Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[Ishmael]

Spidey is a blind squirrel that would not recognize a nut if he stumbled over it.

But if it were given to him funded by the taxpayer, he'd eat it, and vote for the SOB that raided your wallet.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

No, it was not a threat of killing the president or the president's justice nominees. It was a joke.

...about killing the president or the president's justice nominees.

Which has alarmed the Secret Service to the point they are going to add manpower to investigating threats.

 

[about_average]

The only difference is the media.

We certainly did not see this false " I'm a giant pussy" outrage in 2008 when Hillary suggested it was still possible Obama could be assassinated:

Was she also suggesting someone assassinate Bill Clinton?

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing calls to drop out."

People were saying she should drop out, she was providing two examples of candidates who did not drop out before or in June.
Yes, a very poor choice of words, but no where on par with Trump's comment.
Even Bobby Kennedy Jr. said is was merely a poor choice of words.

 

[Liar]

Which has alarmed the Secret Service to the point they are going to add manpower to investigating threats.

Well, from what I've heard (on the news and stuff, I have no special insight), they look into every inkling of a possibility of a threat as routine, however trivial.

 

[about_average]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-secretservice-idUSKCN10L29W

"Official: No formal Secret Service discussions with Trump camp on remark"

"A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

Following Trump's comment at a rally on Tuesday in which he suggested that gun rights activists could stop Clinton from appointing liberal anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

Earlier CNN had reported that there had been multiple conversations between the campaign and the agency."

"No such meeting or conversation ever happened," Trump wrote on Twitter, accusing CNN of having made up the report."

Who to believe?

So you're willing to try to parse Trump's words to make out he didn't say what he did, yet you have no problem ignoring the word "formal".
There are different levels of discussion.

And your link isn't proof there wasn't "formal" talks even.
One official says there were talk, another says no.
And then there's the fact that the Secret Service could very likely not publicize what they talk to people about.

Well, from what I've heard (on the news and stuff, I have no special insight), they look into every inkling of a possibility of a threat as routine, however trivial.

True, but there was a very good interview last night with a former Secret Service agent who says that after comments like that they change how they investigate, they now have to look deeper to see if there's any link.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/48951...responses-to-trump-comments?ft=nprml&f=2,3,46

You're even more long winded than I am.

The nut of the matter is that CNN reported conjecture as fact.

You obviously didn't read the CNN report. They reported what an official told them. That's not "conjecture".
So they either completely made up the story, or they reported what they were told.
I'm pretty sure I know which option you're going with though.

 

[toubab]

USC/LA Times poll

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Clinton 44.8

Trump 43.3


Clinton has established a slight lead which has lasted more than a week now in this poll.

 

[toubab]

So you're willing to try to parse Trump's words to make out he didn't say what he did, yet you have no problem ignoring the word "formal".
There are different levels of discussion.

And your link isn't proof there wasn't "formal" talks even.
One official says there were talk, another says no.
And then there's the fact that the Secret Service could very likely not publicize what they talk to people about.

True, but there was a very good interview last night with a former Secret Service agent who says that after comments like that they change how they investigate, they now have to look deeper to see if there's any link.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/48951...responses-to-trump-comments?ft=nprml&f=2,3,46

I didn't ignore anything. What I did not do is jump to the conclusion that the reported fact there was no formal discussion means there was an informal one.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I see we have a new mythology to add to Hands up Don't Shoot...


It's nice to see the Junior High Debate Club so passionate about The Trump.

They are saving him YUUUUUGE bucks when it comes to having to spend to advertise.

 

[Liar]

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Clinton 44.8

Trump 43.3


Clinton has established a slight lead which has lasted more than a week now in this poll.

Why do you put that much faith in a rolling poll of a closed focus group? It takes way too many relevant factors out of play, and adds unrealistic inertia.

 

[toubab]

Why do you put that much faith in a rolling poll of a closed focus group? It takes way too many relevant factors out of play, and adds unrealistic inertia.

I like the methodology. It makes sense to me. Even if the selection of the group of people being polled is flawed, it's possible to detect change of opinion within that group. It's clear the group is more favorable now to Clinton than previously.

 

[about_average]

I didn't ignore anything. What I did not do is jump to the conclusion that the reported fact there was no formal discussion means there was an informal one.

right.

 

[about_average]

Reported by Fox

"By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Trump said. "Although, the Second Amendment people - maybe there is, I don't know. But I'll tell you what. That will be a horrible day."

Why would trump think it would be a "horrible day" for 2nd amendment folks to vote?

 

[Liar]

I like the methodology. It makes sense to me. Even if the selection of the group of people being polled is flawed, it's possible to detect change of opinion within that group. It's clear the group is more favorable now to Clinton than previously.

I guess, but it sort of limits you to politics wonk-y types, who are mostly already in a camp or other. The real game is drumming up support, enthusiasm and /or fear from random Joes. I don't think that method catches that very well, or at all.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks, (Although, the Second Amendment, people - maybe there is, I don't know.) But I'll tell you what. That will be a horrible day.



It would be more likely to conclude that upon abolition, or attempted abolition of the second amendment, that the people might revolt.

Now, when Hillary says anything damaging, the trend is for the press and the Democrats to fall all over themselves to give her a chance to clarify, walk back, or expand her comment into something that gives her plausible deniability.

