It's been reported that she wrote it herself.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Hey now! I'm in South Carolina, not Yankee Carolina.
Trump's campaign is pursuing an extraordinarily stupid strategy:
1) Focus endlessly on WikiLeaks - the minutiae of which never deliver any great bombshells and are in fact very boring.
2) Focus endlessly on the Clinton's email server stuff - done to death months ago and also in fact quite boring.
3) Attack Republican leaders - totally counter-productive
4) Attack the women who've attacked him - again counter-productive
5) Whine endlessly about a rigged media, conspiracies and rigged microphones and warn about rigged polling stations - just makes him sound like a loser.
6) Drop hints, both subtle and otherwise, about his racist, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, misogynist and scape-goating outlook - this is hardly going to win over the women, ethnic and religious minorities, nor the 'undecideds', that he needs to win the election.
I can only conclude one of two things: either (a) Trump is not very bright; or else (b) he doesn't actually want to win (and never intended to win) and just wants to establish himself post-election as the leader of a new party and head of new media empire of the deplorables, so that he can profit financially from their gullible adoration and feed his ego.
Of course, both (a) and (b) can be true at the same time.
1) Focus endlessly on WikiLeaks - the minutiae of which never deliver any great bombshells and are in fact very boring.
2) Focus endlessly on the Clinton's email server stuff - done to death months ago and also in fact quite boring.
3) Attack Republican leaders - totally counter-productive
4) Attack the women who've attacked him - again counter-productive
5) Whine endlessly about a rigged media, conspiracies and rigged microphones and warn about rigged polling stations - just makes him sound like a loser.
6) Drop hints, both subtle and otherwise, about his racist, anti-semitic, anti-muslim, misogynist and scape-goating outlook - this is hardly going to win over the women, ethnic and religious minorities, nor the 'undecideds', that he needs to win the election.
I can only conclude one of two things: either (a) Trump is not very bright; or else (b) he doesn't actually want to win (and never intended to win) and just wants to establish himself post-election as the leader of a new party and head of new media empire of the deplorables, so that he can profit financially from their gullible adoration and feed his ego.
Of course, both (a) and (b) can be true at the same time.
You missed a few choice words
It's really quite ironic. Most online communities will generally be a tad hostile to opposition views...and in fact this is true in public, as well. Go to a rally for any political party, and if you don't support that party and aren't there for a good reason people probably won't be too happy with you.
Trump's online communities go beyond that, though. They quite literally refuse to acknowledge opposition arguments, use evidence which suits their own agendas, refuse to engage with those of a differing opinion, instead looking to insult them through strawman arguments, and don't have any nuance to what they say and quite genuinely get upset at criticism of Trump. And, again...it's like an extreme, exaggerated version of what they criticise. And they don't even realise it.
Best bring in the politically astute Palin to turn things around. Being able to see Russia is very important this year!
It now wouldn't surprise in me in the least if the fire-bombing was carried out by pro-Trump activists who - with Trump's approval - want to create a climate of fear and violence, in which Trump's 'strong man' act will come to be seen as the saviour.
Sadly, I expect we'll see more of this in the coming days and weeks.
He's built a cult of personality around himself. To his diehards, he can do no wrong.It's really quite ironic. Most online communities will generally be a tad hostile to opposition views...and in fact this is true in public, as well. Go to a rally for any political party, and if you don't support that party and aren't there for a good reason people probably won't be too happy with you.
Trump's online communities go beyond that, though. They quite literally refuse to acknowledge opposition arguments, use evidence which suits their own agendas, refuse to engage with those of a differing opinion, instead looking to insult them through strawman arguments, and don't have any nuance to what they say and quite genuinely get upset at criticism of Trump. And, again...it's like an extreme, exaggerated version of what they criticise. And they don't even realise it.
Ha! Way too tired to know what you mean. Soz.
Let's hope Palin comes out for Trump and seals it for Hillary
Yeah, all parties have their devotees but this is taking it to a new extreme.
Simple really. Fill in the blank with your hate toward trump!
Big news for the Dems chances of controlling the Senate.
