Trump to win?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

This is total "race card" BS and you know it. How is Trump supposed to disavow every idiot ad out there. Has Hillary disavowed the Democrat ops guys that tried to formet violence at Trump rallies.

You are now being a racist yourself for using the race card on a tiny, tiny group of people who may be that way.

In fact Trump is reaching out to blacks and making gains:

http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-v...p-in-new-poll/

Trump is also reaching out to Hispanics:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...nap-story.html

I don't support Trump or Clinton but your continued attempts to inject the race card are disgusting.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Win or lose, this is one of the "alt-right", white nationalist racist groups piggy-backing on the Trump "phenomenon". As the ad says, this is only the beginning.

While not all individuals supporting Trump are avowed racists, this has been one of Trump's core messages. There is a reason they can use only his words.

This ad has been running for several days and Trump has not disavowed it.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

The Clinton Foundation is the key issue here.

"the manner in which the State Department was put in the service of the Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary is shocking. It is suggestive of a pattern of pay-to-play bribery, the monetizing of political influence, fraud, and obstruction of justice that the Justice Department should be investigating as a possible RICO conspiracy under the federal anti-racketeering laws."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ch-obstruction

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-foundation-scandal-a-justice-dept-cover-up-exposed/

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Y'all want a good conspiracy to chew on?

http://archive.is/bayTF

Im curious what anyone here thinks, especially those old enough to remember the end of the Clinton presidency.

i remember the marc rich pardon very well, and i remember being very annoyed by it. it was clear at the time that it was a quid pro quo for denise rich's large contributions to the democratic party.

[davidstvz]

Re: Trump to win?

Y'all want a good conspiracy to chew on?

http://archive.is/bayTF

Im curious what anyone here thinks, especially those old enough to remember the end of the Clinton presidency.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

"BUT BY FAR THE GREATEST IRONY in all of this is that Democrats have now explicitly adopted the exact smears that were used by the Far Right for decades to demonize liberals and the left as disloyal Kremlin stooges. For the entire second half of the 20th century, any Americans who opposed U.S. proxy wars with Russia, or advocated arms control deals with them, or generally desired less conflict, were branded as Useful Idiots of the Kremlin, loyal to Moscow, controlled by Russian leaders. Democrats have taken this script – one of the most shameful and destructive in American history – and have made it the centerpiece of their 2016 presidential campaign.

The examples are too numerous to cite, but let’s start with the most ironic one. When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 against the Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush, one of the primary attacks on him was that he harbored sympathy for Russia or even disloyalty to the U.S. as evidenced by, among other things, his anti-war activism regarding Vietnam and his “unexplained” trip to Moscow as a college student. An October 9, 1992 Guardian article referred to how “the strange case of Mr Clinton’s trip to Moscow” to explain that “the Republicans are scratching away at those doubts about Mr Clinton ‘s character.” The Christian Science Monitor on October 15 of that year described “the Bush camp’s new effort to turn Bill Clinton’s bit part in the anti-war movement that swept the country 25 years ago, plus a student trip to Moscow, into something akin to treason."

Democrats’ Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

If he wants to reach the people not listening to the speeches, then he needs to make that the sound bite...

After all the misquoting and deliberate misrepresentation of every little aside the man has made, we're seriously suggesting he focus on soundbites? Have any of you ever watched a Trump event cover to cover? He's saying that and more.

Anyway, he's been incredibly successful in reaching all sorts of folks who've either abandoned politics or never before voted and Matthews is a Clinton partisan. So why change now?

I think he is running away with it and we'll know for sure next week following whatever last minute oppo the Clinton Crime Family is sitting on.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

Have you listened to any of his (Trump's) speeches? That's exactly what he's doing.

If he wants to reach the people not listening to the speeches, then he needs to make that the sound bite.

Chris Matthews, of all people, just wrote the best 30 second pitch I've heard. Take it and buy commercial time.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

He raises a good question though. Why isn't Trump leading with this?

he should be running away with this election. remember when paul manafort said that after he got the nomination he would pivot to being "presidential." never happened. if it had there'd be no contest. off the cuff- poor impulse control and a thin skin. e.g. he spent a week in a tussle with the khan family [who lost a son in afghanistan]. if he'd had any self control he would have said that he understood how badly they felt and then pinned the death on the endless wars supported by hillary. but he didn't do that.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Have you listened to any of his (Trump's) speeches? That's exactly what he's doing.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

Chris Matthews ?!

Edit: This was edited to leave off beginning and ending.

