hillary certainly is, she mentions him all the
time. Why is that if they aren't worried about
him.
Quote: EvenBobHillary certainly is, she mentions him all the
time. Why is that if they aren't worried about
him.
She probably mentions him for the same reason everyone else is; free air time when you talk about Trump right now.
The office of the president is much to important to be left up to an election
Quote: AZDuffman
Liberals fear Trump because he is resonating with more and more people, giving non-PC answers. .
Where does this come from?
You interact with libs day after day on this board and they keep telling you they are not afraid of Trump.
Yet you ignore all the posts say libs are afraid.
Why.
Are you listening?
Are you reading the posts?
You make no sense.
Maybe a more accurate statement would be that AZ believes that all the libs are lying on this board about not being afraid of trump.
But even that is absurd.
Quote: beachbumbabsShe probably mentions him for the same reason everyone else is; free air time when you talk about Trump right now.
She last mentioned Trump on June 19th, in response to the 'Mexican rapists' comments. That's hardly all the time. There's no need to consider EB's comment accurate.
She spent most of her speech on July 31 to the Natl Urban League attacking John Ellis Bush Bush.
Nate Silver estimates Trump's chances of receiving the nomination are 2%.
I trust Nate Silver's insight more than that of the righties on this board.
Sorry to my brotha JohnCena.
Quote: harvson3She last mentioned Trump on June 19th, in response to the 'Mexican rapists' comments. That's hardly all the time. There's no need to consider EB's comment accurate.
She spent most of her speech on July 31 to the Natl Urban League attacking John Ellis Bush Bush.
Thanks for the info, harvson!
Biden is going to be the next president.
Her brand is clearly damaged and getting worse by the day. Perhaps the public knows what liberals refuse to admit--namely that the server issue is a big thing. Her handling of it has been the gift that keeps giving. The best part of this is that she still has the Democrat Party field frozen, they are so afraid of her for some unknown reason. Crunch time for that is coming,
Hopefully she at least stays for the first debate in October. Should be a time to break out the popcorn and watch her make it even worse.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe best part of this is that she still has the Democrat Party field frozen, they are so afraid of her for some unknown reason.
No one wants to piss off the Clintons. They're ruthless, they're vindictive, they play dirty (pun intended) and they have 40 years of experience doing whatever it takes to win, damn the consequences. Supposedly the most respected Dem operatives in D.C. had already signed on with Hillary a year ago; the theory is that she has a monopoly on the best & the brightest. Of course, half those guys are idiots, but they all think they're the smartest guys in the room.
I'll give the Republicans credit: they have an actual race with 17 candidates willing to duke it out. The Dems have maybe 6 candidates? Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, Webb, Chaffee, and perhaps Biden.
Quote: AZDuffmanlink=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/14/first-in-fox-news-first-poll-shows-hillary-way-under-water-in-swing-states/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork]Poll shows Hillary way under water in swing states.[link]
Her brand is clearly damaged and getting worse by the day. Perhaps the public knows what liberals refuse to admit--namely that the server issue is a big thing. Her handling of it has been the gift that keeps giving. The best part of this is that she still has the Democrat Party field frozen, they are so afraid of her for some unknown reason. Crunch time for that is coming,
Hopefully she at least stays for the first debate in October. Should be a time to break out the popcorn and watch her make it even worse.
Totally missing the big picture.
No matter what Dem runs, without the Hispanic vote, a republican win is impossible.
Why did Rommney lose? lost the Hispanic vote.
The base is shrinking as the Hispanic vote grows.
The big news recently is Scott Walker and how he is insuring a loss.
Scott Walker may have just blown the 2016 election by bringing up birthright citizenship.
Its an act of desperation, he's tanking, he's throwing out red meat to the base and losing the Hispanics and therefore 2016.
Talk like this only hurts the republican brand. Its impossible to change an amendment yet republicans are bringing it up.
Its extreme, its short term thinking, and it insures that the republicans lose the Hispanic vote.
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/17/scott-walker-echoes-trump-end-birthright-citizenship-build-the-wall/
Quote: terapined
The base is shrinking as the Hispanic vote grows.
The big news recently is Scott Walker and how he is insuring a loss.
Scott Walker may have just blown the 2016 election by bringing up birthright citizenship.
Its an act of desperation, he's tanking, he's throwing out red meat to the base and losing the Hispanics and therefore 2016.
Talk like this only hurts the republican brand. Its impossible to change an amendment yet republicans are bringing it up.
Its extreme, its short term thinking, and it insures that the republicans lose the Hispanic vote.
