The main point of my post was to highlight how he's impulsive (and more thin-skinned than any candidate ever), like a child. I think it's demonstrable, and it should disqualify him. Briefly ignoring the grossness of her age, what is more impulsive than seeing a girl and saying "I WANT" when you're on camera?
Heh. He does have some hilariously awkward quotes about his daughter though. In fairness she's a total smoke show.
Yes, a person that says things impulsively is much more of a threat to our country then someone who thinks things through...ie..."How can I personally benefit from this?"....and then acts. Why, they might end up giving up control of 20% of the US's uranium production to the Russians in exchange for $2.35M donated to their foundation and not telling anyone. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
When it comes to the Trumpisms, they piss me off because he's a candidate for president and it's embarrassing. That said, I can only care so much that he called a woman a pig ten years ago. So have I. So has everyone on this board. Same goes for him mocking that reporter. It bothered me, but it's not the catastrophic horror people make it out to be. [The reporter's response was actually even more annoying.] I care a lot more about Hillary selling out the country for personal gain. Her foreign policy and corruption is a much deeper concern. The sexual assault stuff is really ugly. He tried to blame it on Hillary's campaign and the way it was orchestrated with the women coming out and the tape release it did look like there was some coordination there, but you look at him and his past and you know it's probably true. If Hillary's record on this issue wasn't just as bad (yes Hillary had a role in 'justice' for those women, it's not just Bill) and the democrats didn't nominate the most awful person on the ballot I probably wouldn't be voting for him.
Did you read that whole article or just the headline? It stated that multiple agencies needed to sign off on the deal, that it was unlikely that Clinton personally evaluated anything regarding the deal and that it occurred at a time when relationship between the US and Russia where much more friendly. Everytime I research a supposed scandal around Clinton it seems that it's the right wing blowing and bowing on the tiniest ember and then screaming "look at the smoke there must be fire!"
The way Trump has treated women is a great tool for the Dems to use because he said before how good he will be to women. Then they drudge up some shit on him being gross and it makes him look bad. I don't think that shit is what would make him a bad president. But there are a lot of people out there who really care about that kind of stuff, so Hillary will be happy to exploit it. It might seem insignificant to you, but the way he fights every small battle to the death is alarming to me. He is incapable of rising above petty bullshit and acting like a mature human being. That is not someone who can handle a nasty news headline or some type of disagreement from a foreign leader. The fact that using nuclear weapons even crossed his mind scares me. Hillary's attack ads keep focusing on the nasty way he treats women, which is fine. But a lot of his on-the-fence supporters don't give a shit about that. Otherwise, they wouldn't still be on the fence. She should make her ads more about his bad policy ideas and bad business practices. I have a question about polling... The news keeps claiming the race is tightening in swing states. How is this possible? It seems like a lot of polling headlines are used to drum up viewership and create drama. In order for something to statistically change that much, a lot of people would have to change their minds. I don't see that being likely. Does anyone know how this polling is conducted?
OK, you're right. Uranium One donated huge sums of money to the Clinton Foundation out of the goodness of their corporate hearts, not to grease the wheels of a complicated deal. And then gave President Clinton $500K to speak a few words. Sounds reasonable to me.
What do you mean? They poll the people and more have moved to Trump. It's possible because the dems spent the last week running their campaign into the ground. There's a lot of different methods. As much as I don't like their stations, CNN and Fox News have some of the best polling. CNN dials randomly across the country. There's a slight dem bias here because there's no factor in likelihood to vote, but we're talking about maybe a point, two at the most. Fox news selects only from registered voters using random selection. Their method has almost no bias this close to the election, but has slight favoritism towards republicans early in the race. Edit: Also, on people changing their minds you are severely underestimating how many undecideds there still are, how many are on the fence about their candidates, and how many are leaving 3rd party candidates.
Which would be fucking insane. Except I'm pretty sure she's just looking at the money. Also - God bless your heart. How can anyone possibly think that so many foreign governments are randomly choosing the Clinton foundation to donate and that these favorable trade deals and arms endowments that shortly follow the donations are completely unrelated?
Most of the actual polls will have the explanation of the data at the end. Sometimes, it's a simple margin of error issue. If the margin is +3 points, that could mean a 6 point change, really, from one poll to the next without people actually changing their minds. Also, a lot of the polls are done as reactions, like right after a debate, or right after the latest "new" attack on a candidate, so the numbers skew as a response to that. Check into fivethirtyeight's website and this: http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/election-polling/
You do know that the secretary of state doesn't personally approve every thing that happens within the agency right? Show me some actual proof and not just speculation that she influenced these transactions for personal gain and I'll gladly listen. As I've said befor you have a much lower bar for believing these conspiracies than I do so don't be a condescending ass.
