American Politics

[kkck]

Sanders and Trump campaigns were all about being anti-establishment. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Clinton and the type of role people like her have in politics. Anyone who goes from Sanders to Trump is doing it out of protest maybe. Perhaps it is spiteful, but how exactly is the Democratic Party leadership not deserving of it? There are plenty of people on the left, who think Hillary shouldn't have even be allowed to run.

The DNC is a perfect example of a broken system. People are forced into uniting behind a questionable and corrupt person, and if they aren't, they're treated horribly by fellow party members. The DNC knew who they wanted to be their nominee well over a year ago.

All that being said, last night's speeches were far superior to anything the RNC put forth. But it's clear the DNC is bringing out as many heavy hitters as possible, because they know their nominee isn't likable. She is not a strong candidate, plain and simple.

I am not saying that they shouldn't criticize the democrat party. Of course they should, that is completely reasonable. Hillary having hundreds of delegates before the whole thing even started was already proof of that. My point however is that bernie supporters might be missing the point here. Bernie's campaign was in fact anti-establishment but that in itself wasn't the goal. Bernie wasn't in it due to being a political hipster who always ride the anti-establishment wave. He is in this whole thing because he genuinely is a social democrat, because he genuinely wanted his policy passed. Looking at bernie, it is overwhelmingly clear he cares first about policy, second about policy, third about policy and so on down to the last item in his list of priorities. What do bernie supporters even think the endgame here is? The endgame is of fucking course to change the establishment, to get the policies they were supporting to become mainstream. I am in no form saying bernie supporters should like hillary. But the fact of the matter is that going republican or libertarian out of spite does absolutely nothing for the policy sanders is supporting. For the policy they were supporting. It would be a spite vote for guys who literally think sanders policy proposal are morally abhorrent. Does that make sense? To me it seems like if trump or the libertarian guy are even an option for bernie supporters then to begin with they never gave two shits about bernie's policy proposals.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 28, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 28, 2016 ---

Which is exactly what I meant by 'winning their votes'.
She needs to convince people why they should vote for her - rather than give it to a 3rd party (or Trump).
Her argument can not solely be 'he's the fucking anti-Christ, the next Adolf Hitler, Fear, FEAR, FEAR!'
She can't expect people to want to vote for her if she says 'I know you despise me, but if you don't vote for me then it is your fault we will end up with Satan himself'.
If she can switch her rhetoric up, acknowledge that she has been pushed to the left by Bernie - and assure people it isn't a temporary switch before a later pivot back to the right...

Not 'sack' Wasserman Schultz, then instantly offer her an honorary position 5 mins later... Shit like that just reinforces the view, in people's minds, that the whole system is corrupt.

Hell, give some positivity and listen to Oddball

Bernie has done pretty damn well, all things considering.
Anyone who doubts that, really is looking for excuses to hate on him...

I feel that Bernie's supporters were always a hugely varied bunch - having different ideas for where the whole movement should go.

Many appear to have different ideas, compared with Bernie, on what is actually feasible.
Bernie thinks he has got enough (for the moment) - they do not.

That said, I don't think that most of the protesters are solely protesting that Clinton won - I think some are making a point of how they are sick and tired of how corrupt and biased the whole system was/is. They want to make a point of never again.
You will always get 1 or 2 who are truly protesting that the DNC should choose Bernie instead, but I'd be shocked if that was the majority.

Honestly, I don't know what it is hillary should say. I get the impression that focusing on how dangerous a trump campaign is makes sense. Otherwise she is trying to get votes from people who sort of despise her. Seeing how viscerally some people hate her, I don't think she has much of a chance of convincing them to like her. Can you even imagine something like that? I think she is definitely loosing this whole thing if she runs trying to make herself likable. It's makes more sense to focus on how horrible or non existent trump's proposals are along with her proposals being, well, very reasonable at worst.

 

[z.5]

I think she is definitely loosing this whole thing if she runs trying to make herself likable. It's makes more sense to focus on how horrible or non existent trump's proposals are along with her proposals being, well, very reasonable at worst.

I didn't really mean make herself likeable - I meant focus more on why her policies are better than all her competition's, not on how horrific Trump is.

People already know how horrific Trump is - and those that don't think he is as bad as he is, are unlikely to change their minds.

