Trump

The Juggler

"Who knew that the best guide to this election was Donald Trump, albeit in reverse? Trump railed against the the Clinton Foundation, only to have his own Foundation revealed as a fraud. He tried to make an issue once again of Bill Clinton's actions with women, only to have sexual assault accusers coming out of the woodwork against him. He has tried to argue that Clinton is swayed by shady connections to foreign governments, only to have Russia's meddling in this election on Trump's behalf become a big campaign issue. He has said Clinton lies, lies, lies, only to have fact checkers working in a state of delirium keeping up with Trump's own whoppers. And there are several more such cases. I am not a psychologist but it seems like you could write a thesis on Trump's projecting impulses. And as this election swirled down the drain in the final moments of the debate, we were searching for a headline to put on this whole mess. And there was Donald Trump eager to provide, pointing in the wrong direction - "“such a nasty woman.” Maybe we can just replace the last word of that phrase and once again get a little closer to the truth."

-Dan Rather

Gern Blansten

The Juggler said:

"Who knew that the best guide to this election was Donald Trump, albeit in reverse? Trump railed against the the Clinton Foundation, only to have his own Foundation revealed as a fraud. He tried to make an issue once again of Bill Clinton's actions with women, only to have sexual assault accusers coming out of the woodwork against him. He has tried to argue that Clinton is swayed by shady connections to foreign governments, only to have Russia's meddling in this election on Trump's behalf become a big campaign issue. He has said Clinton lies, lies, lies, only to have fact checkers working in a state of delirium keeping up with Trump's own whoppers. And there are several more such cases. I am not a psychologist but it seems like you could write a thesis on Trump's projecting impulses. And as this election swirled down the drain in the final moments of the debate, we were searching for a headline to put on this whole mess. And there was Donald Trump eager to provide, pointing in the wrong direction - "“such a nasty woman.” Maybe we can just replace the last word of that phrase and once again get a little closer to the truth."

-Dan Rather

Spot on...

HughFreakingDillon

I think Trump may have had a chance in this election.


if he didn't talk.

pjalive21

man could you imagine if the media would actually cover wikileaks, clinton foundation, and all these other real stories like they have covered what he said about conceding a loss, his taxes, and whatever other non-newsworthy story about Trump...RIP Journalism 2016

Gern Blansten

pjalive21 said:

man could you imagine if the media would actually cover wikileaks, clinton foundation, and all these other real stories like they have covered what he said about conceding a loss, his taxes, and whatever other non-newsworthy story about Trump...RIP Journalism 2016

They did. Nothing there.

Go to infowars and you'll find plenty.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

https://youtu.be/u_3mLC0U1Y8

I saw it this morning but I don't give a fuck what Vox, Rolling Stone or anyone else says. Plus there's a world of difference between a writer saying something and a candidate saying something. Find me where Al Gore said the election was rigged and I'll listen.

I don't expect you to "give a fuck". This is just another example of faux outrage that will continue until the next one. That being said Donald left this opening for attack on his own as stupid as the attack may be.

Stated more eloquently, it's a false equivalency on Joe's part to draw a correlation between what some left wing, somewhat irrelevant rags print and what the candidate says.

Yeah but Howard Dean was a candidate in 2004 and was then Chairman of the DNC. Hillary herself said George W was "selected not elected". And John Edwards/John Kerry were very vocal about 2004. Kerry still goes out to other countries to this day and says that Ohio was stolen...how does that look across the pond?

You are saying that in his capacity as SOS and/or Senator, John Kerry has said Ohio was stolen?? I have never heard or seen that. Please post it. I'd be curious and it would be a breach of protocol in many ways.

Here's an example in the New Yorker: (key part about 20 paragraphs in)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind

Speaking to Abdullah Abdullah from Afghanistan he said that there were election irregularities in Ohio. Now he didn't use the word "stolen" but he said they could have fought in court but for the good of the country he let it go. He used this story to encourage Abdullah to accept the results of the Afghani election. Now one can look at this and say what Kerry did was noble but others can look at this and say he painted W's Presidency as an illegitimate one. In my opinion talk like this should be left at the water's edge even if it has political usefulness. Too many dangerous games can be played with legitimacy.

