2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: SOOPOOYou do know that, you just don't want to admit it.
And Republican doctrine does not say all government is bad. It just is against the Robin Hood like, over reaching, intrusive, deficit building, 'PC' government that Democrat leaders give us.
I wish the Republicans had nominated a normal candidate like Rubio, Kasich, or Bush. It would be so easy to argue for any of them over "The Flawed One", as I will refer to Hillary from now on. Seems more polite than disparaging her due to skin color or looks like you do for Mr. Trump.
Wow, I haven't been subjected to such an irresistible salvo of irrefutable logic since my granddaughter screamed "IS TOO! IS TOO! IS TOO!" for three minutes straight. Yes siree, I just don't want to admit that you can tell the future!
You and I are in perfect agreement that our present government is badly flawed. That's why I've been advocating for the removal of Republican control of the House and the Senate. (Ain't it rich when conservatives bitch about the government that they've created!)
I actually disparage Trump far more for his words and actions than I do for his skin color or looks. But I do disparage him for the way he looks because he CHOOSES to look that way. He could afford the best hair and makeup stylists in the world, and yet, he decides to look like an orangutan? MISTER Trump is an idiot, and I disparage him for it. Yes indeed. But I don't disparage an actual orangutan for having orange hair--he doesn't have a choice in the matter. In fact, female orangutans may think that a male orangutan with orange hair--or MISTER Trump--is kind of sexy.
"Hillary Clinton told the FBI that her predecessor Colin Powell recommended that she use a private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State, according to a new report."
"As the Times reports, Conason wrote, "Toward the end of the evening, over dessert, Albright asked all of the former secretaries to offer one salient bit of counsel to the nation's next top diplomat. Powell told her to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer.""
"Reached for comment, Powell's team told CNN he has "no recollection" of the conversation described in Conason's book, though he did provide her a memo regarding his own email use at the State Dept."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/hillary-clinton-colin-powell-email/
Okay...maybe it isn't a lie as much as differing recollections...a conversation, a memo...whatever...
It is interesting to think of the reasoning behind the advice he did give about emails mentioned in the same article; apparently he thought it was okay to have personal email account for all non-classified stuff. I know email security has evolved over the years, but the Freedom of Information Act has been out there for years and such brilliant people (maybe even including Condi Rice and Albright, too) didn't seem to think it was important to keep OFFICIAL emails on the government system. It would amaze me to think that such smart folks did not see that as a problem...and now it is peachy to elect one who ignored the issue and doubled down with lie after lie about it.
We don't know that all the others actually sought to destroy official emails as Hillary did...perhaps their stuff just stayed in whatever system it was on until that system purged it or will purge it. Hillary, of course, did purge official documents and lied about that, too.
I know...the pat answer here is that all of this is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy and Hillary is just a great candidate for President.
We here Trump called an idiot all the time here, which is fine--he says some really stupid stuff...but Hillary, as a lawyer and someone who has been around government for a long time, seems to lack sound reasoning in some of her decisions. You see, she did not have to follow the lead of her predecessors and a smart lawyer would easily see that covering up documents that should be in the official record is not the way things are supposed to be done. She knew that and ignored it...she didn't have to know about "email systems"; all she had to do was know about how official information is to be handled.
Quote: RonCI know Hillary's lies don't matter...but it is fun seeing just how much of a liar she is...
"Hillary Clinton told the FBI that her predecessor Colin Powell recommended that she use a private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State, according to a new report."
"As the Times reports, Conason wrote, "Toward the end of the evening, over dessert, Albright asked all of the former secretaries to offer one salient bit of counsel to the nation's next top diplomat. Powell told her to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer.""
"Reached for comment, Powell's team told CNN he has "no recollection" of the conversation described in Conason's book, though he did provide her a memo regarding his own email use at the State Dept."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/hillary-clinton-colin-powell-email/
Okay...maybe it isn't a lie as much as differing recollections...a conversation, a memo...whatever...
It is interesting to think of the reasoning behind the advice he did give about emails mentioned in the same article; apparently he thought it was okay to have personal email account for all non-classified stuff. I know email security has evolved over the years, but the Freedom of Information Act has been out there for years and such brilliant people (maybe even including Condi Rice and Albright, too) didn't seem to think it was important to keep OFFICIAL emails on the government system. It would amaze me to think that such smart folks did not see that as a problem...and now it is peachy to elect one who ignored the issue and doubled down with lie after lie about it.