I dunno either - as xi0 said, she isn't a particularly strong candidate. She has consistently been rather late to 'see the light' about many of her current policies.

I can also understand why people doubt her sincerity in 'regulating the banks' or 'working in the best interests of every American'...

Also, heard Obama's speech today - few people can give a speech like him.

Edit: Also, she needs to stop people in her party saying shit about Bernie-or-bust'ers.
Yes, I get that there is a feeling of anger at them not falling in line, but the best way to win someone over isn't to insult and degrade them.

Telling them to 'grow up' or 'stop being so petty' - blaming them for the 'apocalypse if Trump wins' or BS like that is not going to make them any more inclined to vote for her.
If anything, it will make them even more likely to act like children, protest and vote for Trump.

 

[Franckie]

The voters who truly matter are people who vote in primaries. They don't give a crap about electability. What they care about is ideological purity. You see this with the Bernie or Bust movement and especially among the Republican rank and file.

What really disturbs me about this year's election is the nature of the Republican candidate and his supporters. Trump isn't your typical Republican candidate who uses dog whistles to appeal to his voting base. He uses a bullhorn to rally his supporters. The fact he is guaranteed >= 45% of the vote is really disturbing and demonstrates how potent white nationalism supported with mindless tribal mentality still is in this country. Also, what is equally disturbing is how Republicans will continue radicalizing themselves regardless of the election's outcome. I think we could see a major militant movement occurring within the next 10-20 years with how the far-right just gets crazier and crazier with each passing year.

 

[kkck]

The voters who truly matter are people who vote in primaries. They don't give a crap about electability. What they care about is ideological purity. You see this with the Bernie or Bust movement and especially among the Republican rank and file.

What really disturbs me about this year's election is the nature of the Republican candidate and his supporters. Trump isn't your typical Republican candidate who uses dog whistles to appeal to his voting base. He uses a bullhorn to rally his supporters. The fact he is guaranteed >= 45% of the vote is really disturbing and demonstrates how potent white nationalism supported with mindless tribal mentality still is in this country. Also, what is equally disturbing is how Republicans will continue radicalizing themselves regardless of the election's outcome. I think we could see a major militant movement occurring within the next 10-20 years with how the far-right just gets crazier and crazier with each passing year.

I have a hard time seeing "electoral purity" in this election to be honest. Just look at the positions and stances trump has taken so far:

- Decidedly pro russia... He even said russia should hack even more hillary stuff. And he supports north korea...
- Anti nato (which plays into trump's pro russia rhetoric).
- Anti Immigration (even george bush wanted to provide illegal immigrants a path to citizenship).
- Consistent flirting with white supremacists.
- Three times divorced and proud womanizer.

There are plenty of areas where trump does fall in line with the republican party. Perhaps even a majority. But a pro russia republican should be an oximoron, at least given how putin runs things. The republican party has always had a connection to racism... but that was always "institutionalized". It wasn't something most of them meant to actually have. It was leftovers due to being old and white.Trump is basically overt about this, he gave a voice to the racism in the party and it went from institutionalized to overt and intentional. And the guy has been divorced 3 times.... This is the guy who questions obama being a christian. Not that I am making a point against divorces because there are plenty of good reasons to get one but it is not coherent for a 3 times divorced man whose ex wife accused of sexual assault (if not full blown rape) to run as a conservative. There are plenty of issues where trump does perfectly fall in line with US conservatives but if we consider a few of his more controversial stances it is assinine for this man to run as a republican or even a conservative of any kind. Where is the ideological purity here?

And that also works with the democrat party as well. Bernie did push it to the left. So where exactly is the purity there? It is not as extreme an scenario as with the republican party though.

I am not so sure of how likely a movement like what you describe is. The republican party does have one trait and that is that it is older than the rest of the population (the average republican is 3 years older than the average democrat, fox news viewer average age is 67 and so on). And younger people, as in the future of the country, are decidedly more liberal. With demographics like this, such a group shouldn't logically have the support to exist. Unless somehow the younger folk are converted to something that would join what you describe. Even if such a thing does form it wouldn't (or shouldn't) be representative of the majority of the population. Even looking at the election... Trump winning is not a possibility because the entirety of the voters prefer him. Trump winning is a possibility because it looks pretty darn likely that people who would otherwise vote against him are probably not going to be interested enough in the whole thing to show up. I do sincerely believe that if turnout at the elections is high enough it is rather unlikely trump can win considering how poorly he pools with women, young people and minorities in general.