Begins:

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, I mean, whatever you think of Donald Trump, you have to wonder, why isnt he doing it? Why isnt he running for president? Why isnt he spending every hour asking the voters again and again,

Continues:

So, why doesnt he say now what would win him the election? Why doesnt he fight and create stupid headlines with his battles with Megyn Kelly and Dana Bash? He seems to devote day after day to fighting fights that make people forget the reasons he started running for president, reasons that continue to carry the shrinking chance he has to win this thing.
I say this not because I want Trump to win, but because I cant stand politics being practiced so pathetically

Here's the longer version. He raises a good question though. Why isn't Trump leading with this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...te_for_me.html

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Obama won't criticize Comey:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...tion/93064856/


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/white-house-james-comey-clinton-fbi-230540

Democrats have used fake Russian connection before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/...history-in-us/


"Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" New York Times

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Comey is not what's at issue here. What's at issue is the many infirmities of the Democratic nominee. The fact that she and her enterprise are under multiple criminal investigations by the FBI. That these investigations are being stymied by political appointees compromised by the Clintons.

What's at issue is that the Democratic candidate is under threat of indictment and if elected, impeachment. No wonder they want to change the subject and demonize Comey.

That has always been the Clintons' wild ride. From Red Bone to Ken Bone, the game's the same. Only the blindest half of Democrats are unaware of what they are getting. I live in blue country. I could vote for Mickey Mouse, and she's still gonna win, and big.

I really think the radical change at this point would simply be doing things the right way and strengthening institutions. Not even big legislative change. Just radical change in executive enforcement and a radical introduction of basic ethics in the parties and the 4 or 5 companies that run the media.

I'm doubtful this can get done so long as billionaires use these things to wage their own little petty wars on Olympus regardless of the pain, death, destruction, and fallout upon us mere mortals on the Earth. But maybe it could.

My God, how much would change if, without passing a single law through Congress, a president simply made a couple strong ethics and revolving door executive orders, used existing law to end tax shelters and avoidance schemes, actually jailed and criminally charged millionaires on up, actually enforced the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and busted up these massive monopolies we have now, actually punished Silicon Valley companies for violating laws, and just generally leveled the playing field.

Hell, we could probably drop the prison population in half, make everyone safer, and keep the same number of cops on the job if we just switched half of them from issuing petty speeding and drug fines and arrests to investigating white collar crime and throwing rich people in jail for a change instead of letting them out on account of 'affluenza.' And they'd be doing the world some good. Hell, even enforce existing immigration law and other laws. You've got to at some point. Can't just be totally selective about it, regardless of how inept Congress is.

But we're not going to get this from pampered socialites who think the rules and laws don't apply to them. And I'm afraid those are our only choices.

So what do you like better? More estate tax cuts, or more taxes on soda? More corporate tax cuts, or more taxes on cigarettes. More top-bracket income tax cuts, or more tax penalties for not spending 'enough' on insurance? More toll roads or more toll roads?

It doesn't matter if these are all bad ideas. One side wants to squeeze the middle from the top, the other from the bottom. Nobody gives a crap about the working schlub. I'm guessing that Bill and Hillary got their Rhodes Scholar tickets, and figure anyone who didn't is a dumbass who deserves destitution and poverty. I'm also guessing Trump actually believes he built a real estate empire by himself like a hero from an Ayn Rand novel, despite having a daddy who was a NYC real estate millionaire who was wealthy, powerful, and mean enough that another Woody wrote an old tune about him way back in the day.

These are not nice people we're talking about here.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Lynch is the one culpable here:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...andal-n2238152

Isn't it ironic that conservatives hated Comey in July while liberals loved him. Now its the opposite. Comey is trying to do his job between two idiot parties. We need a new independent majority party to replace the two corrupt parties.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

The conspiracy nutcases are coming out this Halloween!

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/c...p-kgb-cahoots/

Jim Carville, the Clinton camp narrative hitman.

He's gone full retard.

Which is a shame.....because a reasonable and realistic conversation about foreign influence over the US election, particularly cyber information operations and to a lesser extent the potential/risk of foreign involvement in hacking emails and/or shifting the narrative with real/false content....now becomes absolutely impossible to have.

Turning real risk and a new cyber slice of very old dirty political influence tactics into the "boogey man" is reprehensible.

I wonder what his wife Mary Matalin has to say about it?

I have no idea if she's an active talking had in this cycle, but I think I'd rather hear from Carville's wife.