We don't know that all the others actually sought to destroy official emails as Hillary did...perhaps their stuff just stayed in whatever system it was on until that system purged it or will purge it. Hillary, of course, did purge official documents and lied about that, too.
I know...the pat answer here is that all of this is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy and Hillary is just a great candidate for President.
We here Trump called an idiot all the time here, which is fine--he says some really stupid stuff...but Hillary, as a lawyer and someone who has been around government for a long time, seems to lack sound reasoning in some of her decisions. You see, she did not have to follow the lead of her predecessors and a smart lawyer would easily see that covering up documents that should be in the official record is not the way things are supposed to be done. She knew that and ignored it...she didn't have to know about "email systems"; all she had to do was know about how official information is to be handled.
zzzzzzzzzzzz.....
This is the reason the e-mail scandal will never gain traction with the majority of voters.
It's so damn BORING to talk and read about.
Hillary isn't trusted by most people. That's already baked into the cake. Got anything else?
Still time for another round of H&B before the jhit hits the fan. I'm assuming many have already switched to only ordering doubles, in their off duty hours of course ;-)
I will not suggest they keep an eye on that Joe guy....
They prolly already know this forum is a hotbed of subversives ;-)
I'm not suggesting that I'd do anything bad, nooooop not at all.
At worst I'd love to bitch slap Hillary, and just laugh in Donald's face.
Actually, Hillary is too old to be bitch slapping. I'd have to settle for explaining to her that I wish I had bitch slapped her 15-20 years ago.....
Quote: ams288<snip>This is the reason the e-mail scandal will never gain traction with the majority of voters.<snip>
That is true, because a huge number of automatic Democrat voters are uneducated morons who will never amount to much and seem to like it that way. They aren't really even smart enough to pick the best candidate for their own purposes and elect folks who really won't help them get ahead. I discuss it here because the Dems here aren't morons and enjoy a little discussion...or at least they used to do so.
Quote: RonCThat is true, because a huge number of automatic Democrat voters are uneducated morons who will never amount to much and seem to like it that way. They aren't really even smart enough to pick the best candidate for their own purposes and elect folks who really won't help them get ahead. <snip>
Oh. The. Irony.
Replace "Democrat" with "Republican" in your post and it becomes way more valid.
Quote: ams288Oh. The. Irony.
Replace "Democrat" with "Republican" in your post and it becomes way more valid.
Even Trump himself admitted that that his supports are uneducated.
According to the polls, Trumpers or Trump's supporters are largely uneducated, and Hillary has more college educate supporters.
Quote: ams288Oh. The. Irony.
Replace "Democrat" with "Republican" in your post and it becomes way more valid.
I knew you would say something like that...Dems and Libs like to talk about the uneducated folks on the other side, but they won't acknowledge their own.
There is the irony...I repeated what is said and somehow Libs/Dems seem to think it only applies to the other side.
There are dummies all over the place...
Quote: 777Even Trump himself admitted that that his supports are uneducated.
According to the polls, Trumpers or Trump's supporters are largely uneducated, and Hillary has more college educate supporters.
Dems like their uneducated supporters, too.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
You and I are in perfect agreement that our present government is badly flawed. That's why I've been advocating for the removal of Republican control of the House and the Senate. (Ain't it rich when conservatives bitch about the government that they've created!)
.
Republican control of the H and S just prevent BO from doing whatever he wants. They do not have a veto proof majority, so they have little power. Quite frankly, I am more concerned when either party has all 3, as happened for a few minutes under BO, which led to the miserably constructed, poorly thought out ACA, which is failing all on its own.
Just humor me..... if you had to pick one for president, would you choose Trump over Ted Cruz?
Quote: SOOPOOJust humor me..... if you had to pick one for president, would you choose Trump over Ted Cruz?
I'd take Trump over Ted Cruz any day of the week...
Trump was a liberal Democrat for most of his life.
Ted Cruz has and always will be a bat-crap crazy rightie.
Quote: SOOPOOJust humor me..... if you had to pick one for president, would you choose Trump over Ted Cruz?