 

[xi0]

I dunno either - as xi0 said, she isn't a particularly strong candidate. She has consistently been rather late to 'see the light' about many of her current policies.

I can also understand why people doubt her sincerity in 'regulating the banks' or 'working in the best interests of every American'...

Yeah, especially considering her history with Wall Street. A lot of what she currently says just rings false to me. She has a track record of changing her mind when it's politically convenient, or taking a contrary stance to liberally ideology for the same reason. She wasn't for gay marriage as early as others because it wasn't as popular in New York state (which is very midwest-natured upstate).

I guess there's difference between admitting when you were wrong, and blatant changing of positions in accordance to whatever polling numbers say. This is also why so many wish to paint her as a robot, and it's so noteworthy when she has one of her famous, goofy cackling outbursts. Because outside of that, she doesn't really appear as human as other politicians. Just look at the other night - Biden, Bloomberg, and even Obama came off 200% more sincere and genuine than she usually does.

 

[M3J]

Sanders and Trump campaigns were all about being anti-establishment. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Clinton and the type of role people like her have in politics. Anyone who goes from Sanders to Trump is doing it out of protest maybe. Perhaps it is spiteful, but how exactly is the Democratic Party leadership not deserving of it? There are plenty of people on the left, who think Hillary shouldn't have even be allowed to run.

The DNC is a perfect example of a broken system. People are forced into uniting behind a questionable and corrupt person, and if they aren't, they're treated horribly by fellow party members. The DNC knew who they wanted to be their nominee well over a year ago.

All that being said, last night's speeches were far superior to anything the RNC put forth. But it's clear the DNC is bringing out as many heavy hitters as possible, because they know their nominee isn't likable. She is not a strong candidate, plain and simple.

Who is this directed at?

DNC is also a perfect example of corruption. The biggest advantage Hillary has is how long she's visibly been in politics for; more people know her and her husband whereas Bernie was relatively unknown. Plus, all the media attention and being favored by DNC gave her the biggest advantage, she and Trump are lucky to be running against each other. If it was someone else, neither candidate would do as well as they are... at least Hillary wouldn't be.

 

[Franckie]

I have a hard time seeing "electoral purity" in this election to be honest. Just look at the positions and stances trump has taken so far:

- Decidedly pro russia... He even said russia should hack even more hillary stuff. And he supports north korea...
- Anti nato (which plays into trump's pro russia rhetoric).
- Anti Immigration (even george bush wanted to provide illegal immigrants a path to citizenship).
- Consistent flirting with white supremacists.
- Three times divorced and proud womanizer.

There are plenty of areas where trump does fall in line with the republican party. Perhaps even a majority. But a pro russia republican should be an oximoron, at least given how putin runs things. The republican party has always had a connection to racism... but that was always "institutionalized". It wasn't something most of them meant to actually have. It was leftovers due to being old and white.Trump is basically overt about this, he gave a voice to the racism in the party and it went from institutionalized to overt and intentional. And the guy has been divorced 3 times.... This is the guy who questions obama being a christian. Not that I am making a point against divorces because there are plenty of good reasons to get one but it is not coherent for a 3 times divorced man whose ex wife accused of sexual assault (if not full blown rape) to run as a conservative. There are plenty of issues where trump does perfectly fall in line with US conservatives but if we consider a few of his more controversial stances it is assinine for this man to run as a republican or even a conservative of any kind. Where is the ideological purity here?

And that also works with the democrat party as well. Bernie did push it to the left. So where exactly is the purity there? It is not as extreme an scenario as with the republican party though.

I am not so sure of how likely a movement like what you describe is. The republican party does have one trait and that is that it is older than the rest of the population (the average republican is 3 years older than the average democrat, fox news viewer average age is 67 and so on). And younger people, as in the future of the country, are decidedly more liberal. With demographics like this, such a group shouldn't logically have the support to exist. Unless somehow the younger folk are converted to something that would join what you describe. Even if such a thing does form it wouldn't (or shouldn't) be representative of the majority of the population. Even looking at the election... Trump winning is not a possibility because the entirety of the voters prefer him. Trump winning is a possibility because it looks pretty darn likely that people who would otherwise vote against him are probably not going to be interested enough in the whole thing to show up. I do sincerely believe that if turnout at the elections is high enough it is rather unlikely trump can win considering how poorly he pools with women, young people and minorities in general.

