Yeah, of course. She is awful, so venomous when she is on TV too.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, of course. She is awful, so venomous when she is on TV too.
She'll do anything and say anything if it helps further her career.
Sucking the Cruz missile is a bit much though.
If this isn't the best ad you will see this campaign, I don't what is....
Simply Brilliant
Look up Tulsi Gabbard and the sacrifices she has made - and in particular, the way Republican cnuts, who DIDNT fight for this country have tried to question her integrity.
Simply Brilliant
Look up Tulsi Gabbard and the sacrifices she has made - and in particular, the way Republican cnuts, who DIDNT fight for this country have tried to question her integrity.
Fallout from the money to Fiorina might be more than this sex scandal.
Some perspective maybe? Trump and the head of the Enquirer are best mates. Very aptly named "David Pecker" 
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...d-won-enquire-dee-article-1.2327968?cid=bitly
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...d-won-enquire-dee-article-1.2327968?cid=bitly
Cruz denied the allegations. Basically pinned it Donald Trump and his henchmen.
Trump is going to defend saying he had nothing to do with it, as Cruz had to do with the Super PAC running the Melania Trump ad.
Trump is going to defend saying he had nothing to do with it, as Cruz had to do with the Super PAC running the Melania Trump ad.
Fox news reporting it now that Ted Cruz has DENIED all allegations and has firmly blamed Donald Trump and Roger Stone for all of it.
It's increasingly looking like dirty tricks.
It's hard to believe the National Inquirer would run this story without proof. If Cruz sued and won, the damages would be off the scale - end of Inquirer.
EDIT: Maybe they were given an indemnity by Trump - he might have undertaken to pay their libel costs. A bit far-fetched perhaps.
EDIT: Maybe they were given an indemnity by Trump - he might have undertaken to pay their libel costs. A bit far-fetched perhaps.
Last edited:
I refuse to believe that there are 5 women other than his wife who accepted the Tedcock.
It's not "a" poll. Every single poll has him outperforming her vs any Republican.
Here are the averages:
Sanders - Trump: +17.5 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
Clinton - Trump: +11.2 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Sanders-Cruz +8.4 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_sanders-5742.html
Clinton-Cruz +2.9 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
Sanders-Kasich + 1 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_kasich_vs_sanders-5817.html
Clinton-Kasich -6.5 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html
This is true not just of national polls but of polls in swing states and states that have already had primaries (where you expect voters to be more engaged). He consistently gets very high levels of support from independents (much higher than Clinton, whose support is from the Democratic base -- which is also why she is doing so well in the primaries). Fortunately for her, she is up against Trump who is alienating not just independents but also many Republicans.
Clinton supporters will tell you that these polls are non-predictive. @InfiniteBoredom said that he will not get minority support, and his numbers will fall once people know him better.
That's a contradiction. If people don't know him (and this is indeed true among minorities especially), how can you say that once they do, they won't support him? Especially minorities in Sanders vs Trump?!? I'd like to note that even in states he lost (like Ohio), his head-to-head numbers vs Republicans were better than Clinton's. So the minority support he is not getting against Clinton seems to be holding firm against Republicans.
Fair enough that he can be effectively smeared as a commie. That I can't argue against. She on the other hand has an FBI investigation that is just not going away.
Since the 70s, more than this type of polling, what has been predictive of the result is favourabililty. He has the highest favourability of any candidate. CLinton is heavily net-negative favourable. Fortunately for her (again), Trump is underwater.
I accept the polls that mean that Sanders can't be the Dem nominee. I don't understand why Clinton supporters and others can't accept the data that show he is a better general election candidate.
Bernie hasn't been scrutinized as a general election candidate yet. Since the beginning the GOP have focused on Hillary.
It would take only a couple weeks of sustained attacks to scare the shit out of general election voters by labeling Sanders as a socialist.
As I said,
OTOH, it's possible that 8 years of hearing their president is a socialist has de-toxified that word for (non-GOP) Americans.
The data is the data. He was in Iowa for 3 months. He lost to Clinton. And she lost to all GOPers in head-to-heads.
Favourability is a historical trend, the kind 538 normally like to point out.
At least one thing is this Cuban Mistress Crisis is pretty hilarious and causing great amusement on the internet.
Incredible. I hope the whole story is true just so we can use this line.
I mean, think about it. It'd be a miracle for him to get one mistress let alone five.
Stage 1 is always denial
Stage 2 - acknowledgement
Stage 3 - acceptance
Stage 4 - repentance
Stage 5 - Career closed
Stage 2 - acknowledgement
Stage 3 - acceptance
Stage 4 - repentance
Stage 5 - Career closed
Thing is, Edwards aside... you surely don't run for President of the United States if you have something like this lurking in the background.
