Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[underguy1]

Oh good lord.

It has a proper dictionary definition which Liberals simply ignore. It has come to mean anything from prejudice and bigotry to I disagree with what you're saying so that makes you a racist.

You seem to fall consistently into the latter category.

I'm not a liberal and you're a right wingnut like him.

I don't care about your little semantic wank.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not a liberal and you're a right wingnut like him.

I don't care about your little semantic wank.

The fact that you use a phrase right wingnut and the unjustified anger of name-calling belies your protestations of being vaguely something else. I have yet to see you post in anything other than a Socialist-Progressive-Fabian style since your first appearance on the board. You have all the positional stylings of that which you do not wish to be called, so I guess from now on, I'll just refer to you as a drama wank...

 

[Conager]

He didn't say that, it doesn't mean that, he isn't one of those, he doesn't beleive that.

He is Sgt Spidey with poor English syntax.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He didn't say that, it doesn't mean that, he isn't one of those, he doesn't beleive that.

He is Sgt Spidey with poor English syntax.

*chuckle*

You got that right!
Sho' got that right!

 

[Conager]

We should hold a quarrel like an idiot day, where no substantive arguments are advanced, no arguments are rebutted, and only vague charges of being 'wrong,' using improper debate tactics, and holding obviously improper opinions are made.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We should hold a quarrel like an idiot day, where no substantive arguments are advanced, no arguments are rebutted, and only vague charges of being 'wrong,' using improper debate tactics, and holding obviously improper opinions are made.

No we shouldn't wingnut!

​

 

[underguy1]

The fact that you use a phrase right wingnut and the unjustified anger of name-calling belies your protestations of being vaguely something else. I have yet to see you post in anything other than a Socialist-Progressive-Fabian style since your first appearance on the board. You have all the positional stylings of that which you do not wish to be called, so I guess from now on, I'll just refer to you as a drama wank...

You just called me a liberal. Make up your mind.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's all pretty much the same thing.

If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call it a duck.

Now, I leave you to play your parsing the label game, I have adult stuff to do now...

 

[toubab]

USC/LA Times poll

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Clinton 45.7

Trump 42.2


Huge movement in the poll over the last 24 hours in favor of Clinton and against Trump.

 

[underguy1]

It's all pretty much the same thing.

If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call it a duck.

Now, I leave you to play your parsing the label game, I have adult stuff to do now...

No. It really isn't. Liberals are on your side of the political divide.

Better get an adult to help you with that then.

 

[Adre]

2bob, AJ, Trump says if he loses PA then HRC is cheating. He's down by 9%. Sarcasm or belief? Translation urgently needed.

 

[about_average]

Words have actual meaning or there's no point to having meaning associated with words.

At least you agree.

Are you people really this stupid? Of course it was sarcasm. As I said earlier, nobody but a moron would think Trump believes Obama literally founded ISIS. I don't know why I even respond to this stupid shit.

"No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS," Trump told Hewitt. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

What's the word "founder" mean?
Is it Trump or you who doesn't know what the word means?

I recall Hillary claiming Trump was a recruiter for ISIS. Was anybody stupid enough to take that literally?

ISIS did use a video of him in a recruiting video. I'm fairly certain that's what she was referring to

If you haven't noticed, that's just Trump being Trump. Why does he do it? That's like asking why a dog licks his balls. It comes naturally to him.

A very apt analogy, Trump is licking his balls.

Thing is, it's not even a good joke or good sarcasm, you and trump obviously don't know what those words mean either.
But accepting his typical "I meant it as a joke" backtrack, he's still wrong as anyone can see who's actually read Bush's Status of Forces Agreement.

Interestingly, on another topic, Trump claims Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd amendment, which obviously she can't do, but he has no problem wanting to pass laws that clearly violate Article III.

A President Donald Trump might push for Americans accused of terrorism to be tried in military tribunals at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Republican nominee told the Miami Herald on Thursday.

“I would say they could be tried there – that would be fine,” Trump said in a brief interview ahead of his speech to home builders in Miami Beach.

People get charged with terrorism for all sorts of things.

 

[Adre]

2bob will get back to you later. Right now he's at his weekly What Trump Really Meant By That seminar. Translations will follow.

 

[Disgustipated]

Racism, ad hominem and a big strawman.

2bob, AJ, Trump says if he loses PA then HRC is cheating.

Color coded.

 

[about_average]

2bob will get back to you later. Right now he's at his weekly What Trump Really Meant By That seminar. Translations will follow.