Trump won the nomination for two reasons: (1) Republican voters actually like Trump's policies and (2) Trump's attitude. Republican voters differ remarkably from the policies Republican elites prefer. Republican voters like programs like Social Security and Medicare whereas the donor base think these programs ought to be abolished. Immigration is also a stark contrast. Republican voters tend to be dismissive of immigration for a variety of reasons whereas Republican elites encourage immigration for cheap labor and to incite cultural anxieties in their voting base. Trump has been (fairly) consistent with leaving favored programs like Social Security alone and adopting a belligerent stand on immigration. His positions reflect what a majority of Republican voters, especially among primary voters, want. This support also extends to Trump's attitude. Republican voters want a president who will "stick it to the Democrats". They want an "outsider who will shake up Washington". They want someone who will "stand firm even if nothing is accomplished". Trump's attitude portrays himself as someone who will do his best to demonstrate the traits Republican voters cherish most in their president. So Trump passed the ideological purity test of Republican voters with flying colors, and that's not even getting into the cultural anxieties of Republican voters that Trump is very articulate in channeling.

Trump is dangerous because he legitimizes political views from fringe groups and has mainstreamed them in one out of the USA's only two major political parties. When it comes to mainstream politics, the hardcore radical right typically says a pox on both their houses. Not this time. Trump’s demonizing statements about Hispanics and Muslims have galvanized the radical right, leading to endowing endorsements from white nationalist leaders such as Jared Taylor and former Klansman David Duke. White supremacist forums are awash with electoral joy, having dubbed Trump their “Glorious Leader.” And Trump has repaid the compliments, retweeting hate posts and spreading their false statistics on black-on-white crime.

This is worrisome because the number of hate groups has exploded over the last ~8 years. Furthermore, the number of gun sales have been hitting record highs over the last ~8 years. Our current president has received more death threats than all his predecessors combined. On top of that, last year alone brought more domestic political violence, both from the American radical right and from American jihadists, than the nation has seen in many years. The radical right isn't the only problem, however. Just as membership among the radical right has exploded, so has the population of black separatist hate groups, which went from 113 chapters in 2014 to 180 in 2015. Their growth was mainly fueled by anger fostered by highly publicized incidents of police shootings of black men. But unlike movements such as Black Lives Matter, black separatist groups do not stop at demands for police reforms and an end to structural racism. Instead, they tend to demonize all whites, gays, and, surprisingly, Jews.

Perhaps you have reasons to be more optimistic about these worrisome trends than I do. I don't see how violence, let alone the prospect of violence, from fringe groups will lessen instead of increase over the next 10-20 years. As for Trump, win or lose, his campaign will probably accelerate these ongoing trends.

 

[shionoro]

So clinton held a pretty solid speech and melania (AND WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT) never got a degree from a college.
I still think Clinton got this one in the bag.

 

[M3J]

What makes you think she has this in the bag?

 

[xi0]

Yeah, plagiarized a speech, lied about having a degree in order to seem even more upper-crust than she already is...totally shocking.

Still don't see how it's relevant to anything as far as the race goes, but the media will latch onto anything.

 

[shionoro]

What makes you think she has this in the bag?

Constantly superior polling even at her lowest and bo more scandals in sight since she Got endorsed

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 29, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 29, 2016 ---

Yeah, plagiarized a speech, lied about having a degree in order to seem even more upper-crust than she already is...totally shocking.

Still don't see how it's relevant to anything as far as the race goes, but the media will latch onto anything.

It's all small things, really.

The thing is: Clinton had her scandals. There is not more coming her way. By now, she can just smile and as long as she gives decent speeches and lets trump and his wife make embarassing comments, she is going to win.

The only thing that can make her lose is another scandal or if trump suddenly gets enlightenment.
But that is not going to happen . Trump will say more stupid stuff, and while it never affects him as much as it should, it affects him a little bit. And that is enough.

