Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep, did we ever doubt the fix was in, the media knows exactly how to play people. I remember after the 2012 election there were comments that Hillary would be our next president.
Of course, if Trump loses, it would have to be because the election was fixed. I guess that it couldn't possibly be because he was a lousy candidate who didn't seem to understand how to win a general election.
When he subject line is "FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION", you should probably have latched on to the fact that it wasn't, in fact, verbiage that originated with Clinton. As you may recall, English is sorta her first language.
Also, a quick perusal of the text makes it clear that it describes an altercation at a checkpoint somewhere - a fairly unlikely position for an SOS, however hands-on, to be in. I will admit I had to Google Maccabin and Atarot to zoom in on Israel. (Maccabin should have been a giveaway, but in my defense, I am running a fever right now.)
And, of course, having fired up Google already, I checked where the offending term came from. An editorial in an Israeli newspaper.
So, Hillary Clinton received and forwarded a translation of a text that contained an offending phrase. Describing a bad situation that could have diplomatic consequences, y'know - her job.
When he subject line is "FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION", you should probably have latched on to the fact that it wasn't, in fact, verbiage that originated with Clinton. As you may recall, English is sorta her first language.
Also, a quick perusal of the text makes it clear that it describes an altercation at a checkpoint somewhere - a fairly unlikely position for an SOS, however hands-on, to be in. I will admit I had to Google Maccabin and Atarot to zoom in on Israel. (Maccabin should have been a giveaway, but in my defense, I am running a fever right now.)
And, of course, having fired up Google already, I checked where the offending term came from. An editorial in an Israeli newspaper.
So, Hillary Clinton received and forwarded a translation of a text that contained an offending phrase. Describing a bad situation that could have diplomatic consequences, y'know - her job.
Is that what we're supposed to be outraged about?
That people lack the critical thinking skills to stop and pause and are unable to source material is a real problem in this country. What the hell is going on? And what's the solution?
In all my years of voting, I've never seen a candidate who seemed to be under the impression that they could win with 35-40% of the vote and make no real effort to go after any of the remaining segment of voters. And his loyal supporters seem to be under the same impression. The hell with everybody else, they will somehow magically make those numbers work to win without the help of anyone else.
I guess it is the dynamic of his feeding off of the energy of his hard core supporters and sending that energy back to them. Kind of like the circle of life in their corner of the world.
JRR I think you hit the nail on the head.
Many people here - both in the conservative camp and in the liberal camp - think the majority of Americans share their views. There are all kinds of political ideologies out there and a surprising number of people are a hybrid of both camps.
Anyway, once a candidate receives his or her party's nomination that candidate must break out of the comfort zone of only enthralling their supporters and make an arduous attempt at swaying voting blocs that don't traditionally vote for that party. Americans vote as blocs. Yes there is a Black Vote and there is a Hispanic Vote and there is a Pro Gun Vote and so on. You might say Donald made a lame attempt at the Black Vote but what he did was almost laughable ... and I would make a wager that at least 75% or 80% (if not more) of African Americans are going to vote for Hillary.
Honestly I am coming to believe Donald never really wanted the presidency. He is always sabotaging his own campaign.
Hitlery has gained 68 electoral votes since the 1st debate. That is how you tell who won the debates.
Well if you mean the election is wrapped up - that's pretty much the case, Trump is finished. There might be some last minute shift but it would have to be huge; extremely unlikely but not impossible.
What is NOT over is the continued disintegration of the Republican party. That's a huge problem because it effectively hands over control of the nation to the Democrats for years to comem and one party government w/o checks and balances is never good. I see the Trumpists and the Tea Party and the other far right elements coming together in a new party, not unlike George Wallace's Independent Party. The sooner that happens the better.
Many people here - both in the conservative camp and in the liberal camp - think the majority of Americans share their views. There are all kinds of political ideologies out there and a surprising number of people are a hybrid of both camps.
Anyway, once a candidate receives his or her party's nomination that candidate must break out of the comfort zone of only enthralling their supporters and make an arduous attempt at swaying voting blocs that don't traditionally vote for that party. Americans vote as blocs. Yes there is a Black Vote and there is a Hispanic Vote and there is a Pro Gun Vote and so on. You might say Donald made a lame attempt at the Black Vote but what he did was almost laughable ... and I would make a wager that at least 75% or 80% (if not more) of African Americans are going to vote for Hillary.
Honestly I am coming to believe Donald never really wanted the presidency. He is always sabotaging his own campaign.
Interesting leaked email from Steve Barton, the Breitbart guy on Trump's campaign...
Google it--several links are showing now...
Conversation between him and another Breitbart editor...
More than year ago, in this email Barron was claiming to be CEO of Trump's campaign...which he was not--at least to public knowledge--when it was written.
Plus he and the other guy were discussing a campaign to oust Ryan as Speaker when he had just won the office...
And the other guy says this plan is the "long, long, long, long" view of their strategy and Barron says "Yeah, he's gone by spring"... Which didn't happen of course...but the animus and intent is there...
So who knows how long Trump has been planning to burn the GOP down or what his true agenda is...
Seems more and more like Hitler who knew more than his generals deliberately broke with his stronger ally and attacked him, thinking he could fight a war on two fronts when Germany had no hope of winning...
Trump is looking for smaller victories to win since POTUS is out of reach. He needs that so he can say to himself that he's not a loser...just change the game if you can't win. Ryan is in the crosshairs and a few others that he wants to take down. All for his ego. This will only push the destruction of the GOP.
Not a Trump supporter, but I agree it is not quite over. Trump started TV ads in my area. Two different negative ads about Clinton's health and her "deporables" comment. Another ad pushing Trump's tax plan and paid maternity leave.
Not sure how effective they might be, but people shouldn't be too confident.
Haven't seen any Clinton ads here.
No really....it's OVER!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