The sad thing is that we are so afraid of upsetting illegal aliens that discussion of protecting the border "insures a loss."
The USA is what is being lost. A nation without secure borders is no longer a nation.
Quote: terapined
The big news recently is Scott Walker and how he is insuring a loss.
Scott Walker may have just blown the 2016 election by bringing up birthright citizenship.
Govenor Walker was never qualified to be President. He's a boring speaker but more important, he's a college dropout. No excuses...he's not educated, has no excitement, and just isn't presidential. Nice guy, successful, but not "one of our best" like most of the others.
Mr. Trump's chances of winning the Republican nomination have to be higher than "2%". Not sure how that figure was come up with. Anyone giving 50 to 1 on Trump winning the Republican nomination??? Doubt it.
Quote: NokTangGovenor Walker was never qualified to be President. He's a boring speaker but more important, he's a college dropout. No excuses...he's not educated, has no excitement, and just isn't presidential. Nice guy, successful, but not "one of our best" like most of the others.
I love how lefties think having your degree is the beginning and end of the world. Why does that make him "not qualified?" His experience makes him more than qualified. Two terms as a governor is more important than a piece of paper.
Once you are past the age of 30 it really matters little, you experience is what counts. Only one job interview in history actually made me bring in my diploma.
under 24/7 guard by the secret service. Turns out
it was under no guard in a loft apartment in Denver,
in the bathroom. This is getting huge comedic play
everywhere. There are hundreds of jokes
that involve wiping and dumping and pissing and
toilet paper. It's not a good thing when you're a
serious candidate and are the butt joke of the entire
country.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe sad thing is that we are so afraid of upsetting illegal aliens that discussion of protecting the border "insures a loss."
You are still missing the big picture. Its about offending US citizens that vote.
Illegal aliens cant vote.
US citizens can vote.
The republican party needs every vote it can get.
A large portion of US citizens that can vote are Hispanic.
A republican candidate simply can not win without the US Citizen Hispanic vote.
There is no way the republican party can change the 14th amendment regarding birthright citizenship. Why even bring it up if its impossible. This only hurts the party in the long run.
There is a history in this country of trying to deny citizenship to people of color, Dred Scott , the Chinese Exclusion Act, ect
Walker, Trump and other republican candidates are simply driving away US Citizens that are in this country legally that happen to be Hispanic and vote legally.
Its not about upsetting illegal aliens. Its about upsetting US citizens that vote that just happen to be Hispanic
Right-wingers are trying to spin this as bad news for Hillary.
Also, please forgive me for not taking the opinions of righties who thought Mitt Romney was going to win seriously. Your track record at predicting the winner is awful, why should I think it's improved in the past three years??
Quote: terapinedYou are still missing the big picture. Its about offending US citizens that vote.
Its not about upsetting illegal aliens. Its about upsetting US citizens that vote that just happen to be Hispanic
No, I am actually seeing the big picture. We are at the point where if you suggest virtually any kind of control of illegal immigration, liberals will call you a "racist" and say you will "lose votes." Liberals love illegal immigration so they can holler "RACISTS" at the other side. Meanwhile we are being flooded with illegals who increase our crime rate and are draining our resources.
A country without borders is not a country. The Democrat Party is acting immature and irresponsible and ignoring the problem. The GOP is trying to do something about it.
Quote: NokTangSecretary Clinton had an "affair" with Vince Foster. He was later found in a park. He had cut his own head off, placed it on a park bench, run 10 years to a river bank and jumped in. It was ruled a suicide and that was the explanation.
Sorry for backing this up a couple weeks, but I was playing catch-up.
I cannot do the political thing everyday, all day, unlike some others can apparently.
But if I sobered up one day, and realized I had had an affair with Hillary....
I would probably walk down to the park,
Cut my head off, clearly it isn't functional,
Leave it on the park bench, good riddance,
And throw the rest of myself in the river to drown.
All very logical to me.
Was it a .gov? Were they able to do that with a private server? Isn't that what it should be?
If they didn't notice it, guess they weren't too smart either.
Quote: rxwineI do wonder if Hillary as Secretary of State emailed any Republicans. What was her email address?
Was it a .gov? Were they able to do that with a private server? Isn't that what it should be?
If they didn't notice it, guess they weren't too smart either.
When I was a Fed, I was able to use my .gov box via remote server. Which proves nothing, I guess. But you don't have to be within the gov't Intranet to access it; we used Outlook (mandatory) for the shell. I think that's where they attached various filters and prophylactic software.