Just imagine how the direct TV debate clinton vs trump will go.
He could clown arround in the primaries against people like cruz and carson. But he won't get far with that against clinton.

 

[kkck]

Constantly superior polling even at her lowest and bo more scandals in sight since she Got endorsed

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 29, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 29, 2016 ---

It's all small things, really.

The thing is: Clinton had her scandals. There is not more coming her way. By now, she can just smile and as long as she gives decent speeches and lets trump and his wife make embarassing comments, she is going to win.

The only thing that can make her lose is another scandal or if trump suddenly gets enlightenment.
But that is not going to happen . Trump will say more stupid stuff, and while it never affects him as much as it should, it affects him a little bit. And that is enough.

Just imagine how the direct TV debate clinton vs trump will go.
He could clown arround in the primaries against people like cruz and carson. But he won't get far with that against clinton.

I think you are vastly underestimating trump and how little people might end up caring about clinton even if they prefer her over trump. If what you said made sense then there wouldn't have been a single point since the primaries began in which trump even registered on the polls. However he cleaned house during the republican primaries. If things made sense then the republican party would have never aligned behind someone who is pro rusia. If clinton had this in the bad then at no point in the entire race should trump ever be near hillary in the polls (however unrepresentative they might be this early).

And why do you think hillary will have such an easy time with trump in a debate? Trump won't be there to talk policy, he will be there to make a show. Showmanship is not hillary's skill regardless of how good she might or not be in a debate. And she has to be ready to get called a bitch or a cunt or something of the sort as well. And how do you figure cruz is a clown? It's one thing to think he is an insane rightwing cuban who hates latinos and it is another one to think he is dumb. Just check his education wiki. The guy is a private high school valedictorian, princeton cum laude, competed in debate panels, and represented freaking harvard in a world debate championship. Ted cruz, however right his fellow republicans are regarding him, is a brilliant man and by any metric excellent in a debate (insane nutjob is by no means the same as stupid, you can be insanely intelligent and insane). And even then trump beat him. Marco rubio flopped in a sad and hillarios way and while his academic carrier is less impressive than cruz' he is still a cum laude graduated attorney. and trump also beat him. And him doing this to hillary, someone to whom showmanship is far from natural, is by no means unrealistic. Maybe I could agree with you on bill or obama schooling trump in a debate. But hillary? Not really. I am not saying hillary isn't aggressively intelligent or that she doesn't know her shit. But there is plenty of reason to worry here. I feel like people aren't really panicking enough at the prospect of a trump presidency. I get the impression that people think it is not going to happen and whatnot. People need to look at the UK. Them leaving the EU was every bit as bafflingly stupid as a trump presidency. It's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. With a bazooka. And it happened. Trump has a real shot at winning this, people should be panicking at this prospect.

 

[GrySun]

Trump has a real shot at winning this, people should be panicking at this prospect.

Ye everyone should keep up with the fearmongering m8. It worked well in Britain with Brexit hasn't it?

 

[shionoro]

I think you are vastly underestimating trump and how little people might end up caring about clinton even if they prefer her over trump. If what you said made sense then there wouldn't have been a single point since the primaries began in which trump even registered on the polls. However he cleaned house during the republican primaries. If things made sense then the republican party would have never aligned behind someone who is pro rusia. If clinton had this in the bad then at no point in the entire race should trump ever be near hillary in the polls (however unrepresentative they might be this early).

And why do you think hillary will have such an easy time with trump in a debate? Trump won't be there to talk policy, he will be there to make a show. Showmanship is not hillary's skill regardless of how good she might or not be in a debate. And she has to be ready to get called a bitch or a cunt or something of the sort as well. And how do you figure cruz is a clown? It's one thing to think he is an insane rightwing cuban who hates latinos and it is another one to think he is dumb. Just check his education wiki. The guy is a private high school valedictorian, princeton cum laude, competed in debate panels, and represented freaking harvard in a world debate championship. Ted cruz, however right his fellow republicans are regarding him, is a brilliant man and by any metric excellent in a debate (insane nutjob is by no means the same as stupid, you can be insanely intelligent and insane). And even then trump beat him. Marco rubio flopped in a sad and hillarios way and while his academic carrier is less impressive than cruz' he is still a cum laude graduated attorney. and trump also beat him. And him doing this to hillary, someone to whom showmanship is far from natural, is by no means unrealistic. Maybe I could agree with you on bill or obama schooling trump in a debate. But hillary? Not really. I am not saying hillary isn't aggressively intelligent or that she doesn't know her shit. But there is plenty of reason to worry here. I feel like people aren't really panicking enough at the prospect of a trump presidency. I get the impression that people think it is not going to happen and whatnot. People need to look at the UK. Them leaving the EU was every bit as bafflingly stupid as a trump presidency. It's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. With a bazooka. And it happened. Trump has a real shot at winning this, people should be panicking at this prospect.

