Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[4est_4est_Gump]

Where did he racially disparage anyone? You Trump haters should stop making shit up. There is such a thing as backlash.

Funny, how the Democrats are on this gold star parent thing...



When she is calling gold star families liars.

 

[Adre]

Donald Trump’s campaign co-chairman offered up an alternate explanation for the Republican nominee’s recent comments about the geopolitical situation between Russia and Crimea: He “was thinking about something else” when he said that Vladimir Putin would not invade Ukraine.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-crimea-ukraine-sam-clovis-226501#ixzz4G5pvoItD
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


Now this has possibilities.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

An electorate that would tell pollsters by a 50 point margin that the country is on the wrong track and also consider a vote for a member of the presiding administration deserves more of the same.

Or take my poll, for example, in the light of the Bradley effect.

Clearly no one here on Lit is going to announce a vote for Trump because of the vilification and ridicule which will immediately commence and never let up, ever.

I am not saying that it is happening, but if you are a reasonable, middle-of-the-road type who wants to go along to get along, you are probably not going to want to get yourself on the record when called to be polled. (If you even pick up the phone.)

 

[Hard_Rom]

Donald Trump’s campaign co-chairman offered up an alternate explanation for the Republican nominee’s recent comments about the geopolitical situation between Russia and Crimea: He “was thinking about something else” when he said that Vladimir Putin would not invade Ukraine.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-crimea-ukraine-sam-clovis-226501#ixzz4G5pvoItD
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Now this has possibilities.

Putin won't invade the Ukraine. The Crimea was only ceded to the Ukraine in the 1950s at the height of the USSR when it seemed safe to do so. Putin will be content with the Crimea and with just doing what he can to destabilize the Ukraine.

 

[Sean Renaud]

An electorate that would tell pollsters by a 50 point margin that the country is on the wrong track and also consider a vote for a member of the presiding administration deserves more of the same.

The thing is that in America we have a binary choice. Republican or Democrat. Left or Right. One or two.

The fact that I'm not pleased with the direction the government is going, pro-war, continuing war on drugs, decreasing minimum wage, voting rights under open attack, yada yada. The only thing on that list that Republicans aren't openly proud of is the decreasing minimum wage. And they are unwilling to increase it or fight for unions or social services. They just won't come flat out (except Donald Trump once and he walked it back) that Americans are paid too much.

With Hillary odds are the wars will remain roughly as is. Trump has stated he wants to torture and kill innocent civillians, and reiterated encase we didn't hear him correctly.

Hillary is MAYBE slightly more likely to end the war on drugs but the truth be told that's not going anywhere until we deal with race problems in America.

On Race Hillary took the time to sit down and speak with BLM and even advise them on how to further the cause. Trump is openly hostile.

Hillary has long been a champion of various social services and in particular the push for Universal Health Care. Trump has offered his full throated support in the past and is oddly silent on it now. But if he's elected and brings with him a Congress full of Republicans (highly likely should he win) and appoints Republican leaning judges (even if he wanted to do differently he'd have limited choice.) No such things would happen in real life.

I do trust Hillary to keep pushing for a higher minimum wage. That seems to be a song she's known the lyrics to for a while.

As far as the rest of Bernie's platform it kind of depends on who you believe Hillary Clinton actually is. If you're like me and think she's a calculating bitch then the most obvious answer to what she'd do is make at least a half measure effort to to reach out to that group once she wins. What better legacy could she pass on after decades of service but an energetic and hopefully at that point loyal constituency. I believe it's simple math.

I don't believe Trump would do much of anything for the Occupy/Bernie crowd at all.

Gary Johnson is actually probably worse (not that he could win) and Jill Stien I don't know enough about even reading up but again she can't win.

In a binary choice, which is what we have, not being where I want to be in left field is not a reason to turn right.

Or take my poll, for example, in the light of the Bradley effect.

Clearly no one here on Lit is going to announce a vote for Trump because of the vilification and ridicule which will immediately commence and never let up, ever.

I am not saying that it is happening, but if you are a reasonable, middle-of-the-road type who wants to go along to get along, you are probably not going to want to get yourself on the record when called to be polled. (If you even pick up the phone.)

First the Bradley Effect was specifically about black officials and was more or less proven to be a fake effect. Of course something like that could come up but lets be honest here. On the GB the battle lines are clearly drawn and nobody who isn't talking shit about a given person now would likely start if they voted openly for Trump unless it was the ultimate shocker. Like sure if UD came out as a Trump supporter all hell would break loose and with good reason.

 

[Pookie]

RealClear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

47-41 and 43-38.

