Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[JohnStOnge]

While continuing in your failure to recognize that Trump is a satirical reflection of the party you love.

As you know, historically, the Republican Party for me has simply been the only realistic stem on the power of the Democratic Party. But there are people who do love the Republican Party who would vehemently disagree with you. I think Vin Weber is one of them. If you're interested you can hear how he feels about the situation at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/video ... -nominated.

Early on in the interview he says "We've nominated someone who is contrary to the spirit of Republicanism..."

Says he will not vote for Trump and if Trump supporters convince him that it's a "binary choice" he'll vote for Clinton.

Also interesting to me that Trump's mental health come up. I've been talking about that for months. Now I'm hearing the question raised more and more.

Weber said he wants Trump to lose because he thinks Trump winning would be bad for the country and the world as well as "disastrous" for the Republican Party.

[Skjellyfetti]

Latest Fox News poll has Trump 10 points down and in free fall. What a maroon.

That's not a 4 way poll. As a Johnson supporter you should know by now that 2 way polls are meaningless...

Here's a 4 way poll for you.

Clinton 45%
Trump 31%
Johnson 10%
Stein 6%
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 63582.html

And, yes... national polls are also meaningless... better to look at swing states... but, Trump is floundering in almost all of them.

[JohnStOnge]

Yep, you'all see/hear this a thousand times over in the next 97 days..Wait until most of the middle class over the next several weeks finds out that Clinton has now admitted what we knew all along- that she wants to raise taxes on the middle class (the MSM will try to hide/downplay it). That admission right there will more damaging than anything Trump has said so far..

That's not going to get much mileage. Everybody knows it was just a bungled line. Everybody knows her thing is to soak the rich.

Now seeing reporting that she actually said "aren't." That's actually what I thought it sounded like she said today when Sean Hannity played it on his radio show. I was thinking, "Dude, she said 'aren't.'"

Republicans are really imploding. Now they're going to have this thing going around and they've made an ad out of it. And it's going to end up being cast as them lying about what she said.

[kalm]

While continuing in your failure to recognize that Trump is a satirical reflection of the party you love.

As you know, historically, the Republican Party for me has simply been the only realistic stem on the power of the Democratic Party. But there are people who do love the Republican Party who would vehemently disagree with you. I think Vin Weber is one of them. If you're interested you can hear how he feels about the situation at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/video ... -nominated.

Early on in the interview he says "We've nominated someone who is contrary to the spirit of Republicanism..."

Says he will not vote for Trump and if Trump supporters convince him that it's a "binary choice" he'll vote for Clinton.

Also interesting to me that Trump's mental health come up. I've been talking about that for months. Now I'm hearing the question raised more and more.

Weber said he wants Trump to lose because he thinks Trump winning would be bad for the country and the world as well as "disastrous" for the Republican Party.

That's what you and people like Vin Weber are missing. He's the epitome of Republicanism.

[UNI88]

As you know, historically, the Republican Party for me has simply been the only realistic stem on the power of the Democratic Party. But there are people who do love the Republican Party who would vehemently disagree with you. I think Vin Weber is one of them. If you're interested you can hear how he feels about the situation at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/video ... -nominated.

Early on in the interview he says "We've nominated someone who is contrary to the spirit of Republicanism..."

Says he will not vote for Trump and if Trump supporters convince him that it's a "binary choice" he'll vote for Clinton.

Also interesting to me that Trump's mental health come up. I've been talking about that for months. Now I'm hearing the question raised more and more.

Weber said he wants Trump to lose because he thinks Trump winning would be bad for the country and the world as well as "disastrous" for the Republican Party.

That's what you and people like Vin Weber are missing. He's the epitome of Republicanism.

And Hillary is the perfect representative of the Democratic Party.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Me, as an anti Trump White guy, I was In Like Flynn!

That phrase is so appropriate for you JSO.

[houndawg]

Yep, Trump off the cuff, perfect!

It worked during the conk primary. And Hillary's weakness is anything that isn't tightly scripted (hence no press conferences since Dec). She had it easy vs that pussy Bernie in the donk debates. He could have hammered her over Benghazi, the e-mails, Clinton foundation pay to play, etc, but didn't. She's never had to debate someone like Trump. You can whine all you want about Trumps lack of substance ad hominem debate attacks, but todays reality tv show watching pop culture public eats that **** up. He's going to hammer her in the debates.

Consider the audience, those clowns even make you appear to have a glimmer of a clue.

