The Libertarian party could be quite a beneficiary of Trump's meltdown, being an attractive place for Republicans turned off by Trump but for whom a Clinton vote would be impossible. The US needs a third party to balance out the excesses of the other two.
As I've said before, a lot of Republicans will hold their noses when they vote for Trump, but they will vote for him anyway simply because they don't want another liberal judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
As I've said before, a lot of Republicans will hold their noses when they vote for Trump, but they will vote for him anyway simply because they don't want another liberal judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Certainly true, but to what extent is the problem. I think a lot will stay home, same with Bernie supporters. The problem is that I suspect it's going to hurt Republicans further down the ticket.
As I've said before, a lot of Republicans will hold their noses when they vote for Trump, but they will vote for him anyway simply because they don't want another liberal judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Ha! Ha! Yep I'm sure that the foremost thing on the minds of rednecks is the make up of the Supreme Court. And even if SOME Republicans were concerned over that post, are you seriously suggesting that this would be enough to make them vote for a pathological liar and conman? If so they are even more brainless than I ever imagined.
If Paul Ryan had been the GOP nominee then they would have had a decent candidate.
As I've said before, a lot of Republicans will hold their noses when they vote for Trump, but they will vote for him anyway simply because they don't want another liberal judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Ha! Ha! Yep I'm sure that the foremost thing on the minds of rednecks is the make up of the Supreme Court. And even if SOME Republicans were concerned over that post, are you seriously suggesting that this would be enough to make them vote for a pathological liar and conman? If so they are even more brainless than I ever imagined.
If Paul Ryan had been the GOP nominee then they would have had a decent candidate.
I knew we had something in common. What do you think say about Trump 'seeing' the Iranians taking money off the plane in Iran when it was in fact American prisoners arriving at Geneva airport? As everyone else knew. Yep he is even more clueless than Dubya. At least Dubya didn't fleece the poor with a scam.
As I've said before, a lot of Republicans will hold their noses when they vote for Trump, but they will vote for him anyway simply because they don't want another liberal judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Ha! Ha! Yep I'm sure that the foremost thing on the minds of rednecks is the make up of the Supreme Court. And even if SOME Republicans were concerned over that post, are you seriously suggesting that this would be enough to make them vote for a pathological liar and conman? If so they are even more brainless than I ever imagined.
If Paul Ryan had been the GOP nominee then they would have had a decent candidate.
You have no clue.
As political arguments go, that's on the weaker end of the scale.
From years of experience it is very rare that you see American voters cross party lines when it comes to voting. There does appear to be the idea that you vote for the party not the person.
It doesn't matter how offensive Trump is, how xenophobic he is, not even how stupid he is, the republicans will still come out and vote for him because he is their nominee. Just look at them turn on the prodigal son Ted Cruz at the RNC when he refused to endorse him.
And it is the same with the democrats. They are trying to sell Hilary as the lesser evil but make no mistake as far as pathologically lying politicians go she is right up there with Nixon.
It is a sad state of affairs when these are the best two presidential candidates that the parties could come up with, but that seems to be the case worldwide right now. The quality of politicians in power is something we should all be lementing.
Even in the UK there is an element of don't cross party lines, we nearly ended up with a buffoon in charge but thankfully he is only in the foreign office now.
On the right we have someone even the daleks would probably consider extreme on human rights. Left Wing Jezza is doing something to motivate the radicals but I still don't trust him. And in the middle we have Tiny Tim waiting to wish everyone a merry Christmas.
Clinton is a pathological liar? On a par with Nixon? Any evidence?
This is the narative the republicans have been building against her. There appears little evidence, and certainly during the campaign she has been the most truthful according to various studies of all the public statements by the different candidates. Unsurprisingly Trump has been the least truthful.
Clinton is a pathological liar? On a par with Nixon? Any evidence?
This is the narative the republicans have been building against her. There appears little evidence, and certainly during the campaign she has been the most truthful according to various studies of all the public statements by the different candidates. Unsurprisingly Trump has been the least truthful.
Many will dismiss just because it's Fox, but might learn something .
Clinton is a pathological liar? On a par with Nixon? Any evidence?
This is the narative the republicans have been building against her. There appears little evidence, and certainly during the campaign she has been the most truthful according to various studies of all the public statements by the different candidates. Unsurprisingly Trump has been the least truthful.