Follow the link from RCP ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-did-hillary-clinton-get-a-post-convention-bump/

Further down in the article explains the reason for the different numbers ....

When leaners are included - voters who are undecided when initially asked their vote preference but lean toward a candidate - Clinton leads Trump by six points.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What?


Is it Labor Day already?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

n their zeal to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president—a goal we share—representative voices of the liberal establishment have joined with the forces of neoconservatism to engage in what can only be described as McCarthyist rhetoric. This magazine, which has a long and proud history of standing up to the
 worst excesses of McCarthyism, repudiates this unwelcome echo of the past. Let us recall that McCarthyism impugned the loyalty of American citizens by accusing them of allegiance to the Soviet Union. This political defamation—often a joint undertaking of Congress and the media—suppressed democratic debate over alternative policies and ideas, and in the process destroyed lives by stigmatizing those whose views were deemed insufficiently loyal to Cold War–era orthodoxies. The overall effect was to poison, chill, and censor the political discourse of the nation.

To adopt the pernicious language of McCarthyism is to turn our backs on the best traditions of our country.
While Trump himself has hardly been damaged by today’s revival of McCarthyism, the same cannot be said for our national debate. Over the past month alone, establishment voices like Franklin Foer, Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Goldberg, Josh Marshall, and Jonathan Chait, among others, have Kremlin-baited Trump in lieu of reasoned argument and factual critique. On July 21, The Atlantic’s Goldberg informed readers that “The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Krugman followed this up on July 22 by asking in The New York Times: “If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin’s man in the White House?” Krugman then answered his own baseless question: “Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest.”

...

The idea that Trump is some kind of Manchurian candidate first took root thanks to a mistranslation of a remark by Putin, which was misconstrued as high praise for Trump by the media—and by Trump himself. To be sure, the GOP candidate has suggested that he may pursue a policy of détente with Russia. He also, in our view wisely, threw out a reckless plank in the Republican platform that pledged to further arm Kiev. But Trump is only following the lead of the current administration. Should we assert seditious links between President Obama’s policy and the Kremlin?

...

This neo-McCarthyism now threatens to derail a vital debate over the substance of the 20,000-plus e-mails, made public by WikiLeaks on July 22, that reveal the purportedly neutral Democratic National Committee’s derision and contempt for Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign—as well as several aborted attempts to tip the scales against him. While the FBI has launched an investigation, as of press time, nobody has conclusively proven who hacked into the DNC’s network, much less demonstrated what their motives were. But that didn’t stop Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook from appearing on CNN on July 24 to allege that Russia was behind the hack. “Sources are saying the Russians are releasing these e-mails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump,” said Mook. To no one’s great surprise, he neglected to tell CNN who his sources were. Nevertheless, liberal-media elites have joined with the Clinton campaign in promoting the narrative of a devious Russian cyber-attack, which Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s Adam Johnson correctly points out “is being used to outweigh the damning substance of the leak itself.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/against-neo-mccarthyism/

Again, I ask?

Who is more dangerous?

The people who point fingers at Russia with zero evidence?

Ot the Clown who openly states NATO is corrupt, has taken in an enemy of the West, Turkey (especially during the secular cleansing underway), and whose members do not honor their agreements on their defense spending?

OVERCHARGE!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ghazala Khan has had his 15 minutes of fame thanks to the National Democratic Press that put the gold star families outing Hillary as a liar on ignore.

He talks about sacrifice, but he didn't sacrifice anything.

Only his son did and I'll bet that all along...



He never approved of his son's service because he was fighting Muslims at the behest of the infidel.

Yeah, I said it.

 

[Sean]

Ghazala Khan has had his 15 minutes of fame thanks to the National Democratic Press that put the gold star families outing Hillary as a liar on ignore.

He talks about sacrifice, but he didn't sacrifice anything.

Only his son did and I'll bet that all along...



He never approved of his son's service because he was fighting Muslims at the behest of the infidel.

Yeah, I said it.

Ghazala Khan is the mother, you fucking moron.

 

[Sean]

I see it didn't take long for the Swiftboating of the Khans to start:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...gesting-khizr-khan-part-of-muslim-brotherhood

 

[Disgustipated]

A thread for AJ: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=969368

 

[toubab]

Follow the link from RCP ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-did-hillary-clinton-get-a-post-convention-bump/

Further down in the article explains the reason for the different numbers ....

When leaners are included - voters who are undecided when initially asked their vote preference but lean toward a candidate - Clinton leads Trump by six points.