Sorry BS. I missed this. But I think this is an elegant point on how to create a sustainable democracy, using a personal example. I don't think he was painting it as illegitimate at all. The only example in history that I can really think of where someone truly questioned the legitimacy was the 1824 election and Corrupt Bargain. This gave JQA the election over Andrew Jackson.

I don't know. I completely get the point he was making but he is basically claiming that he got screwed yet let it go. For sure there was some short term gain by making that point but it perpetuates the concept of corruption in the American system on foreign soil. Long term that is not a good concept for a Secretary of State especially when using an example that is backed up by so little evidence.

JC29856

pjalive21 said:

man could you imagine if the media would actually cover wikileaks, clinton foundation, and all these other real stories like they have covered what he said about conceding a loss, his taxes, and whatever other non-newsworthy story about Trump...RIP Journalism 2016

they wont because they are accomplices

mfc2006

The Juggler said:

"Who knew that the best guide to this election was Donald Trump, albeit in reverse? Trump railed against the the Clinton Foundation, only to have his own Foundation revealed as a fraud. He tried to make an issue once again of Bill Clinton's actions with women, only to have sexual assault accusers coming out of the woodwork against him. He has tried to argue that Clinton is swayed by shady connections to foreign governments, only to have Russia's meddling in this election on Trump's behalf become a big campaign issue. He has said Clinton lies, lies, lies, only to have fact checkers working in a state of delirium keeping up with Trump's own whoppers. And there are several more such cases. I am not a psychologist but it seems like you could write a thesis on Trump's projecting impulses. And as this election swirled down the drain in the final moments of the debate, we were searching for a headline to put on this whole mess. And there was Donald Trump eager to provide, pointing in the wrong direction - "“such a nasty woman.” Maybe we can just replace the last word of that phrase and once again get a little closer to the truth."

-Dan Rather

bingo.

CM189191

JC29856 said:

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/#

This might hurt some feelwings

The only feelings that will be hurt are when you look back at this post next month and realize investors.com is as much a shit site as brietbart.

Cliffy6745

CM189191 said:

JC29856 said:

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/#

This might hurt some feelwings

The only feelings that will be hurt are when you look back at this post next month and realize investors.com is as much a shit site as brietbart.

Nate silver has it as an A- poll but he clearly isn't concerned

josevolution

He got booed at the Al Smith dinner lol

BS44325

CM189191 said:

JC29856 said:

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/#

This might hurt some feelwings

The only feelings that will be hurt are when you look back at this post next month and realize investors.com is as much a shit site as brietbart.

Looks like an outlier but it actually was the most accurate poll in 2012

Cliffy6745

josevolution said:

He got booed at the Al Smith dinner lol

He was painful

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/#

This might hurt some feelwings

Something's off with that poll. 43% + 41% + 5% for "other" only totals 89%. That leaves 11% undecided or not voting, which I think is too high when compared to other polls. Edit: just double checked, and the poll is with likely voters, so it's more iffy.

lukin2006

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think Trump may have had a chance in this election.


if he didn't talk.

Lol

JC29856

clearly reserves the right to retract and revise it. Or, in fact, turn it on its head. He sees unreliability as a virtue, as a bargaining tool. There’s something in that. One could argue that what is wrong with US foreign policy, in general, is that we remain entrenched in the structures of the Cold War. That we conduct diplomacy to hold the line rather than to advance our interests. That we respond to crises by invoking deterrence, which freezes the crisis for a later explosion rather than addressing the causes of it and disarming it. And Trump may be onto something in this regard, in theory. In practice, it’s very hard to see him as living up to his own insights.