Many will dismiss just because it's Fox, but might learn something .
I think there was also a story where she claimed to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia but when called out on it she claimed she misspoke. That could just be republican propaganda.
Now I'm not saying she is worse than trump but she isn't the knight in shining armour that democrats want her to be either.
I think there was also a story where she claimed to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia but when called out on it she claimed she misspoke. That could just be republican propaganda.
Now I'm not saying she is worse than trump but she isn't the knight in shining armour that democrats want her to be either.
And I was being hyperbolic earlier.
The vast majority of those so called false statements were political campaign point scoring that all politicians engage in and most certainly does not qualify her as a pathological liar.
The e.mail server was allowed. She asked and they allowed her to. She did nothing to hide the fact she was using a personal server. Colin Powell did something similar with his e.mails.
Virtually every so called 'classified e.mail' was classified after it was sent to her or she forwarded it on. I think there were 3 e.mails that were classified at the time they were sent to her but not in a very clear and obvious way.
I think there was also a story where she claimed to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia but when called out on it she claimed she misspoke. That could just be republican propaganda.
Now I'm not saying she is worse than trump but she isn't the knight in shining armour that democrats want her to be either.
And I was being hyperbolic earlier.
The vast majority of those so called false statements were political campaign point scoring that all politicians engage in and most certainly does not qualify her as a pathological liar.
The e.mail server was allowed. She asked and they allowed her to. She did nothing to hide the fact she was using a personal server. Colin Powell did something similar with his e.mails.
Virtually every so called 'classified e.mail' was classified after it was sent to her or she forwarded it on. I think there were 3 e.mails that were classified at the time they were sent to her but not in a very clear and obvious way.
I believe you are only listening to one side of the story.
I believe you are only listening to one side of the story.
Haha! Do you understand how ironic that statement is? If you are reduced to citing Fox "News" as your sources you are really desperate. All you do is dredge up criticisms of Clinton (some of which are justified) but you never comment on the character of your candidate. Why is that???
I don't believe he is, far from it. But that doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't be held to account as well, otherwise how does that make us any different to those who support trump just because he is the republican nominee?
I believe you are only listening to one side of the story.
Haha! Do you understand how ironic that statement is? If you are reduced to citing Fox "News" as your sources you are really desperate. All you do is dredge up criticisms of Clinton (some of which are justified) but you never comment on the character of your candidate. Why is that???
Can't make any sense because it's from "Fox News", how predictable.
I HAVE commented on the characters of both candidates, I've said that voters on both sides will have to hold their noses when they vote. What makes you think I'm "desparate", I could care less about what a know-all, know-nothing like yourself thinks.
I don't believe he is, far from it. But that doesn't mean Clinton shouldn't be held to account as well, otherwise how does that make us any different to those who support trump just because he is the republican nominee?
I was talking to limeygent! Your posts are on-point and I agree
I HAVE commented on the characters of both candidates, I've said that voters on both sides will have to hold their noses when they vote. What makes you think I'm "desparate", I could care less about what a know-all, know-nothing like yourself thinks.
Answer the question. Why is Trump a better candidate? Please enumerate the reasons why, on balance, you would prefer him in charge of the USA.
I believe you are only listening to one side of the story.
Haha! Do you understand how ironic that statement is? If you are reduced to citing Fox "News" as your sources you are really desperate. All you do is dredge up criticisms of Clinton (some of which are justified) but you never comment on the character of your candidate. Why is that???
Can't make any sense because it's from "Fox News", how predictable.
Because overall, they have a narrative. When Bush was in office they were given advanced notice of how news stories would spin. The *now* disgraced Roger Ailes has referrred to Fox News as infotainment (I believe it was). I would not post something from MSNBC for the same reason, most of the shows are part of a larger agenda tied to the Democratic party.
This is really ramped up during election time. You need look no further than the Fox News coverage of Benghazi to see this. After a $7m congressional investigation, MORE MONEY SET ASIDE THAN INITIALLY WAS FOR THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION, they found nothing wrong or criminal.
Does Hillary have credibility issues? Yes, absolutely, I've outlined them at length in the Hillary Clinton thread. But that does not make Trump right, and that does not make Fox News credible.