Maybe this should go in the rant/rave thread but it's political in nature so maybe it goes here? Anyways, I had a conversation with my coworker today that started with her telling me she couldn't decide whether to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein and ended with her trying to convince me that the confederate flag isn't an inherently racist symbol. Now I can't stop stress eating the leftover halloween candy and thinking about how much I don't want to spend 9 hours in close proximity to her tomorrow.
Would you? Because wikileaks has done exactly that for so many other scandals and we're still drowning in the "no way". For the Clinton foundation it's just a simple ability to collect two obviously related events. Don't know what else to tell you. The amount of fucking hoops you would have to go through to make all these concurrent events uncoordinated is really something. Foreign governments picked the right foundation because Clinton delivers on her promises. Just not the promises she makes to voters.
I'd just like to add a few things here: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act I will say this. It is only a matter of time now before the Clintons face charges of corruption. It shows up everywhere with them in everything they do. Look at Haiti alone and all the charitable work they do there: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...cratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-country-recover-earthquake-devastation.html Amazing really when you think about. It has to be coincidence, right?
Any bets if anything comes from this? "DoJ Assistant Attorney Peter Kadzik outed as a mole for Hillary Clinton campaign" :: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793831278382428164
All the wikileaks stuff has been about the DNC and the Clintons trying to swing the primaries her way. I completely believe all that. In all honestly that seems like standard politics to me, which I don't like at all. To me there's a big leap between shady politics and the treason you and Toytoy are so convinced she's guilty of. Like I said if solid evidence, not conjecture and speculation, comes out I'll gladly believe it. You think Trump will change the problems in our political system. I strongly disagree with that, and I strongly disagree with practically all of the GOPs parties platform. I don't particularly like Clinton, but I'm not willing to completely disregard my political beliefs and abstain or vote for a republican with what has been provided so far as evidence.
No, the speeches to Wall Street, the Clinton foundation has been in there a few times, info on other speaking fees, foreign policy info, who's funding terrorist organizations- there's a ton of ugliness there. I think giving arms deals to hostile governments based on the donations to the foundation is treason, but I don't think Hillary purposely handed them to ISIS. I think that part was just incompetence. Like her wanting to arm the Kurds now. It's not being evil on purpose, and her calculations on how this relates to Turkey and what our objectives in that arena should be is so misguided, in my opinion. I really wish Trump were a little clearer on these issues, although I like what he has said. Speaking of Trump, here's captain dickhead doing his thing. I find these video compilations about the election endlessly amusing. It really makes you proud to be an American. Except, like the opposite of that.
I will happily watch my party implode. Since they got control of Congress, it's been a shit show. Some of the lowest approval ratings I've ever seen. The fact that they won't even give Garland a vote is ridiculous. Put the man up, give him a hearing, and vote no. This obstructionism is dangerous. The justification? 'The American people should weigh in on this.' Ok, except they did weigh in on it, specifically when the voted Obama in to a second term. But fine. And now? Several R's, including McCain - the second biggest pussy in the party - are talking about not giving a Hillary Clinton nominee a vote during her term. Think about that. And you realize that there is no platform in the Republican party, I'm sad to say, other than obstructionism. Want to hear something so funny that you'll cry? The only way the Republican party survives in its current incarnation is if Hillary Clinton wins. Because if she doesn't, then what the fuck will they do? Obstruct themselves? Their platform was coopted by the Koch Brothers, and it became obstruct at all costs. There is no ideology left. We need a new party. Which is frankly why I'm so pissed at the 3rd party candidates. If there was ever an election that a Third Party could have gained serious traction, it was this one. But no, we get a bunch of fucking weirdos. Then again, it's a catch 22, if a candidate was not a weirdo, they'd be in one of the two major parties.
Where the race stands. This speaks volumes as to why Trump won in the primaries. It's also why I think he will get some of his platform done. The right wing has spoken. The left wing hates them. If Trump wins more obstructionism means they get voted out. I think Trump is genuine about a lot of what he says. Giggle about it and tell me I'm a nutcase, but I don't think I'm wrong. His daughter wrote a lot of these policies. He listens to her. The horror. He thinks he can pay for some of it by cutting wasteful government spending. The fucking horror. I'm tired of the fear mongering against Trump because I look at Clinton and can't help but ask, what the fuck are you fear mongering against? She's a policy wonk. She's a superhero. No, she's not. Her health care plans are a fucking mess. Her foreign policy is a disaster. Her manufacturing policy is a lie. Her ever evolving gun control is the most nonsensical policy I've ever heard of(in its current form it's just vague innuendo). She'll bring people together. No, she won't. She has shit all over half the electorate and the only socially progressive policies she's taken have been out of convenience for the current zeitgeist. She'll pretend to be a champion of the people while cutting as many deals as she can under the table that don't draw media attention. In sincerity this isn't how I feel about Trump totally. Just a response to the b-b-but he's going to destroy the country shit that I keep hearing.