2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Trump sacrifices having an effect?
Probably more his attacking of Mr and Mrs Khan and then his moronic defence of the attack and them his even more heartless and flippant apology Tweet.
I hope he finds the irony in his Twitter account probably being the main player in his downfall.
Trump is the very definition of a gobshite. What an embarrassment to the United States of America that they put this buffoon in such high regard. At least Boris Johnson is intelligent and has some sort of idealogy. Trump is just a bluffer.
Wow, that's saying something when you can actually defend BJ.
Most Trump supporters dont give a flying feck how Trump is perceived overseas, his unpopularity would probably be seen more as a badge of honour than something to be embarrassed about.
I saw some recent stats that had Obama's popularity rating in the 90's in most of Europe and the lowest was France who still had him at 83% compared to Trump who was less than 7% everywhere and the highest was 9%. That's scary figures, but his supporters wont give a shit.
Hawking put it brilliantly, as always. "A demagogue that appeals to the lowest common denominator"
Too many big words for Trump reporters to understand. I think anyone who called him a CNUT has it spot on. I dislike the word but it fits him perfectly.
Insulting the mother of a dead war hero really should put a stop to this. HRC should be getting all of her supporters to go on a blitz about this. Hammer it for a week and shut the orange fecker up for good.
HRC sitting down with Chris Wallace at Fox. I can't stomach smirky little oik Wallace normally, but I'll give this a watch.
feck me, this and the Russia stuff should end Trump's campaign 
His earlier transgressions were on things that liberals cared about, but now he's attacked two core tenets of Conservatism: the military and their hate for Communism
His earlier transgressions were on things that liberals cared about, but now he's attacked two core tenets of Conservatism: the military and their hate for Communism
He started his campaign by insulting apow and torture victim from his own party
I thought at the time he was probably finished then
That was interesting. I liked the bit where he talks about Trump's approach.
I wondered if his approach might change when it became clear that he was going to be the Republican nominee, maybe adopting one that would show he has the temperament for the job, or at least something more professional that can win the confidence of the swing voters. It seems not, because he's just persisting with what have become predictable attacks (something along the lines of trying to denigrate people and organizations with a list of empty adjectives). I suppose that's consistent behaviour when you consider the inability to focus and speak candidly about anything. Looks like it's absolutely hers to lose.
feck me, this and the Russia stuff should end Trump's campaign
His earlier transgressions were on things that liberals cared about, but now he's attacked two core tenets of Conservatism: the military and their hate for Communism
It sounds good mate, any chance you can give a commentary or run down of events for those of us that cant watch it?For me the worst part of the rape in terms of Hillary, first woman president and feminist icon, is her actively pressuring the victim. Not just did she know, she took the wrong side. That makes her a truly ruthless politician with a goal on the larger prize, decades away (her own private slogan was 8 years of bill and 8 years of hill). Tbh I kind of admire that level of commitment to career advancement, and I'm sure most successful candidates have something like that in their background (not necessarily as serious)
But I find the foundation stuff really troubling. She seemed to change the country's foreign policies on the basis of the effect on her family's bank account. There's no lens through which that looks good.
The other examples were just to show how much liberals would bury their own principles to keep the Clintons afloat, nothing about her directly.
that must be the worst argued article that I have ever read. Respect.
It is junk, but the first point is relevant. Sec State can't just unilaterally decide the amount of arm sale allocated to foreign countries. I wouldn't put it past her to award military contractors who donate to the foundation, Slick Willy sold presidential pardons for cash after all, but the oft-repeated attack about arm sale is imo weak.
Couldn't be arsed to write this out initially, probably a mistake in hindsight.
Just reading accounts throughout the primary campaign of people that had dealt with him in the past (usually female journalists) made me certain that none of it was an act, that he's really just that much of a bellend. Almost certainly has some kind of narcissistic personality disorder.
1) tit-for-tat-corruption is only a small problem compared to the real problem, which is the negative effect of out-of-control lobbying. I don´t need to buy someone, if I can convince him. I posted a very long article in the SaudiArabia thread about that.
2) your blog posts makes two arguments. a) just because she can´t decide stuff on her own, lobbying doesn´t make sense or b) she is so corrupt, that it doesn´t have any effect on her any more.
Do I really even need to talk about these points? That is so stupid, it is almost embarrassing. I hope you are one of the 2 democrats, who defend the republicans against the allegations, that they advance the agenda of the Kochs and all their other mega-doners. Fair play if would do that. I hope you defended Trump against all these allegations that he is getting influenced by Russian money.