I really wonder why he even trys to defend him. If twobob is right, then he's the only person in the world who actually understands what Trump says. Would that be a good person to have as president, someone no one understands? Someone who's always saying stuff then days later says, "it was a joke, it was sarcasm."
We'll end up pissing off every country in the world and being at war with many of them.

Or maybe Trump has told twobob he'll hire him as translator if elected. That would certainly explain a lot.

 

[Disgustipated]

2b00b thinks it's common for 2 men to impregnate one woman.

 

[RoryN]

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Clinton 45.7

Trump 42.2


Huge movement in the poll over the last 24 hours in favor of Clinton and against Trump.

Update unnecessary.

Your thread is titled, "Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President". You add no value by showing evidence that it isn't going to happen - which everyone else knew already.

Thread closed.

 

[Hard_Rom]

When most politicians speak the net result is a null. With Il Donald you have to read between the lines to understand him. Even then he has nothing really to say.

 

[toubab]

Update unnecessary.

Your thread is titled, "Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President". You add no value by showing evidence that it isn't going to happen - which everyone else knew already.

Thread closed.

Nothing on this board is necessary. I plan on updating this thread daily until I lose interest in this poll. You can ignore the updates, if you like. It's easy to do that, you know.

By the way, about 40% of the people represented in this particular poll say they will never vote for Donald Trump, and about 40% say they will never vote for Hillary Clinton. That seems about right to me. It's the remaining 20% that changes its mind and causes the fluctuations in the poll. Only about a seventh of that 20% are polled each day, so the daily change in polling results can be great, as it was yesterday, obviously.

I have consistently said I think Clinton is the probable winner of this election. But I've been wrong a few times in my life.

 

[Wrong Element]

Oops:


Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4h4 hours ago
In USC/LATimes poll, Trump supporters' likelihood of voting has fallen a bunch over past week. His "rigged" message may depress his turnout.


Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4h4 hours ago
If he's still down a bunch on Nov. 7 not that hard to imagine Trump saying (implicitly or explicitly) "you know what, don't bother to vote".

 

[toubab]

Oops:


Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4h4 hours ago
In USC/LATimes poll, Trump supporters' likelihood of voting has fallen a bunch over past week. His "rigged" message may depress his turnout.


Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4h4 hours ago
If he's still down a bunch on Nov. 7 not that hard to imagine Trump saying (implicitly or explicitly) "you know what, don't bother to vote".

It looks like it's going to be all about turnout. It always is, actually. That's why Republicans tend to win in off year elections, and Democrats tend to win in presidential election years.

Democrats are heavily, heavily dependent on black voter turnout. Wouldn't have a chance without them. Not a chance. To a lesser extent they are also dependent on Hispanic turnout.

In this USC/LA times poll Clinton is currently getting destroyed by Trump in the white vote, 52.8 to 34.2. On the other hand, Trump is getting almost completely obliterated in the black vote, 90.3 to 3.2. The Hispanic vote goes to Clinton 61.2 to 25.6. Interestingly, other ethnicities favor Trump 45.4 to 41.7.

 

[Adre]

One layer deeper on the breakdown:



"Since General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s reelection, Republicans have been winning the college-educated white vote, a trend that enabled the GOP to not only break the New Deal coalition, but to propel the party toward dominance in presidential elections. But if the election were held today, Donald Trump would lose the white college-educated vote, and all college graduates, to Hillary Clinton, a group Romney handily won four years ago."

 

[toubab]

One layer deeper on the breakdown:



"Since General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s reelection, Republicans have been winning the college-educated white vote, a trend that enabled the GOP to not only break the New Deal coalition, but to propel the party toward dominance in presidential elections. But if the election were held today, Donald Trump would lose the white college-educated vote, and all college graduates, to Hillary Clinton, a group Romney handily won four years ago."

Dominance in presidential elections? Since Eisenhower's reelection there have been 14 presidential elections, and seven have been won by Democrats, seven by Republicans. Democrats have actually won the popular vote eight times, Republicans only six. I would hardly call that Republican dominance.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Dominance in presidential elections? Since Eisenhower's reelection there have been 14 presidential elections, and seven have been won by Democrats, seven by Republicans. Democrats have actually won the popular vote eight times, Republicans only six. I would hardly call that Republican dominance.

I think he meant white college graduates.

 

[toubab]

I think he meant white college graduates.

"...propel the party toward dominance in presidential elections."