The ratings must be through the roof.
The news media must secretly be hoping for a Trump presidency. think if all the crap to look forward to.
The news media must secretly be hoping for a Trump presidency. think if all the crap to look forward to.
Clinton wasn't Canadian either
#CruzMissileperhaps he is good at sniffing things out.
Copying Michael Douglas lines. First, it is not a contradiction. Minorities are not a monolithic voting block. They come from different backgrounds, income levels and religious beliefs, all of which have a bearing on their support, or non-support towards a candidate. Bernie Sanders is a honourable man, but his single-issue campaign does not resonate with voters that are more affluent, more conservative or older (45 and above), those who reliably turn out on November every four years and are now the bedrock of Clinton's support. He's campaigned for the best part of a year, and as of right now has failed to capture that support, and got beaten soundly in swing states with large EV count critical to the Dems's chance come November (FL, NC, VA, OH). And yet, at the same time, he's not has a single cent spent against him from the GOP, as opposed to Clinton who was under that scrutiny for 25 years and was literally the reason that instigated Citizen United. I certainly can't say that he won't capture their support should he becomes the nominee, but their support cannot be taken for granted, just as the progressive wing's votes. Lower than expected turn out amongst these demographics can make it very complicated against the GOP.
Secondly, if you think the GOP merely 'smear', you are sadly mistaken. Dukakis by all account was an upstanding citizen, he got turned into a criminal sympathiser. John Kerry was a war hero, he was portrayed as a coward. That smear machine from the GOP is a real thing and it does not lack for practice, and there are vast swaths of Middle America who is dead set against a tax raising, big government, socialist Jew who praised the Castros and honeymooned in the USSR. By every metrics, the US is a centre-right country with a latent strain of nativism running in their psyche and national discourse. Look to George McGovern and see what kind of support a true left candidate can expect. On the other hand, the Clintons, and in particular, Hillary, haven gotten the kitchen sink thrown at them time and again, and they got the connections, financial backing and name recognition to combat it. Hillary Clinton is not personally under investigation by the FBI and that distinction is not lost on the non-GOP electorate. Favourability is a fleeting thing. She had a 60% positive rating back in 2013. Now it's what, 38%? Relying on a metric that is literally changing by the day and subjected to the whim of an electorate susceptible to fearmongering to choose your nominee is hardly a great strategy. 9 in 10 Dems and the majority of Democratic elected officials think that she's the better candidate, and they had no problem ditching her in the recent past. Harry Reid urged Obama to run, gave patronage to Elizabeth Warren and he's been behind her from the beginning of this cycle. If you think they support her purely out of loyalty to the Clintons then really, you are doing all of us a disservice.
I think none of us so-called Clinton supporters in this thread, be it me, Ubik or Raoul are burying our heads in the sands. I can't speak for either of them, but for my part I've made it clear numerous time in this thread that while I respect her achievements, I'm not personally invested. Her hawkish foreign policy and coziness towards the fecking butcher Kissinger, who had the blood of my countrymen on his hands turn me off greatly. The one I want to be running is Liz Warren, but it's not the case. My only interest in this race is to see a Democrat in the White House who has a shot of being elected again in 2020, a redistricting year, and if it's Hillary Clinton, so be it, because the world cannot afford another Republican ideologue in the most powerful post on Earth.
Thing is, Edwards aside... you surely don't run for President of the United States if you have something like this lurking in the background.
Tbf Trump is running and he has lot of things like this not all even lurking in the closet. But many are in the open even....
He really has been a strange teflon coated candidate so far.
Check YouTube, he loves quoting movie lines, he's done it a few times.
Yes!Some of the stuff Enquirer has apparently run includes -
Seems they are backing Trump for prez as well.
How haven't they been sued into their end yet ?
Some of the stuff Enquirer has apparently run includes -
Seems they are backing Trump for prez as well.
How haven't they been sued into their end yet ?
A few millions isn't worth giving them the spotlight.
Wow. He basically hinted that the story might be true, called Cruz a liar while deflecting any culpability.
So he basically said that story may be true, but hopes it's not. Also called Cruz a liar again and denied responsibility
Maybe some of the Trump supporters are right. He's not the average politician who uses Super PACs to do his dirty work. He can go much lower and hit much harder.
It appears many actually knew about those rumours for some time now.
Could be something known as #thething on twitter. And it's not another remake.
Could be something known as #thething on twitter. And it's not another remake.
I thought it was a good response from Trump after Cruz's accusations. Dismissed involvement first hand.
This part still makes me so angry to this day. Swift boat feckers.
- Status