But you're wrong, as is usual with you: Trump is on his way to an electoral stomping that will make Walter Mondale gulp with disbelief because he hasn't done what he needs to do to keep up, which is to remain entertaining. Now the smart money is on him turning tail and dropping out of the race like he's done every time. But you do have to give him points for the rhetorical jiu jitsu that let him kick the bejesus out of the conks with their own Southern Strategy. That right there is for the ages..

[houndawg]

As you watch this, remember that there is no such tape.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhKjAqpCbcU[/youtube]

Are you guys ready to say, "OK enough is enough. You're right. This guy has no business being President? " At some point you're going to have to admit it.

John. Calm yourself. Dry your eyes. Change out your panty shield.

The simple fact is that whichever of these Yankees prevails in the election it will have zero effect on my life. I can't think of a single thing that would change.

Perhaps if I lived where you do and spent my days marinating in piss it would be different, but I doubt it.

[Ivytalk]

That's not a 4 way poll. As a Johnson supporter you should know by now that 2 way polls are meaningless...

Here's a 4 way poll for you.

Clinton 45%
Trump 31%
Johnson 10%
Stein 6%
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 63582.html

And, yes... national polls are also meaningless... better to look at swing states... but, Trump is floundering in almost all of them.

Wow! At this rate, Johnson might overtake Drumpf!

[kalm]

That's what you and people like Vin Weber are missing. He's the epitome of Republicanism.

And Hillary is the perfect representative of the Democratic Party.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Tough to disagree.

When Hillary quoted FDR in her acceptance speech, I made a quick Facebook quote criticizing it. A buddy who "has a degree in poli-sci" took great offense. Dback also commented. But I got a quite a few likes from conk friends who I'm not sure even know my leanings.

[JohnStOnge]

That's what you and people like Vin Weber are missing. He's the epitome of Republicanism.

I think you really know better than that because his inconsistency with long term Republican orthodoxy has been so widely reported.

He's the epitome of demagoguery.

And, as you know, I agree completely with Weber's assessment that the best thing that can happen to the Republican Party is to have him lose. In fact, as you know, I go a little farther by saying that the best thing that can happen for the Republican Party is to have him totally blown out so that his sort of schtick is totally repudiated.

I also think that would be best for the country in the long terms because, again, a healthy Republican Party is for the foreseeable future the only potential stem on Democratic Party influence.

[Ivytalk]

That's what you and people like Vin Weber are missing. He's the epitome of Republicanism.

I also think that would be best for the country in the long terms because, again, a healthy Republican Party is for the foreseeable future the only potential stem on Democratic Party influence.

Do you mean "restraint", as in "stem the tide"? Or part of a flower?

Anyway, your vote for Hillary Clinton, in the short term, will actively promote Democratic influence.

[JohnStOnge]

I also think that would be best for the country in the long terms because, again, a healthy Republican Party is for the foreseeable future the only potential stem on Democratic Party influence.

Do you mean "restraint", as in "stem the tide"? Or part of a flower?

Anyway, your vote for Hillary Clinton, in the short term, will actively promote Democratic influence.

You have a genius level IQ. You know I'm using it as a verb. And, yes, I am willing to accept short term loss for long term gain; or at least for minimizing a LOT of long term loss.

[kalm]

I also think that would be best for the country in the long terms because, again, a healthy Republican Party is for the foreseeable future the only potential stem on Democratic Party influence.

Do you mean "restraint", as in "stem the tide"? Or part of a flower?

Anyway, your vote for Hillary Clinton, in the short term, will actively promote Democratic influence.

Yeah! We'll show those dems! We'll
Stop 'em dead in their tracks by voting for their candidate in a system where the incumbent wins 90% of the time! And we'll give 'em back congress too!

That'll learn 'em!!!

[kalm]

That's what you and people like Vin Weber are missing. He's the epitome of Republicanism.

I think you really know better than that because his inconsistency with long term Republican orthodoxy has been so widely reported.

He's the epitome of demagoguery.

And, as you know, I agree completely with Weber's assessment that the best thing that can happen to the Republican Party is to have him lose. In fact, as you know, I go a little farther by saying that the best thing that can happen for the Republican Party is to have him totally blown out so that his sort of schtick is totally repudiated.

I also think that would be best for the country in the long terms because, again, a healthy Republican Party is for the foreseeable future the only potential stem on Democratic Party influence.

Self awareness is a grand thing, John.

[Ivytalk]

Do you mean "restraint", as in "stem the tide"? Or part of a flower?

Anyway, your vote for Hillary Clinton, in the short term, will actively promote Democratic influence.

You have a genius level IQ. You know I'm using it as a verb. And, yes, I am willing to accept short term loss for long term gain; or at least for minimizing a LOT of long term loss.