I could vote for Trump's daughter if she had her father institutionalized for her full term so he could never come near the Oval office.
Quote: SOOPOORepublican control of the H and S just prevent BO from doing whatever he wants. They do not have a veto proof majority, so they have little power. Quite frankly, I am more concerned when either party has all 3, as happened for a few minutes under BO, which led to the miserably constructed, poorly thought out ACA, which is failing all on its own.
Just humor me..... if you had to pick one for president, would you choose Trump over Ted Cruz?
Yep, the ACA is "failing." Conservatives are dancing in the streets and wetting themselves over a couple of companies dropping out of the ACA exchanges. A stupid move in the extreme, considering that ACA enrollees are guaranteed customers. Other companies will pick up the slack. Or by "failing," do you mean "undeserving scum are getting medical care"? Because I'm one of those fourteen million people who were able to buy medical insurance in 2014 after being repeatedly denied it. I pay for my insurance just like anyone else, so I'm not some horrible leech the way all conservatives think beneficiaries of social programs are.
Obama can't and never could "do anything he wants." A President's power is limited. You need that civics refresher course I was talking about. And if he had unlimited god-like power during the first few months of his administration, as you imply, then why was the ACA the half-measure mess it was, rather than a simple single-payer system, which is what he had been advocating? You probably wouldn't admit, and neither would Republicans, that the flaws in the ACA are due to Republican interference. For whatever reason, Republicans ABHOR the idea of the undeserving getting medical care. We're all supposed to go broke trying to pay for it, then die. A country with no poor people would be SOOOO much better anyway. And everyone left would vote Republican!!!
If the earth were going to spiral into the sun if I didn't pick one of the two jerkasses for President, I would probably pick Trump, because a silver lining of a Trump presidency would be the utter destruction of the Republican party. It would almost be worth it. Also, Trump would only talk about the Muslim death camps. Cruz would enthusiastically set them up (Mexicans would also qualify), visit them, and personally administer the poison gas as a photo op.
"Many people are saying" it's because his health is failing.
Quote: ams288Trump unexpectedly canceled a bunch of rallies for later this week and next week.
"Many people are saying" it's because his health is failing.
So, just to be sure, am I allowed to "wonder" about his health or not?
Quote: ams288Trump unexpectedly canceled a bunch of rallies for later this week and next week.
"Many people are saying" it's because his health is failing.
Well, that would explain why he hasn't said anything really horrible in the last three days. It takes energy to be a douchebag.
I think, though, that the rallies were canceled because the ones who hold his leash want him to start sounding like a human being, his new campaign manager says "Let Trump be Trump," and the OO himself isn't sure what he wants to do. This confusion was shown by his recent immigration babble, where he said he wants to CONTINUE OBAMA'S POLICIES. One gets the feeling that the whole mess is flying apart like a cheap watch.
I feel sorry for the Trump campaign staffers. Not only are they trying to make a seven-year-old child act like an adult, they've committed to one of the worst causes in human history and will never be able to work at Starbuck's, or anywhere else, again.
I really don't want to see the lovable ape die, though. I want him to be at the helm of the Republican flagship when it sails off the edge of the earth this November.
Imagine there's no Republicans...it's easy if you can...no racist bigots or a**holes...a brotherhood of man...
Quote: RonCSo, just to be sure, am I allowed to "wonder" about his health or not?
You can wonder but its absurd
Here she is talking about these absurd attacks
I can see the absurd conservative headlines, Jimmy Kimmel cannot find Clintons pulse (for fox viewers its a joke)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt22Y9-dfNk
Quote: terapinedYou can wonder but its absurd
Here she is talking about these absurd attacks
I can see the absurd conservative headlines, Jimmy Kimmel cannot find Clintons pulse (for fox viewers its a joke)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt22Y9-dfNk
Absurd to be concerned about the health relative to the stress of the office of President of the United States when you have two candidates that are within months of 69 or older? There have been lots of retrospective conversations about the health of Ronald Reagan during his two terms in office... If elected, Trump would be the oldest person inaugurated president; Clinton would be second oldest should she be elected. Either,assuming assuming a year or so in office at a minimum for HRC, will be the second oldest President at retirement. In stark contrast, Clinton's husband and President Obama are among the five youngest at inauguration.