There's a bizarre comic narrative on Twitter right now, stemming from an unfounded rumour that Wikileaks have published an incriminating incription key, and a completely unrelated gossip story about Pamela Anderson delivering vegan takeaway to the Ecuadorian Embassy, that has naturally morphed into a story about a Hillary lead Democratic conspiracy to assassinate Julian Assange, using Anderson as a Manchurian candidate, which has triggered a dead man's switch failsafe release of said incripted information...
How did it come to this?
How did it come to this?
Last edited:
Not many historical data on this race. NC, VA and perhaps this one are key?
i'd watch that movie. Is it by the same guys who did The Sharknado series?
NH, PA, NC, NV, IN, WI, and MO are in play. The Dems just need 4 so NH, WI, PA, and NH seem realistic
Objects in the Looking glass are further away than they appear....
Last edited:
What actually are Wikileaks up to with that pre-commitments stuff?
I mean, apart from avenging Assange's poisoning by Pamela Anderson, of course.
I mean, apart from avenging Assange's poisoning by Pamela Anderson, of course.
I'm with you... I don't get any of it.
Lyin' Ted - Suggested tonight Conservatives start a new party if Hillary wins...then promptly deleTed the tweet.
For a supposedly bright man, Lyin' Ted's political machination is just pure applesauce.
The hash codes represent a truth statement. Each file has one, and the most minute difference would result in an entirely different code. Seems like they're sending a message of sorts -- that they have copies of certain files.
Searching twitter for wikileaks is scary how many people believe in conspiracies! Also lead me to this brilliant article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...king-wikileaks-docs-to-dupe-trump-trolls.html
..At least he died a patriot. Small graces.
15 hundred actual, cognisant humans have RT'd that... Sleep tight.
I would be quite happily club the inbreds who wrote these rubbish nonsensical.
For the final fvcking time: Brexit polls WEREN'T off. Conventional wisdom and the market mislead people, but polls showed a close race within MoE decided by turn out. Huffpo's pollster.com final average had it between one point of each other.
It's the 2016 version of 'Bush would have won without Perot'.
Phew!...Panic over guys. He's alright.
I know we were all ready worried for a minute there.
I know we were all ready worried for a minute there.
Yeah, Brexit polls were showing 48-52 for remain in the last few days, that's the MoE.
Reported by trunews.com no less.
I don't feel enough of you are taking this vegan Baywatch assassination plot seriously enough. Biased media. Rigged election. So unfair. WRONG!
The trouble with the BREXIT comparisons is they are taking an outlier scenario and suggesting it is normal by attaching populism and nativism as common denominators.
There are some major differences.
1. The Demographics of the US system lean Democratic (ie No Republican has won the Presidency by more than one state since 1988, whereas 4 Dem Presidents have done so during that period).
2. The US election is decided by the electoral college, not by popular vote. Hillary is leading by considerable margins in both, but the fact that it is Electoral Votes, not Popular Votes that decides the outcome can't be understated.
3. The emphasis on polling leading up to the Brexit vote seemed oddly primitive. There didn't seem to be much attention paid to polling averages, statistical models, probabilistic simulations, the weighting of individual polls based on historical accuracy, demographic and economic factors etc. It was just "polls" with margins of error.
4. In the US, Trump has been hovering in the polls between 38-42 percent for nearly the entire general election period, whereas Hillary has been in the mid 40s across the polling averages.
5. Also, in the US 40% of voters vote in the month leading up to the actual Nov 8th election day, with the remaining 60% actually going to the polls on the day of.
6. And finally, there is no evidence that Trump has a silent majority constituency who are embarrassed to admit they are voting for him, who will magically turn out on election day. On the contrary, his supporters are pretty loud and proud to proclaim their support for him, so I suspect this is little more than propaganda ginned up by Trump fans who want other Trump fans to think there are more supporters out there than there really are.
So collectively, although anything is possible, the Brexit comparison is pretty limited.
Why didn't Assange hold up a newspaper from today's date? As an expert who has watched a lot of TV shows, this is a dead giveaway.
The link isn't even working for me! The whole thing stinks of an implausible yet somehow intentionally shoddy cover up.
Last edited:
- Status