First of all: Yes, cruz is a clown. Having a dr in law does not prevent you from being one, there are more than enough lawyers who are clowns.
I give him that he is probably good at debating. I have no doubt that in a one on one debate in a general election, he could beat trump (as clinton can).
But in the primary, there were a lot of clowns and kasich, and cruz was one of them.
He stepped on that level because he knew that the people who voted in the rep primary wanted him to deal with trump like that and that he (much like kasich) would have had no chance if he would just talk facts.
We are not in the primary anymore tho. if trump calls clinton a cunt on TV in a General elections debate, he has lost the debate at that moment.
And while i agree that clinton might not be the most natural debate winner, everything trump can do is making a show, and that is not something people will by in the generals. All clinton has to do is debunk him, and when he just keep stalking nonsense that will, unlike in the primary, be a problem for him.
After all, both have much more space to talk than in primary debates. She has much more room to call him out.

The brexit is a whole different beast. The brexit was always a thing even serious politicians kept talking about. Cameron himself, at some point, played with the idea of a brexit.
The brexit itself is also much less radical if you compare it to 'throw out all muslims' or 'build a wall'.
Many british, justified or not, first and foremost saw it as an opportunity to gain more souvereignity and economical benefits.
That is not unreasonable in itself. The measure taken also didnt seem to be very extreme.
It is different with trump. Every measure and every goal he formulates is in itself nutty and radical and basically no other politician would advocate for them.

If it had been only ukip and boris johnson who ever played or advocated for a brexit, it would not have happened.

 

[kkck]

First of all: Yes, cruz is a clown. Having a dr in law does not prevent you from being one, there are more than enough lawyers who are clowns.
I give him that he is probably good at debating. I have no doubt that in a one on one debate in a general election, he could beat trump (as clinton can).
But in the primary, there were a lot of clowns and kasich, and cruz was one of them.
He stepped on that level because he knew that the people who voted in the rep primary wanted him to deal with trump like that and that he (much like kasich) would have had no chance if he would just talk facts.
We are not in the primary anymore tho. if trump calls clinton a cunt on TV in a General elections debate, he has lost the debate at that moment.
And while i agree that clinton might not be the most natural debate winner, everything trump can do is making a show, and that is not something people will by in the generals. All clinton has to do is debunk him, and when he just keep stalking nonsense that will, unlike in the primary, be a problem for him.
After all, both have much more space to talk than in primary debates. She has much more room to call him out.

The brexit is a whole different beast. The brexit was always a thing even serious politicians kept talking about. Cameron himself, at some point, played with the idea of a brexit.
The brexit itself is also much less radical if you compare it to 'throw out all muslims' or 'build a wall'.
Many british, justified or not, first and foremost saw it as an opportunity to gain more souvereignity and economical benefits.
That is not unreasonable in itself. The measure taken also didnt seem to be very extreme.
It is different with trump. Every measure and every goal he formulates is in itself nutty and radical and basically no other politician would advocate for them.

If it had been only ukip and boris johnson who ever played or advocated for a brexit, it would not have happened.

