Normally yes. Maybe not with these two candidates specifically though?Originally Posted by GS
Normally yes. Maybe not with these two candidates specifically though?
The only way it's swinging behind Trump is if tasteless golf hotels become the main campaign issue.
He's just switched his campaign team around again.
He's hired Breitbart to run his campaign. Wonder if mert's put his hand up.
Did you see that Breitbart started their own polling to counter THE BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA polls only to find Clinton up by 5 points?
Holy fuck.
This is why Ted Cruz will be the main man once these lot get humped.
$100 says he's offered Ivanka to him at some point.
Probably not, but it's difficult to envisage any scenario where you would expect a material swing to Trump.
PublicPolicyPolling
@ppppolls
We'll release rest of our TX poll this PM but here's a preview. 50% support building a wall with Mexico, 7% support building one w/ Oklahoma
Dishonest media are pretty funny at least.
Trump down .6 in online LA Times poll while trailing in traditional polls:
http://cesrusc.org/election/
Lol if you buy into the dishonest media at this point after they've been exposed time and time again.
...?
I don't know but please more talk about polls.
Polls conducted over the phone underrepresent his support by 4-10 points, this is nothing outside the norm.
Historical bias in polling:
It's actually quite interesting.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...t-intelligence
Trump doesn't want to use US intelligence agencies. Presumably he'll rely on the Russians or something. He's teetering on the deep end now.“Very easy to use them, but I won't use them, because they’ve made such bad decisions,”
Hopefully this change of campaign management (you know, because it's going so super well that Trump was getting bored) frees him up to be the unmitigated lunatic asshole he clearly wants to be.
Dude you're supposed to be smart, I would hope you were above click bait meaningless headlines that confirm your biases.
Guess not.
What are the polls saying?
Best part of election season has happened. If you like older documentaries PBS has started replaying their American president series. Probably much more rah rah cheerleading than I remember but they've got from Kennedy to Clinton online.
I just enjoy when Trump runs his mouth and winds up saying something mind-bendingly stupid. I know nothing he says is thought-through policy. It's just fascinating to see how his mind works. He's basically what would happen if a twelve-year-old ran for office. 100% id.
I'm hoping the campaign shake-up drops whatever limited public filter he's been able to maintain. Just for kicks, really.
Do you like it more or less than when Hillary commits felonies or engages in shocking acts of corruption?
That's obviously begging the question, but I'd trust the Republican version of Evil MechaHilary with the nuclear codes before I'd let Trump within the same postcode of the war room.
"I had some bad Chinese food last night. So bad. So sad. Nuke China."
To be fair, 'Hillary' has said she'll be less corrupt if she wins.
Same Hillary who approved the sale of 20% of America's uranium production capacity to the Russians in return for a fat cheque to the Clinton Foundation and 500k in speaking fees for Bill Clinton the month after? You trust HER to act in the best interest of American national security?
Do you even care about her corruption? Honestly, does it bother you, or do you just dismiss it as a giant "right wing conspiracy" despite their being emails directly referring to a "pay for play" system connecting Clinton Foundation donors and the State Department?
You don't get to high horse anyone else about "dismissing" things.
Yes or no:You don't get to high horse anyone else about "dismissing" things.
1. Are you aware of the scandals I'm referring to, involving "Pay for Play" schemes linking the State Department and the Clinton Foundation?
2. Do you care?
Mert, if I wanted to engage with fleck-laden right-wing talking points, I'd directly read whatever Breitbart story you've credulously eaten up, rather than getting it second-hand.
I'm content to snicker at Trump from afar. This is a case where the election is between an actual grown-up, and a man-child with the emotional maturity of a slighted twelve-year-old. It's such a non-starter. And now, fingers crossed, he's going to tell us what he really thinks.
Yes or no:
1. Are you aware of the scandals I'm referring to, involving "Pay for Play" schemes linking the State Department and the Clinton Foundation?