When you were within the .gov server, your access to other (Internet) sites was severely restricted. But, travelling, I was provided with a mail server Internet access (individually assigned) point, put in username and password (mandatory 30 day cycle for me, probably shorter for her) which took us to our Outlook account (heavily monitored by Security for addresses, keywords, subject line, etc.), and we could then operate relatively normally. Lockouts were frequent; there were many things that would trip the monitor programs. It looked transparent to the recipients and senders. I'm sure Sec. Clinton's clearance was far above mine, but mine was sort of high, so I expect she had similar protocols if she chose to use them.
Quote: beachbumbabsWhen I was a Fed, I was able to use my .gov box via remote server. Which proves nothing, I guess. But you don't have to be within the gov't Intranet to access it; we used Outlook (mandatory) for the shell. I think that's where they attached various filters and prophylactic software.
When you were within the .gov server, your access to other (Internet) sites was severely restricted. But, travelling, I was provided with a mail server Internet access (individually assigned) point, put in username and password (mandatory 30 day cycle for me, probably shorter for her) which took us to our Outlook account (heavily monitored by Security for addresses, keywords, subject line, etc.), and we could then operate relatively normally. Lockouts were frequent; there were many things that would trip the monitor programs. It looked transparent to the recipients and senders. I'm sure Sec. Clinton's clearance was far above mine, but mine was sort of high, so I expect she had similar protocols if she chose to use them.
She could go to some of those "locked out sites" that you couldn't't get to?
Not fair! What were you doing poking around them sites anyway?
Shame on you!
Quote: TwoFeathersATLShe could go to some of those "locked out sites" that you couldn't't get to?
Not fair! What were you doing poking around them sites anyway?
Shame on you!
No, I was talking about lockouts because someone wrote me from an unapproved email source or included some link to a banned website or something that tripped the crawler. You'd have to call a special number and get them to unlock you. It was a pain. For example, if someone wrote you from aol.com, it would trigger.
Quote: beachbumbabsNo, I was talking about lockouts because someone wrote me from an unapproved email source or included some link to a banned website or something that tripped the crawler. You'd have to call a special number and get them to unlock you. It was a pain. For example, if someone wrote you from aol.com, it would trigger.
Then you could actually get to sum of dem websites you shouldn't have been looking at.
I will not repeat, 'shame on you'.
To each their own......
Quote: TwoFeathersATLThen you could actually get to sum of dem websites you shouldn't have been looking at.
I will not repeat, 'shame on you'.
To each their own......
What?
I hope you think you're kidding me.
Quote: beachbumbabsWhat?
I hope you think you're kidding me.
Yes
Interestingly, Trump is doing better among blacks (25%) than any Republican in a generation. Slightly winning Asians and even holding his own among Hispanics (31%) which might show that being strongly in favor of illegal immigration is just not the smart way to go. Strangely, he leads most among the lowest income grouping. Blacks and people under 34 are the only two places where Hillary has a commanding lead. She only leads 5% among women.
Quote: AZDuffmanPoll shows The Donald now leading Hillary!
Interestingly, Trump is doing better among blacks (25%) than any Republican in a generation. Slightly winning Asians and even holding his own among Hispanics (31%) which might show that being strongly in favor of illegal immigration is just not the smart way to go. Strangely, he leads most among the lowest income grouping. Blacks and people under 34 are the only two places where Hillary has a commanding lead. She only leads 5% among women.
Not really surprising. Some of the strongest anti-illegal advocates are ethnic minorities since they have the most to lose by encouraging illegal immigration.
Anecdotally some of the people I know personally who talk the harshest about illegals are legal immigrants who hate to wait many years to gain citizenship.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, I am actually seeing the big picture. We are at the point where if you suggest virtually any kind of control of illegal immigration, liberals will call you a "racist" and say you will "lose votes." Liberals love illegal immigration so they can holler "RACISTS" at the other side. Meanwhile we are being flooded with illegals who increase our crime rate and are draining our resources.
A country without borders is not a country. The Democrat Party is acting immature and irresponsible and ignoring the problem. The GOP is trying to do something about it.
You're right about the Dems, wrong about the Reps. Both parties want a large, cheap labor force that has no rights, because that's what the people financing them want. Dems are slightly more "compassionate" because they hope to turn some of them into voters, while keeping others as cheap labor.
People act like this is some big mystery but, especially on a gambling forum, it should be pretty obvious. Make it -ev to employ illegal labor and you'll put a big dent in it. But neither party will support that in a million years. Reps will demonize the laborers they actually want here, Dems will call anyone who objects to the situation a racist.