Why would things change so much because it's not the primaries anymore? We are talking about the same people watching the same debate. It's not like now he has an entirely different audience. It's not like the astounding idiocy and ignorance he assaulted viewers with during past debates will be received differently. In past debates the focus was entirely on him, it was republicans vs him basically.... And somehow he is worst off in a 1 vs 1 scenario? These are not debates you "win" in a meaningful sense. No one is keeping actual scores. The whole thing is about ratings and showmanship and trump has both while hillary is merely armed with decades of political experience, facts and common sense. In turn trump has enough on hillary to put up a perfect show. Hillary could point how trump university was a scam, how unethical the casino thing was, trump's numerous bankruptcies and failed business ventures.... And it will likely do squat because it has already done squat. In turn all trump has to do is say "bhengazi" and a horde of assholes, whose math skills are precarious enough to not understand what 9 investigations not finding an iota of evidence against clinton means, will rise and blame her specifically for it. Let alone the email thing even though Comey's explanation on why he didn't indite is actually reasonable (as far as I can tell anyways). Trump can bring up hillary lying to congress even though prosecuting her over it is absolutely impossible because they would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that when hillary said the stuff she said she was aware she was lying. Basically hillary's defense is as easy as "Well, I thought that was the truth when I said it".

I really don't think the brexit thing is less extreme in any way. For one thing, you had your own variety of trump like characters promoting. The racism behind either of those is more than overt. If anything the only reason the UK has not considered a wall is that they are an island and don't need one. And both are the economic equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot with a bazooka. You are talking about being cut of from trading freely with every country in the EU.... Did you see trump's comments about handling US obligations? It makes absolutely no sense. He probably only read up on this after he started talking about it...

 

[M3J]

Constantly superior polling even at her lowest and bo more scandals in sight since she Got endorsed

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 29, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 29, 2016 ---

It's all small things, really.

The thing is: Clinton had her scandals. There is not more coming her way. By now, she can just smile and as long as she gives decent speeches and lets trump and his wife make embarassing comments, she is going to win.

The only thing that can make her lose is another scandal or if trump suddenly gets enlightenment.
But that is not going to happen . Trump will say more stupid stuff, and while it never affects him as much as it should, it affects him a little bit. And that is enough.

Just imagine how the direct TV debate clinton vs trump will go.
He could clown arround in the primaries against people like cruz and carson. But he won't get far with that against clinton.

From some of the sources I've read, Trump started beating her after the whole DNC emails leaked. Hillary honestly doesn't have this in the bag, it's gonna be a difficult fight for her because many Bernie supporters defected, and more liberals would vote for a 3rd party while more conservatives will likely stick to voting for Trump. You underestimate the power of Trump and his ability to attract idiots and bigots. The scandals are hurting her, and the email leaks could be the second to last nail in the coffin to ensure her loss. A lot of her voters/former voters didn't have a high opinion of her in the first place, if they even had any positive opinion. They voted/are voting for her because Trump as a president is scarier to them than Hillary. Hillary being revealed as more untrustworthy makes her lose some of the voters and repels the undecided voters.

It's interesting how during the DNC, the Obamas and Bill Clinton for the most part stole the show. Hillary was praised as well, but Michelle and Barack received the most praises while Bill was praised and given attention for stuff like playing with the balloons. From what I've heard and read, the quality of DNC >>>> RNC. Not shocked there.

 

[kkck]

As much as I do think people should be panicking the absolute shit out of trump having a legitimate chance to win, I also do think there is always a bit of room for comedy. This one cracked me up:

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

As much as I never liked Bill Maher, I sure as hell did enjoyed that clip.

After the Khan speech about his son losing his life in Iraq, Donald Trump makes comments about his wife just standing there and not speaking. He didn't even responded/reacted towards his comments about his son.
Then there's this ableist human-in-name-only scumbag of a bitch known as Ann Coulter made comments about his speech being "an Angry Muslim".

 

[shionoro]

As much as I never liked Bill Maher, I sure as hell did enjoyed that clip.

After the Khan speech about his son losing his life in Iraq, Donald Trump makes comments about his wife just standing there and not speaking. He didn't even responded/reacted towards his comments about his son.
Then there's this ableist human-in-name-only scumbag of a bitch known as Ann Coulter made comments about his speech being "an Angry Muslim".

really?
She called the father of a fallen US-veteran an 'angry muslim'?
That's low, even for republican standards.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

really?
She called the father of a fallen US-veteran an 'angry muslim'?
That's low, even for republican standards.

Thankfully, there are even some conservatives criticizing that bitch, including John Podhoretz (who happens to be a long-time friend of her, or at least according to rawstory).
What I'm also pissed at her is how that bitch spells "Zacaria" when it's "Zakaria" (which is also my first name), more referring to CNN's Fareed Zakaria shows.