It is absurd NOT to be concerned. It is also an election where the VP candidates should be looked at very hard.
Here is a story about this issue...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/politics/clinton-trump-health.html?_r=0
Quote: RonCSo, just to be sure, am I allowed to "wonder" about his health or not?
You are allowed to "wonder" about whatever your heart desires. It's a free country.
I don't really think his health is failing, that's why I put "many people are saying" in quotes. That's what Trump does when he blatantly lies. He says things like "many people are saying" to give him cover.
I saw this on Twitter and I'd say it's a much more believable explanation for why he's cleared his schedule:
Quote:Theory: Conway convinced Trump to cancel events bc first sessions of debate prep show Trump staggeringly unprepared, wants time for triage
Quote: ams288You are allowed to "wonder" about whatever your heart desires. It's a free country.
I figured that if I was a conspiracy theorist to "wonder" about Clinton's health, the same must hold true if I "wondered" wondered about Trump's. Not so much of course...as I also was fairly certain would be the case.
Anyway, I posted my concerns about the both of their health.
Scam alert: Trump raised rent on himself after donors started paying bills for Trump Tower office
Quote:Trump’s campaign staff shriveled from 197 paid employees and consultants in March to 172 in July.
But the candidate charged his presidential campaign $169,758 last month, after he locked up the GOP nomination, to rent office space at Trump Tower, compared with $35,458 in March — when Trump was paying those expenses himself.
I think it's fitting that all of the people who are dumb enough to donate money to the campaign of a "billionaire" are getting ripped off.
Their money isn't going to help his campaign, it's going right into Trump's pockets.
I hope they enjoy the liberal Supreme Court for the next generation.... Their campaign donations helped fund it.
Quote: ams288
I hope they enjoy the liberal Supreme Court for the next generation.... Their campaign donations helped fund it.
I fail to see how a liberal Supreme Court would lead to the destruction of our nation. Conservatives are SOOO SOOO SOOO afraid of this. Yet, it seems to me that all that a liberal Supreme Court has done in the last few decades--when we've had one--is validate the human rights of some marginalized group of people. I mean, conservatives may turn purple and pop like grapes at the thought of gay marriage, but who does it hurt, or affect for that matter? It seems to me that the Court has basically affirmed that the rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to everyone, INCLUDING people conservatives hate.
There's also a pretty basic fact that everyone seems to be forgetting. Clinton could only NOMINATE justices to fill vacancies, not appoint them. Does anyone think that a Republican-controlled Senate would approve a Clinton-nominated candidate? Not if their stupid obstinacy re Obama's nominees is any indication. So as long as we have a Democratic President and a Republican-controlled Senate, the Supreme Court will have vacancies...until they dwindle away, one by one, and we have a single-justice court. The Republicans may have miscalculated, though, as if memory serves, the two youngest justices on the court are liberal.
There's no reason to believe that with Clinton replacing Obama, the Republicans will abandon their hissy-fit strategy, throwing themselves on the floor and kicking their legs in the air, crying, "You can't have a Supreme Court justice! No fair! WAAAAH!" In fact, unless we strip the Senate of Republicans, we'll have four more years of stupid, useless obstructionism. That's why the sane half of the country (Democrats) should focus on the "down-ticket"; getting the Republicans out of the Senate (and later, the House) should be their first priority. Likewise, Republicans should throw Trump under the bus and concentrate on retaining control of the Senate, so that they can continue their policy of depriving the undeserving of human rights.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThere's no reason to believe that with Clinton replacing Obama, the Republicans will abandon their hissy-fit strategy, throwing themselves on the floor and kicking their legs in the air, crying, "You can't have a Supreme Court justice! No fair! WAAAAH!" In fact, unless we strip the Senate of Republicans, we'll have four more years of stupid, useless obstructionism. That's why the sane half of the country (Democrats) should focus on the "down-ticket"; getting the Republicans out of the Senate (and later, the House) should be their first priority. Likewise, Republicans should throw Trump under the bus and concentrate on retaining control of the Senate, so that they can continue their policy of depriving the undeserving of human rights.
Yes I agree. The Dems chances of retaking the senate seem to improve every day. The Republican senators in NH, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin seem doomed.