Then I trust that you -- or at least your wife, as a Party member -- will be doing what a lot of anti-Trump Republicans are doing: abandoning Trump and working hard for down-ballot GOP candidates, to "stem" the losses.

[JohnStOnge]

Clinton is frustrating me by how clumsy she's being in answering questions about that e mail thing. All she has to do is say something like this:

"Look, what I said in my testimony to congress is what I honestly believed to be true at the time. Apparently, the FBI determined that a very small percentage of the e mails were classified and an even smaller percentage were marked classified in a manner that I didn't recognize."

And that's very defensible. The FBI said it did not have evidence to say she knew anything she sent was classified and it said that the handful of e mails that were marked classified were marked in a way such that she may not have recognized them as being marked as such. They did not find evidence to say that anything she said in her Congressional testimony was something she knew to be false.

This is so easy. I don't see why she's having such difficulty in articulating it.

[ASUG8]

So John, are you going to use all the votes the Dems give you on one candidate or are you going to spread them around a bit?

[Ivytalk]

So John, are you going to use all the votes the Dems give you on one candidate or are you going to spread them around a bit?

In corporate law, they call that concept "cumulative voting"!

[JohnStOnge]

In the vein of my experience in the Black-populated convenience store, check this out:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/05/e ... /21445951/

Even ex-KKK leader David Duke is more popular with black voters than Donald Trump

Yes there are caveats. But, still, where Blacks have been polled on Trump nationally and in various States he's done more poorly than Duke has done with Blacks polled in Louisiana.

[JohnStOnge]

It worked during the conk primary. And Hillary's weakness is anything that isn't tightly scripted (hence no press conferences since Dec). She had it easy vs that pussy Bernie in the donk debates. He could have hammered her over Benghazi, the e-mails, Clinton foundation pay to play, etc, but didn't. She's never had to debate someone like Trump. You can whine all you want about Trumps lack of substance ad hominem debate attacks, but todays reality tv show watching pop culture public eats that **** up. He's going to hammer her in the debates.

I actually think HIllary does pretty well when it turns into a "conversation." I was thinking that when I saw her get into that press conference with the Black/Hispanic journalists today. You know, answering questions, talking without a teleprompter, etc.

I think how she does in the debates depends to some extent upon the moderators. If the moderators create an atmosphere in which the candidates have to address substance she's going to slaughter Trump. It'll be a total mismatch.

[UNI88]

And Hillary is the perfect representative of the Democratic Party./quote]

Tough to disagree.

When Hillary quoted FDR in her acceptance speech, I made a quick Facebook quote criticizing it. A buddy who "has a degree in poli-sci" took great offense. Dback also commented. But I got a quite a few likes from conk friends who I'm not sure even know my leanings.

What the heck does a "degree in poli-sci" have to do with anything? I have a degree in poly-sci and it doesn't make me any more qualified to comment on these kinds of things than you or anyone else.

These campaigns are mirror images of each other in so many ways - they're both about victimization and blame and they're both cons. For Trump, the victims are working class whites and for Hillary they're minorities and women. Trump blames Mexicans, Muslims and other minorities. Hillary blames the wealthy and powerful. They're cons because because they're both in it for their own selfish reasons and neither intends to do anything to really help the "victims" or to punish those who are to blame.

[JohnStOnge]

Watching Trump right now. Incoherent. Also reading notes very obviously. They're trying to get him under control. And he's endorsing Paul Ryan. Somebody got to him. And he's coming off as SUCH a phony.

Now he's saying...while obviously reading notes...that he fully supports John McCain and endorses him. Now Kelly Ayotte.

And mind you this is all happening while he's looking down obviously reading from a script. This is beyond "teleprompter." This is having a script on a piece of paper on the podium and reading it very mechanically.

What a buffoon.

[JohnStOnge]

Just a mention of something else going on:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tru ... graduates/

What I heard on TV today is that no Republican has EVER lost among White College Graduates since the advent of modern polling. Trump is primed to do it.

[BDKJMU]

Here's a 4 way poll for you.

Clinton 45%
Trump 31%
Johnson 10%
Stein 6%
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 63582.html

And, yes... national polls are also meaningless... better to look at swing states... but, Trump is floundering in almost all of them.

Wow! At this rate, Johnson might overtake Drumpf!

And most of the 4 way polls today have Clinton up 4 to 5.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5952.html
For the last 3 weeks they have been taking massive swings in both directions. At this point in are just like the pre season polls. Worthless as titties on a bull. Like the football polls won't mean anything until Oct after a good chunk of the games have been played, the political polls won't mean much until latter Sept to Oct when the games are being played (in this case debates and fall campaign). 3 months in a football season is an eternity for things to happen. Same in politics.