Here's her latest cock up, and this is BAD and an unforced error in my opinion.
I notice that Limeygent declines to (cannot?) identify a single positive character trait that would suggest any reasonably balanced person would vote for Trump, saying that 'voters on both sides will have to hold their noses when they vote.' If the candidates are that bad and you have the slightest self-respect you could vote for one of the independents or....DONT VOTE AT ALL.
ps if you are going to quote me at least learn to spell 'desperate' properly:-) Oh and by the way the correct phrase is 'couldn't care less etc...'
if you are going to quote me at least learn to spell 'desperate' properly:-) Oh and by the way the correct phrase is 'couldn't care less etc...'
To be fair, I believe the corruption 'could care less' is the variation of 'couldn't care less' that is commonly used in the US. I agree it's an odd one and doesn't really make sense, but I think Limey's been over there a few years. I wouldn't blame him for referring to sidewalks, diapers and fanny-packs or for spelling things like criticise as 'criticize' either. I'd even forgive him spelling colour without a 'u', but to be honest, that's pushing it a bit!
if you are going to quote me at least learn to spell 'desperate' properly:-) Oh and by the way the correct phrase is 'couldn't care less etc...'
To be fair, I believe the corruption 'could care less' is the variation of 'couldn't care less' that is commonly used in the US. I agree it's an odd one and doesn't really make sense, but I think Limey's been over there a few years. I wouldn't blame him for referring to sidewalks, diapers and fanny-packs or for spelling things like criticise as 'criticize' either. I'd even forgive him spelling colour without a 'u', but to be honest, that's pushing it a bit!
When I was little that saying baffled me, until I read it as "couldn't" and then for years thought I'd been mishearing people. When I then realized (my computer autocorrects to add the "z" into everything, otherwise I'm all about assimilation) I was annoyed.
I notice that Limeygent declines to (cannot?) identify a single positive character trait that would suggest any reasonably balanced person would vote for Trump, saying that 'voters on both sides will have to hold their noses when they vote.' If the candidates are that bad and you have the slightest self-respect you could vote for one of the independents or....DON'T VOTE AT ALL.
ps if you are going to quote me at least learn to spell 'desperate' properly:-) Oh and by the way the correct phrase is 'couldn't care less etc...'
So I wanted to pull this up for further discussion. Here in the States, it's seen as very important that you vote, regardless of who you vote for. There are huge voting registration campaigns, largely targeted at younger people, trying to get them out to the polls. They're usually non-partisan, and a genuine attempt to encourage people to participate in democracy.
That said, abstaining from voting for President is something I've done in the past, and something I talk about quite often with a lot of backlash. My feeling is that we have a political system dominated by money and two archaic parties who put their own interests above ideology or the betterment of society, and therefore I am a conscientious objector and don't vote as a form of protest at the current political system. This is a pretty controversial view, and something that is often not well received. It's sometimes misconceived that I am not politically aware, which hopefully from my posts on here you can tell isn't true (even if you don't agree with me, hopefully it comes across that I do follow politics very closely).
That said, I come from the privilege of having lived/been registered to vote in California during all presidential elections. We have the Electoral College, in which our presidential election is not an outright 1 v. 1 for the most votes, but a competition for who wins the most states, and points are given out by states. California overwhelmingly goes for the Democratic candidate, so my vote, or lack thereof, doesn't really matter. This year I'll be living in Oregon, another solidly blue state, so will have the choice of choosing between Jill Stein and abstaining again.
I know that @limeygent lives in the DC area, which I presume means he lives in Maryland or Virginia. Maryland is a solidly blue state (now anyway) because of Baltimore, but Virginia is something of a battleground state. I'm sure he will have a very different perspective if he lives in a "swing state," and would be very curious to hear his thoughts.
I notice that Limeygent declines to (cannot?) identify a single positive character trait that would suggest any reasonably balanced person would vote for Trump, saying that 'voters on both sides will have to hold their noses when they vote.' If the candidates are that bad and you have the slightest self-respect you could vote for one of the independents or....DONT VOTE AT ALL.
ps if you are going to quote me at least learn to spell 'desperate' properly:-) Oh and by the way the correct phrase is 'couldn't care less etc...'