However, they will never get to 60 votes. So I feel like the "nuclear option" will be necessary to get anyone good appointed to the Supreme Court.
Republicans will throw a fit, but they truly deserve it after the games they've played with the current vacancy.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYep, the ACA is "failing." Conservatives are dancing in the streets and wetting themselves over a couple of companies dropping out of the ACA exchanges. A stupid move in the extreme, considering that ACA enrollees are guaranteed customers. Other companies will pick up the slack. Or by "failing," do you mean "undeserving scum are getting medical care"? .
It's not just'a few companies', and other companies are not picking up the slack. Companies do not want "guaranteed customers", who by law pay less than the cost of the services they use. That's why the major insurance companies are dropping ACA plans.
Interestingly, I have been providing care for what you jestingly refer to as "undeserving scum" for my entire 30 year career. It happened before the ACA, and continues now. I was not inherently against the ACA, what I was against is the abject lie that it would not add to the deficit. If BO would have been honest and said "The ACA will cost taxpayers 500 billion a year, but it is worth it to insure all these good Americans, and we will raise taxes to pay for it", then the American public would have had an informed decision to make.
Quote: SOOPOOSo libs, the latest emails made public, no big deal? I still think DT being such a buffoon, he will lose, but is it POSSIBLE that the dems will want Hillary gone? President Biden? And certainly Huma detached from the campaign?
Which emails are you referring to?
Huma isn't going anywhere.
Quote: ams288Which emails are you referring to?
Huma isn't going anywhere.
The ones referred to as 'pay to play' referencing Arab Sheiks. It won't take you long to read about them if you care. Trump is doing his usual rant about 'prosecute her, throw her in jail.' If only the Republicans had a reasonable candidate to factually point out the obvious influence peddling to all the wrong people, without the histrionics.......
Quote: SOOPOOInterestingly, I have been providing care for what you jestingly refer to as "undeserving scum" for my entire 30 year career. .
By undeserving, one needs to include all those who had money to buy insurance, but gambled and didn't, then eventually bilked the system in the same way as those who couldn't afford insurance, because they couldn't afford their new massive medical bills and perhaps lack of ability to work anymore., etc.,
People who trust the public to pay a large bill after damage, obviously have never been dealing with reality. That's the basic reason to force people to pay insurance up front whether they like it or not.
It's tyranny all right. The right kind.
Well, either that, or we really do need to turn people away from emergency care.
Quote: ams288Yes I agree. The Dems chances of retaking the senate seem to improve every day. The Republican senators in NH, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin seem doomed.
However, they will never get to 60 votes. So I feel like the "nuclear option" will be necessary to get anyone good appointed to the Supreme Court.
Republicans will throw a fit, but they truly deserve it after the games they've played with the current vacancy.
The next supreme court fight will be a fight for the ages
I really don't see a 9th justice confirmed over the next 4 to 5 years
Conservatives, if they have enough power, will filibuster this to the end of Clintons term
Conservatives would rather shut down the govt and the country till the end of the Clinton term rather then have a lib justice confirmed.
Is this good for the country, of course not but conservatives don't really care about the country.
Quote: SOOPOOThe ones referred to as 'pay to play' referencing Arab Sheiks. It won't take you long to read about them if you care. Trump is doing his usual rant about 'prosecute her, throw her in jail.' If only the Republicans had a reasonable candidate to factually point out the obvious influence peddling to all the wrong people, without the histrionics.......
The problem with calling it "pay to play" is that no one can point to any government policy that was influenced by their donations. AKA the "play" part is missing.
They got a meeting with Hillary. Big whoop. Politicians meet with people who give them big donations every single day. That's the way it's done in Washington.
Quote: terapinedI really don't see a 9th justice confirmed over the next 4 to 5 years
.
You really think they would go back on their justification that the next President should nominate the justice? Did they have their fingers crossed when they said it?
Quote: rxwineYou really think they would go back on their justification that the next President should nominate the justice? Did they have their fingers crossed when they said it?
They will confirm justices. There might be a large fight and it may take more than one nominee if she nominates someone too far left. The can't do things that hinder their chances to retain power in the next cycle should they keep it in this one. Clinton may well be more reasonable than Obama and they may make some deals. It isn't JUST the Congress that has been obstinate, but Dems/Libs can't see that in most cases.