And, of course, anyone who fantasizes about pregnant Mexican women being machine gunned down IS a racist, and you see that a fair amount online. It's hard to keep their stench off you.
Quote: RigondeauxI bought out of "no Hillary" for the nom to a degree. It was +500 when I bet it. "Yes Hill" is now -285. So I covered about half my initial bet. I think a better price might come along. Kind of wish I'd bet more, but it's a long time to tie up the money. Free shot at a couple hundred bucks or so now, anyway.
You're right about the Dems, wrong about the Reps. Both parties want a large, cheap labor force that has no rights, because that's what the people financing them want. Dems are slightly more "compassionate" because they hope to turn some of them into voters, while keeping others as cheap labor.
People act like this is some big mystery but, especially on a gambling forum, it should be pretty obvious. Make it -ev to employ illegal labor and you'll put a big dent in it. But neither party will support that in a million years. Reps will demonize the laborers they actually want here, Dems will call anyone who objects to the situation a racist.
And, of course, anyone who fantasizes about pregnant Mexican women being machine gunned down IS a racist, and you see that a fair amount online. It's hard to keep their stench off you.
I don't understand why most people seem to ignore that both parties (as a whole) really don't want to make stopping illegals a huge priority because they have backers that want illegals. I don't really see the compassion in either party (again, as a whole) because both are trying to hold these illegals hostage to their needs.
I do think that is why the Tea Party and some of the other groups that are outside the general party structure came about and had some success and it is likely why both Trump and Carson...and maybe Sanders to some extent...have more traction that either party would like.
I'm to the left, but anyone who tells you illegal immigration hasn't had a devastating effect on places like Los Angeles is, at best, living in a dream world. The schools are overextended. LAUSD has a 50% graduation rate. 50%.
I used to be a sub there. In most schools, those who do graduate are getting maybe an 8th grade education. I used to read some of the "A" papers teachers would hang on the walls and they'd be filled with very basic errors, like subject/verb agreement, uncorrected.
Of course, if you are an economic or political elite, that's all wonderful for you. Among other things, it cripples upward mobility.
People turn to more marginal characters because they're the only ones who might address it, as you say. But the problem is, all the racists are standing on that side of the room too. The irony is that racists are their own worst enemy. Most people don't want to be associated with them, so any position they support, they damage.
Even with your Trumps, few really look at the whole issue. e.g. part of the reason Mexico is so screwed up in the first place is U.S. policies, like the war on drugs. Instead, they shift all the blame to desperately poor people. Anyway, we're screwed.
Quote: RigondeauxMexico is so screwed up in the first place is U.S. policies, like the war on drugs. Instead, they shift all the blame to desperately poor people. Anyway, we're screwed.
Mexico was screwed up long before the war on drugs. Reality is that without slavery, Mexico would have fallen under USA control after the Mexican War, and if it had, the average Mexican would be far better off today.
Corruption is probably the biggest historical problem. That and not enough viable land for the population. The war on drugs has made many things worse on both sides of the border. I do wonder why drugs only took off so hard in the 1960s in the USA.
Quote: RigondeauxPeople act like this is some big mystery but, especially on a gambling forum, it should be pretty obvious. Make it -ev to employ illegal labor and you'll put a big dent in it. But neither party will support that in a million years. Reps will demonize the laborers they actually want here, Dems will call anyone who objects to the situation a racist.
I thought it was more that the Dems didn't want to demonize Big Labor, which supports illegal labor (you don't think AFL-CIO tries to sign them up?).
Quote: RigondeauxI'm to the left, but anyone who tells you illegal immigration hasn't had a devastating effect on places like Los Angeles is, at best, living in a dream world. The schools are overextended. LAUSD has a 50% graduation rate. 50%.
I used to be a sub there. In most schools, those who do graduate are getting maybe an 8th grade education. I used to read some of the "A" papers teachers would hang on the walls and they'd be filled with very basic errors, like subject/verb agreement, uncorrected.
And if anybody tries to call the schools on it, usually by testing the students, it's met with, "The 'good' schools are teaching to the test!" and, "They're just teaching students how to take tests, and putting money into the pockets of the professional testing services!"
And if you ask me, the problem isn't race per se; it's money. There just happens to be a correlation between your race and your income, in part because those who go to the poorer schools get the lower-paying jobs and end up living in poorer neighborhoods that, as a result, have poorer schools - vicious circle. Have fun trying to get tax money from people who will respond, "If I have to pay more money for schools, then it should go to my area's schools!", which, of course, only makes things worse.