3) Clinton is one of the most influential politicians in the USA (even when she is not in office). Of course it pays off to have her on your side. That doesn't mean that all donations are made to influence her decision making or that donors are only interested in arms-deals.
For years the democrats complained, that republicans are just puppets of special interests. And while this was always a huge simplification, it goes without saying that this is to some extend true: A very small lobby has incredible influence on their politics.
To defend Clinton, the democrats had to abandon that argument, because she is probably the individual that took more donations than anyone else. Now money doesn´t influence politicians any-more. Maybe those weak-minded republicans, but not Clinton. She is immune to that (because "she doesn´t understand how bribery works."). Yeah. sure thing.
politics in a nutshell; sadly on both sides of the aisle.
Our team are the good guys, the others are the bad ones => black/white partisan thinking => the own team gets defended regardless of how shady it behaves, while the others are always wrong. => incredible double standards, without any self-reflection = Cognitive dissonance => Rational interaction breaks down. At this point conversation is impossible. It is a bit like arguing with a religious people, that god doesn´t exist. It probably won´t work.
You can get away with anything if you can hit the ball hard.
I don't disagree. Alas, 'money is speech'.
1) I've said it's junk. But the first point contradicts @berbatrick's point about Clinton willing to endanger foreign policy to line her pocket, and not without its merits.
2) I have, on more than one occasion in this thread, criticised Democratic icons like JFK, LBJ, both Clintons and Obama, despite my affinity to Bill and Barry. I don't think I'm toeing the liberal line at the expense of objective facts (in fact, I wouldn't call myself a liberal). And you are half right, I haven't derided Drumpf for Russian money, nor the GOPers for taking money. It's how the game is played, hate the game, not the players (unless they are absolute dickweeds, which most of them are).
Genuinely don't know what this is for. You are preaching to the choir. Nader wasn't far off when he said the only difference between Dems and Repubs is how fast they get on their knees before sucking on corporations' dick (before the GOP went off the deep end with the Tea Party). Politicians being hypocritical, shocker!
He's like that guy at the roulette wheel "I feel it this time!"
imagine if Obama responded every time someone viciously attacked him over the past 8 yearsIt's funny that after everything the orange cnut has said about Muslims, he is getting schooled on the Constitution by one.
feck me, this and the Russia stuff should end Trump's campaign
His earlier transgressions were on things that liberals cared about, but now he's attacked two core tenets of Conservatism: the military and their hate for Communism
Don't read the replies to that tweet if you were getting your hopes up. Khan "being used" by DNC, "didn't let his wife speak" etc. Grim reading.
For feck sake, someone in his campaign needs to keyboard mash a password change request.
Yet the problem is that this will probably appeal to many of his supporters; they see it as him showing honesty online on social media where others would say something more expected of them. It's incredible the stuff that appeals to many of his supporters.
I love how he has attacked everyone in this race and then plays the victim at the drop of a hat. What a punk
Very true. I'm all for a politician being more active/more funny even, on social media, but Trump tweets like a petulant child, picking fights with those who dare to slight him. He lacks any sense of professionalism...but again, people seem to like that. People seem to like the fact that he doesn't act in the way a President, or any leader of a country, typically wouldn't.
Probably the best word for him. A punk bitch.
Yea, those people are idiots. We just have to hope they're a shouty minority.
He's a narcissistic, megalomaniac, egotist. A man who feels like he has the power and right to insult and deride anyone he wants, but acts like a 12-year old on Xbox live whenever someone dares return an insult.
I think they also like it because they see themselves in him, which is to say they're bigoted loudmouths who pride themselves on their boisterous ignorance that they mistake for being informed and having convictions. It was quirky at first, but now it's apparent enough that he's not playing with a full deck, as well as lacking key characteristics that you expect of a world leader, regardless of their place on the political spectrum.
Simpsons on Trump
Yes, arms deals were just one example. The one I am on most solid ground with (I've bothered to read a single article about
) is the Keystone pipeline bank. I've not really read much about the arms deals but would like to point out that there's a ton of rubbish in that debunking. The controversial arms deals weren't to Ireland. They were to Gulf countries with stained human rights records, and you also need to take into account the timing of the Arab Spring repression (which might have been putting pressure on her to oppose), also that using percentage change alone without looking at slightly larger trends is incomplete (what if the previous year the US sold a 100 fighters, next year's supply of 20 would look tiny), and finally that as SoS she was responsible for much more than arms deals (again, that bank is a good example). In short someone with more time and dedication than me needs to crunch numbers, and look at intangibles too.
I have no doubt many of those donations were just to keep her onside...but that's a somewhat mafia way to run the state department.
- Status