A centrist like Garland will surely be better in the eyes of the Republicans than whatever liberal Hillary will pick.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-irs-chief-says-trump-100000186.html
Commentary by Fred Goldberg, who was appointed IRS chief counsel by President Ronald Reagan and as IRS commissioner and as Assistant Treasury Secretary for tax policy by President George H.W. Bush. He is currently a tax attorney in private practice.
Quick excerpt from the link
But nothing prevents us as taxpayers from choosing to release our tax returns — and those who aspire for the highest public office have done so for decades. And they do so precisely because their returns provide a window (for better and worse) into who they are. Those who say Trump should release his tax returns claim we are entitled to view this portrait of the man who aspires to lead our country.
...
A couple of my own disclosures: I [Fred Goldberg] had the honor of being appointed IRS chief counsel by President Reagan, and being appointed IRS commissioner and then Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the United States Treasury by President George H.W. Bush. This year, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. I am confident she will keep us safe and that she could and would work with Republicans in Congress to lead our country to a better future for all Americans.
Quote: 777<snip>Former IRS chief says Trump has no excuse to not release his tax returns<snip>
I think that has been pretty well established with the possible exception of providing a reason to not provide certain returns,,,there has been no good reason to not release them presented by the candidate or the campaign.
That makes him a liar.
I'd be satisfied if both liars stopped lying...but it won't happen...neither will...
Quote: SOOPOOSo libs, the latest emails made public, no big deal? I still think DT being such a buffoon, he will lose, but is it POSSIBLE that the dems will want Hillary gone? President Biden? And certainly Huma detached from the campaign?
Big, big, terrible, terrible secret: no one actually gives a rat's ass about Hillary's emails. And the latest accusatory language seems to be along the lines of "she sent and received emails regarding something, which is clear evidence of high treason!!!!!!!!!!!"
Really, hasn't the anti-Hillary witch hunt gone on long enough that we should instead be talking about the issues and how the candidates intend to deal with them ?
Quote: rxwineYou really think they would go back on their justification that the next President should nominate the justice? Did they have their fingers crossed when they said it?
Well, their justification that "the people" should get to decide who the next Supreme Court Justice is and always was crap, given that Obama is the president and was chosen by the people. By that logic, they have no reason to not at least have a confirmation hearing.
And yes, they would abandon their specious justification if doing so appealed to them.
We need to dispose of all Republicans before this country can progress. They have shown themselves to be without honor or integrity.
Quote: SOOPOOIt's not just'a few companies', and other companies are not picking up the slack. Companies do not want "guaranteed customers", who by law pay less than the cost of the services they use. That's why the major insurance companies are dropping ACA plans.
Interestingly, I have been providing care for what you jestingly refer to as "undeserving scum" for my entire 30 year career. It happened before the ACA, and continues now. I was not inherently against the ACA, what I was against is the abject lie that it would not add to the deficit. If BO would have been honest and said "The ACA will cost taxpayers 500 billion a year, but it is worth it to insure all these good Americans, and we will raise taxes to pay for it", then the American public would have had an informed decision to make.
I doubt that anybody with six functioning brain cells failed to understand that the ACA would cost money. Obama had to preemptively head off the tired, tired conservative argument that universal health care would destroy the economy (conservatives, believing in a fundamentally flawed credo, don't understand that improving the health of the citizenry also improves the economy; if you're rich, the ACA didn't help you directly, but there are more people alive and functional to buy your products and services, so you still benefit--conservatives cannot fathom this concept). Republicans have said that child labor laws, the 40-hour work week, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, Medicare, etc. etc. all would destroy the economy.
So Obama couldn't tell the truth, because the bleating from all the republican sheep would have drowned out his message. I'm actually perfectly OK with his having understated the costs of the ACA, if that's what it took to get it passed. The end did, in fact, justify the means. What else can you do when so many conservatives would rather see thousands of people die for lack of medical care if preventing that from happening would cost them an additional $100 a year?
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>We need to dispose of all Republicans before this country can progress. They have shown themselves to be without honor or integrity.<snip>
So...he proposes a "cleansing" of Republicans...