If Trump says something, then the rush to indict is on and the proclivity is to state what the Liberal mind believes is going on in the minds of others, even when it is such a torturous leap of faith to insist that this was a clear call to assassination. That's just fucking looney tunes...

 

[toubab]

Reported by FoxWhy would trump think it would be a "horrible day" for 2nd amendment folks to vote?

I realize you don't understand the way Trump goes back and forth between prepared remarks and off the cuff remarks, depending on crowd reaction. I've seen him do it so many times I expect it. I think the "horrible day" comment had to do with earlier remarks about Clinton choosing replacement members on the Supreme Court. Again, I realize you think it referred to an assassination. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As I just pointed out, the press relies on malicious transcription...



... so do those who want The Story to be true as in Hands up, don't shoot.

 

[toubab]

I guess, but it sort of limits you to politics wonk-y types, who are mostly already in a camp or other. The real game is drumming up support, enthusiasm and /or fear from random Joes. I don't think that method catches that very well, or at all.

I look at polling differently from most people. I realize most polling is agenda driven. I was polled a couple of days ago and the questions I was asked were so clearly phrased to elicit a desired response it was ridiculous.

The only thing I can say is I like this particular poll. It's as simple as it gets. I like that.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfCHSiYU5vI

 

[toubab]

As I just pointed out, the press relies on malicious transcription...



... so do those who want The Story to be true as in Hands up, don't shoot.

I agree, but Trump should learn how the game is played, and change. I don't know if he's capable of change.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I agree, but Trump should learn how the game is played, and change. I don't know if he's capable of change.

I don't want him to change.

I'm loving the show and would love to see him win just to sit back and watch the Left melt down and expose their real core, man oh man...

President Obama says, "Don't you mean corpse, man?"

 

[toubab]

I don't want him to change.

I'm loving the show and would love to see him win just to sit back and watch the Left melt down and expose their real core, man oh man...

President Obama says, "Don't you mean corpse, man?"

I understand. The fact Trump has so many enemies coming at him from all sides, often very unfairly, makes him an oddly sympathetic figure in my eyes.

 

[about_average]

I realize you don't understand the way Trump goes back and forth between prepared remarks and off the cuff remarks, depending on crowd reaction. I've seen him do it so many times I expect it. I think the "horrible day" comment had to do with earlier remarks about Clinton choosing replacement members on the Supreme Court. Again, I realize you think it referred to an assassination. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine.

Yes, I realize you and other trump apologists have jumped through countless hoops and convinced yourselves that it wasn't. So obviously to all are right and most rational people are wrong.

It's laughable the people who revel in "trump says what he means" then spin around and claim "He didn't mean what he said!" LOL

 

[toubab]

Yes, I realize you and other trump apologists have jumped through countless hoops and convinced yourselves that it wasn't. So obviously to all are right and most rational people are wrong.

It's laughable the people who revel in "trump says what he means" then spin around and claim "He didn't mean what he said!" LOL

He does say what he means. He just doesn't say it clearly. And I think he does mean what he says. Much more than most politicians.

I find your insistence that Trump was inciting assassination of Hillary Clinton, or perhaps Supreme Court justices, laughable.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

See, another example of, if you do not think like us, then you're for him, which does not have to be true, since I am for BIG Johnson, but I don't have to destroy Trump to make my candidate look better in the same manner that Clinton supporters have to do.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

... [A] few neoconservatives are reinventing themselves again and returning to the Democrats to support Hillary Clinton. We could call them “neoliberals.”

They believe that socialist Bernie Sanders made the hard-Left Clinton seem like an acceptable centrist. As neoliberals, they hope that beneath her opportunistic embrace of Obamism, Clinton still could recalibrate herself as more of a Democrat of the 1990s, a period when her husband, President Bill Clinton, championed balancing the budget while intervening abroad.

Neoliberals — along with some members of the conservative establishment — consider Republican party nominee Donald Trump to be toxic. Many of them are supporting Clinton because they do not like Trump’s idea of building a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration. Nor do they appreciate Trump’s slogans about “putting America first” when negotiating trade deals, conducting alliances, and avoiding optional foreign interventions. They hate Trump’s crude, take-no-prisoners invective more than Hillary’s polished and refined lying.

The 2016 neoliberals were never very culturally conservative. So they are certainly not bothered by Clinton’s pro-choice advocacy. They do not mind her promotion of gun control, and they are open to global warming agendas and soft multiculturalism. They see Clinton as preferable to Trump and his unapologetic nationalism. Many of the neoliberal converts supported the Obama–Clinton intervention in Libya and oppose Trump’s get-tough trade stance on China.

Neoliberals also find themselves more in the same class — defined by income, education, and cultural tastes — with Clinton’s elite Democrats than with Trump’s new army of lower-middle-class cultural and economic populists.

Neoliberals get along well with the small elite class that fuels the Clinton machine — similarly wealthy, well-educated grandees on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, along with those in big media, academia, the arts, and the top echelons of state and federal bureaucracies.

Democrats no longer win over the middle classes, who lack the culture of the elite and the romance of the distant and subsidized poor. NASCAR and the NRA are anathemas to Democrats and were never popular with neoconservatives either.

...

Victor Davis Hanson, NRO