2. Do you care?
One significant divide I've noticed between Republicans and Democrats - at least the politicians of the respective parties - is that Republicans have no shame in coming off as foolish and stupid, whereas Democrats are generally averse to public displays of idiocy. Both sides might well be equally intelligent, but the Republicans make no attempt to appear that way. This can probably be traced to when the Republicans picked up all the evangelist, anti-knowledge retards in the post-LBJ era. In any case there are probably political advantages to being this way, but it is pretty shameful on the whole.
That's a trend all over politics at the moment. It's basically a point against your credibility to be an actual non-political expert.
Politicians have spent a decade trashing the idea of expertise in general (experts aren't really a great source of campaign funds, after all, and tend to get inconveniently in the way of people who are), so now anyone capable of correcting political narratives with actual fact is deemed suspicious by default.
Rand () does not come off as foolish.
I don't know. Doing all those eye operations for free gives him a bit of a mug vibe.
It remains amazing to me that Mert bothers agitating for whatever 'equal time' nonsense he wants here, as though we're a news outlet with some bearing on the election.
Hillary Clinton could be the single most corrupt individual in the history of politics and instinctively she'd still seem more suited to that office than a grinning ballsack with no barrier between mind and mouth. That there is so much corruption surrounding her is the only reason anyone is still entertaining the idea of President Trump.
The hair makes up for it.
Tbh I'd vote for Trump's hairpiece before Trump himself.
Hillary is so tough that Putin pays up AFTER he got what wanted. Trump can't get a roofer from Sarasota to finish a project on time and under budget without suing.
What are you talking about?
You said she sold the uranium and Bill got paid for his speech a month later. If you are doing illegal work you get paid up front unless you are the most dangerous thing around because you have no recourse. Putin is clearly afraid of getting Fostered if he crosses her. Trump meanwhile has to sue thousands of subcontractors because he can't get them to do the agreed upon work (or he is just shafting people). He is so weak and his management team's ability so poor that he can't handle a contractor?
Hillary is strong and Trump is weak. I thought I would try some of your bizarro logic and wow - it is fun. Why try applying real thought to your original claim which is simply post hoc ergo proptor hoc? The only real answer to absurdity is absurdity.
I kind of have a soft sport for the mythical super villain Hillary, who can intimidate Putin, scare the media into doing her bidding, strong-arm the justice system and the opposition establishment into line, manipulate polling, and usher in a communist dystopia if left unchecked. She sounds really on top of things. Very competent, and you'd have to think incredibly well-organised. You know she'd get bills through the senate.
I'd like to see Trump get in on the basis that the CIA investigate the shit out of his finances because he won't let them do proper work. "Yeah, you're in the pocket of Russia, Mr. President. 40 years ago, that'd be treason."
Posting West Wing episode titles, is that on purpose?
Are you retarded, she yielded a huge amount of a strategic national resource in return for pennies, it's a shocking deal. That's not compliance, it's lol'ing indifference; like selling your wife into sex slavery and getting a few coins indifferently tossed your way after she gets gang banged in your bedroom. You're still a cuck.
If Putin gave a shit about Hillary or had any fear or respect whatsoever for the US, why has he completely disregarded 'the reset' between the two countries, by invading Crimea and humiliating the US in the Middle East?
No. She is a spineless vassal for the larger ambitions of people more powerful than her. She has absolutely no power, and is simply a slave to the dictates of the globalists who will profit from her presidency, in terms of competence, literally everything she has ever touched has been transformed into utter failure. Please find one, ONE, achievement of note to her name in her entire history of public service.
On an entirely different topic, I find it very interesting that the Republican candidate campaign is now essentially being run by the minds behind Breitbart and Fox News.
If it wasn't apparent before, it's certainly clear now who's the tail and who's the dog on the right.
Just a snide L1 joke.
Manafort resigned.
It was 100% the right move for the campaign.Manafort resigned.
Reply With Quote