If criticising my use of the language, and an odd spelling mistake makes you feel superior, go for it. If you think "rednecks" don't care about who's the next Supreme Court Justice, you aren't out with the general American public every day, as I am, and you have no understanding of American politics at all.
Comments
If Paul Ryan had been the GOP nominee then they would have had a decent candidate.
It doesn't matter how offensive Trump is, how xenophobic he is, not even how stupid he is, the republicans will still come out and vote for him because he is their nominee. Just look at them turn on the prodigal son Ted Cruz at the RNC when he refused to endorse him.
And it is the same with the democrats. They are trying to sell Hilary as the lesser evil but make no mistake as far as pathologically lying politicians go she is right up there with Nixon.
It is a sad state of affairs when these are the best two presidential candidates that the parties could come up with, but that seems to be the case worldwide right now. The quality of politicians in power is something we should all be lementing.
Even in the UK there is an element of don't cross party lines, we nearly ended up with a buffoon in charge but thankfully he is only in the foreign office now.
On the right we have someone even the daleks would probably consider extreme on human rights. Left Wing Jezza is doing something to motivate the radicals but I still don't trust him. And in the middle we have Tiny Tim waiting to wish everyone a merry Christmas.
https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10154507073016336/
I think there was also a story where she claimed to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia but when called out on it she claimed she misspoke. That could just be republican propaganda.
Now I'm not saying she is worse than trump but she isn't the knight in shining armour that democrats want her to be either.
And I was being hyperbolic earlier.
The e.mail server was allowed. She asked and they allowed her to. She did nothing to hide the fact she was using a personal server. Colin Powell did something similar with his e.mails.
Virtually every so called 'classified e.mail' was classified after it was sent to her or she forwarded it on. I think there were 3 e.mails that were classified at the time they were sent to her but not in a very clear and obvious way.
I believe you are only listening to one side of the story.
Haha! Do you understand how ironic that statement is?
If you are reduced to citing Fox "News" as your sources you are really desperate. All you do is dredge up criticisms of Clinton (some of which are justified) but you never comment on the character of your candidate. Why is that???
This is really ramped up during election time. You need look no further than the Fox News coverage of Benghazi to see this. After a $7m congressional investigation, MORE MONEY SET ASIDE THAN INITIALLY WAS FOR THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION, they found nothing wrong or criminal.
Does Hillary have credibility issues? Yes, absolutely, I've outlined them at length in the Hillary Clinton thread. But that does not make Trump right, and that does not make Fox News credible.
Here's her latest cock up, and this is BAD and an unforced error in my opinion.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/
ps if you are going to quote me at least learn to spell 'desperate' properly:-) Oh and by the way the correct phrase is 'couldn't care less etc...'
I agree it's an odd one and doesn't really make sense, but I think Limey's been over there a few years. I wouldn't blame him for referring to sidewalks, diapers and fanny-packs or for spelling things like criticise as 'criticize' either. I'd even forgive him spelling colour without a 'u', but to be honest, that's pushing it a bit!
That said, abstaining from voting for President is something I've done in the past, and something I talk about quite often with a lot of backlash. My feeling is that we have a political system dominated by money and two archaic parties who put their own interests above ideology or the betterment of society, and therefore I am a conscientious objector and don't vote as a form of protest at the current political system. This is a pretty controversial view, and something that is often not well received. It's sometimes misconceived that I am not politically aware, which hopefully from my posts on here you can tell isn't true (even if you don't agree with me, hopefully it comes across that I do follow politics very closely).
That said, I come from the privilege of having lived/been registered to vote in California during all presidential elections. We have the Electoral College, in which our presidential election is not an outright 1 v. 1 for the most votes, but a competition for who wins the most states, and points are given out by states. California overwhelmingly goes for the Democratic candidate, so my vote, or lack thereof, doesn't really matter. This year I'll be living in Oregon, another solidly blue state, so will have the choice of choosing between Jill Stein and abstaining again.
I know that @limeygent lives in the DC area, which I presume means he lives in Maryland or Virginia. Maryland is a solidly blue state (now anyway) because of Baltimore, but Virginia is something of a battleground state. I'm sure he will have a very different perspective if he lives in a "swing state," and would be very curious to hear his thoughts.
If you think "rednecks" don't care about who's the next Supreme Court Justice, you aren't out with the general American public every day, as I am, and you have no understanding of American politics at all.