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>So Obama couldn't tell the truth, because the bleating from all the republican sheep would have drowned out his message.<snip>
...but Democrats have honor and integrity...but need to lie to pass a bill...
He has blocked me, which is fine. There is no conversation with him anyway, as anyone who has a differing point of view will quickly find out.
There's a lot of math people here. Can anyone spot the problem?
Quote: Trump tweetDonald J. Trump 44% (+3) ... Hillary Clinton 47%
Hey, isn't a hallmark of a good politician the ability to turn a negative into a positive?
Vote for Trump -- he's "absolutely" right.
Oh, I'm on a roll...
Actually, he probably meant to indicate that he was up 3% from his own prior polling, that is, from 41% to 44%. But the fact that he's also 3% points *lower* than Hillary's 47%, and that he juxtaposed it with the graph and statistic that shows as much, is going to lead to enormous hilarity for about a day.
Quote: MathExtremistHey, isn't a hallmark of a good politician the ability to turn a negative into a positive?
Vote for Trump -- he's "absolutely" right.
Oh, I'm on a roll...
Actually, he probably meant to indicate that he was up 3% from his own prior polling, that is, from 41% to 44%. But the fact that he's also 3% points *lower* than Hillary's 47%, and that he juxtaposed it with the graph and statistic that shows as much, is going to lead to enormous hilarity for about a day.
Among those who will never vote for him, it will be funny.
He isn't trying to get your votes. You are written off already.
He is trying to keep his base and add independents. The base will stay and independents are likely smart enough to know what he meant.
*******
He still does not have my vote...but I do think he has the vote of the people with advanced degrees in the family...and the one who just started college. So he is at 75% in our household...
Quote: RonCHe is trying to keep his base and add independents. The base will stay and independents are likely smart enough to know what he meant.
I don't think Donald Trump knows what he meant.
He posts images like that whenever he is ahead (see below for another example, also just posted today, where he actually was ahead and the "+2" corresponds to him being 2 points ahead of Hillary).
I think he saw the +3 and thought "I'm up!" and threw it up on his twitter page.
He's an idiot.
That's a good point. In view of the context of his other tweets, I was clearly being too charitable.Quote: ams288I don't think Donald Trump knows what he meant.
He posts images like that whenever he is ahead (see below for another example, also just posted today, where he actually was ahead and the "+2" corresponds to him being 2 points ahead of Hillary).
Of course, this is from the same guy who said he'd be up 20% over Hillary if the media weren't against him. Given the floor on Hillary's support and the fact that she's *never* had an aggregate poll average under 40% , that's mathematically impossible. Even Reagan didn't beat Mondale by 20%.
So yeah, you're right -- Trump is just bad at math.
He's gaining ground...
Quote: RonCHe's gaining ground...
No he's not... That Florida poll is the only one in a month to show him ahead there. The two other most recent have shown Hillary up +9 and +5.
At this point he could win Florida and Ohio and still lose the election.
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, and Colorado are lost for Trump. Hillary's Super Pac has stopped running ads there because they don't need to.
+3 in Economist/YouGov
+2 in LA Times/USC
+1 in NBC News/SM
+1 in Reuters/Ipsos
There is still quite a bit of time until the election...but go ahead and claim victory!!
Quote: RonCThere is still quite a bit of time until the election...but go ahead and claim victory!!
Ok.
Hillary is gonna win.
Trump is gonna lose.
Not even going out on a limb to say it. Everyone knows it.
The question now is how badly will the downballot Repubs get hurt.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's a good point. In view of the context of his other tweets, I was clearly being too charitable.
Of course, this is from the same guy who said he'd be up 20% over Hillary if the media weren't against him. Given the floor on Hillary's support and the fact that she's *never* had an aggregate poll average under 40% , that's mathematically impossible. Even Reagan didn't beat Mondale by 20%.
So yeah, you're right -- Trump is just bad at math.
RonC is clearly freaking out over your criticism of his hero. Five posts in the last 12 hours (clearly, he can't think of everything he wants to say all at once).
You have to realize that Trump reality is something much different from conventional reality. In Trump World, polls that favor him are gospel truth, polls that don't favor him are rigged, and math is what he wants it to be. When he loses by five million votes, he'll probably throw a victory party.