A minor industry has sprung up devoted to extracting imagined policies from his populist rants, which resonate with widespread voter anger and frustration with the results of recent policies, or the lack of them, on a wide range of issues, including adventurism abroad…. But he is long on populist clichés and short on the feasible means of pursuing them, still less examination of the probable consequences of recklessly implemented change…. Trumpism is a disjointed set of objections to the results of past policies and pledges to junk them, with no coherent ideas or proposals for new approaches that might improve on them. It distills popular rage at everything that has gone wrong—and that is a lot—but remains all repudiation and no plan.
Chas Freeman

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

clearly reserves the right to retract and revise it. Or, in fact, turn it on its head. He sees unreliability as a virtue, as a bargaining tool. There’s something in that. One could argue that what is wrong with US foreign policy, in general, is that we remain entrenched in the structures of the Cold War. That we conduct diplomacy to hold the line rather than to advance our interests. That we respond to crises by invoking deterrence, which freezes the crisis for a later explosion rather than addressing the causes of it and disarming it. And Trump may be onto something in this regard, in theory. In practice, it’s very hard to see him as living up to his own insights.

A minor industry has sprung up devoted to extracting imagined policies from his populist rants, which resonate with widespread voter anger and frustration with the results of recent policies, or the lack of them, on a wide range of issues, including adventurism abroad…. But he is long on populist clichés and short on the feasible means of pursuing them, still less examination of the probable consequences of recklessly implemented change…. Trumpism is a disjointed set of objections to the results of past policies and pledges to junk them, with no coherent ideas or proposals for new approaches that might improve on them. It distills popular rage at everything that has gone wrong—and that is a lot—but remains all repudiation and no plan.
Chas Freeman

These entrenched structures of the Cold War have kept the peace in Europe for almost 80 years now. Try to find a similar 80 year period in Western history where the continent has not erupted into multi-state conflict. Isn't that the objective, at the end of the day?

pjalive21

JC29856 said:

pjalive21 said:

man could you imagine if the media would actually cover wikileaks, clinton foundation, and all these other real stories like they have covered what he said about conceding a loss, his taxes, and whatever other non-newsworthy story about Trump...RIP Journalism 2016

they wont because they are accomplices

agreed....i actually loved how Trump called the media her campaign team at the dinner last night

he was actually pretty funny till the end

The Juggler

pjalive21 said:

man could you imagine if the media would actually cover wikileaks, clinton foundation, and all these other real stories like they have covered what he said about conceding a loss, his taxes, and whatever other non-newsworthy story about Trump...RIP Journalism 2016

The only candidate since the 1960's who refuses to release his tax return is not news worthy to you? Pretty sure there's something serious there that he is hiding. Said candidate also refuses to accept what is one of the pillars of our democracy is also not news worthy to you? This is America, pal. These things are important to us.

And the emails have been covered to death for about a year and a half. Not much there, yet at least.

pjalive21

The Juggler said:

pjalive21 said:

man could you imagine if the media would actually cover wikileaks, clinton foundation, and all these other real stories like they have covered what he said about conceding a loss, his taxes, and whatever other non-newsworthy story about Trump...RIP Journalism 2016

The only candidate since the 1960's who refuses to release his tax return is not news worthy to you? Pretty sure there's something serious there that he is hiding. Said candidate also refuses to accept what is one of the pillars of our democracy is also not news worthy to you? This is America, pal. These things are important to us.

And the emails have been covered to death for about a year and a half. Not much there, yet at least.

i dont care about anyones tax returns...i dont care about what legal loopholes they used, i dont care if they were charitable or not...nothing in a tax return could sway me to vote for either side of the aisle

BUT

whats in someone's emails showing how two face and manipulative someone is or the people they surround themselves with is a reason to sway a vote....when you give speeches to special interest stating your position and then tell the American people what they want to hear then that speaks to your character...she has major character issues and trust issues..not saying that Trump is the most stand up guy in the world but 30 years of a Clinton is enough for me