I understand the reason for the different numbers. Most pollsters include leaners, which is why RealClear Politics used the numbers including them. It happened most of the leaners favored Trump, in this case. That's not the reason RealClear politics used those numbers. They were simply being consistent with the usual method.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I understand the reason for the different numbers. Most pollsters include leaners, which is why RealClear Politics used the numbers including them. It happened most of the leaners favored Trump, in this case. That's not the reason RealClear politics used those numbers. They were simply being consistent with the usual method.

No argument and we all seem to mostly agree that no single poll, or this far out single week of polls is particularly important. Aside from the historic firsts that showed Trump ahead but that was because it showed that it could happen.

 

[toubab]

No argument and we all seem to mostly agree that no single poll, or this far out single week of polls is particularly important. Aside from the historic firsts that showed Trump ahead but that was because it showed that it could happen.

Yes, it's clear Trump got a bump from his convention, briefly took the lead in an average of all polls, according to RealClear Politics, and Hillary is now getting the benefit of a bump from her convention, and has taken the lead back, according to current polling averages. None of this is surprising. It was to be expected. As I've said before, these things happen election after election, generation after generation, in the US. It's actually pretty funny, if you can laugh about it.

 

[toubab]

Donald Trump’s campaign co-chairman offered up an alternate explanation for the Republican nominee’s recent comments about the geopolitical situation between Russia and Crimea: He “was thinking about something else” when he said that Vladimir Putin would not invade Ukraine.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-crimea-ukraine-sam-clovis-226501#ixzz4G5pvoItD
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


Now this has possibilities.

That was a perfect example of what I talked about earlier, regarding what I call Trumpspeak, a language peculiar to Donald Trump. Remember, it's an imprecise language. Anyone who hasn't learned his language might think he was unaware of the fact Russia had invaded Crimea. Not so. He was talking about the future, when he sees himself as president. That was perfectly clear to me when I heard it the first time. But I've learned to understand Trumpspeak.

 

[Adre]

That was a perfect example of what I talked about earlier, regarding what I call Trumpspeak, a language peculiar to Donald Trump. Remember, it's an imprecise language. Anyone who hasn't learned his language might think he was unaware of the fact Russia had invaded Crimea. Not so. He was talking about the future, when he sees himself as president. That was perfectly clear to me when I heard it the first time. But I've learned to understand Trumpspeak.

Then maybe you can help AJ translate him for those of us who speak a more literal language.

 

[toubab]

Then maybe you can help AJ translate him for those of us who speak a more literal language.

I think both AJ and you need to learn Trumpspeak. Bigly. It could come in handy. You never know.

 

[Disgustipated]

Special Luk Deal!



https://s3.amazonaws.com/aclu/ACLU1787-PCB.jpg

FREE pocket Constitution with code POCKETRIGHTS. Enter your ZIP code before the promo code

 

[Wrong Element]

Ghazala Khan has had his 15 minutes of fame thanks to the National Democratic Press that put the gold star families outing Hillary as a liar on ignore.

He talks about sacrifice, but he didn't sacrifice anything.

Only his son did and I'll bet that all along...



He never approved of his son's service because he was fighting Muslims at the behest of the infidel.

Yeah, I said it.

“You know, that might be the answer – to act boastfully about something we ought to be ashamed of. That’s a trick that never seems to fail.” -- Catch-22

 

[zipman]

Ah, so Trump never said those things. What a surprise.

As much of a surprise that you didn't comment on the fact that he wouldn't rule out such unconstitutional acts.

 

[Adre]

"Prepare for a meltdown from Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump if he loses the election.

He told supporters on Monday that he fears the election could be rigged, an indication that even if Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins, Trump might not accept it. He made the comments while talking about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who lost the Democratic nomination to Clinton and whose supporters Trump has openly courted."

From Huffpost. He's in free fall now. This could happen fast.

 

[Sean Renaud]

At this point I'm through counting chickens that haven't hatched with Trump around. I'm not even counting chicks with their yellow downy feathers and little peeps.

I'm waiting until they are adults and proven not to be roosters.

 

[Hard_Rom]

"Prepare for a meltdown from Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump if he loses the election.

He told supporters on Monday that he fears the election could be rigged, an indication that even if Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins, Trump might not accept it. He made the comments while talking about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who lost the Democratic nomination to Clinton and whose supporters Trump has openly courted."

From Huffpost. He's in free fall now. This could happen fast.

Then in like other third world countries the two sides will need to control either the army, the courts and/or the mob. Has Trump or any of his people had face to face meetings with any Joint Chiefs?

 

[Liar]

I see it didn't take long for the Swiftboating of the Khans to start:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...gesting-khizr-khan-part-of-muslim-brotherhood

It's Roger Stone. Nobody but Infowars idiots pay attention to Roger Stone.

It's just a shame one of the Infowars idiots is the nominee for president from a major political party.