Maple Leaf Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Trumps odds have shortened again in the last couple of hours. Yup. There's no doubt, Trump has the momentum. He still has an uphill battle, but a week ago victory looked like an impossible task. That's no longer the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Trumps odds have shortened again in the last couple of hours. These news channels will be loving this. Think of all the advertising getting thrown at them, it's like the Super Bowl on steroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 FBI have also been tweeting lots of copies of their many, many investigations into Trump all day long in an attempt to not be seen as biased. It's a cluster feck out there at the moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendricks Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 These news channels will be loving this. Think of all the advertising getting thrown at them, it's like the Super Bowl on steroids. Apparently around 43 million in the final week alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Apparently around 43 million in the final week alone. Good time to buy shares in Coke, KFC and all the other crap involved then ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalamazoo Jambo Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 FBI have also been tweeting lots of copies of their many, many investigations into Trump all day long in an attempt to not be seen as biased. It's a cluster feck out there at the moment Have they? Where? Genuine question. The FBI Records Vault tweeted one item a couple of days ago about Fred Trump (Donald's father) in which it calls him a 'philanthropist' (I think it would be more accurate to call him a vile racist). Today the same account (which is a genuine FBI account) tweeted out about the controversial pardoning of Marc Rich by Bill Clinton 15 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Yup. There's no doubt, Trump has the momentum. He still has an uphill battle, but a week ago victory looked like an impossible task. That's no longer the case. You have to question the polls in terms of how accurate they are anyway Trump certainly still in it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendricks Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) Good time to buy shares in Coke, KFC and all the other crap involved then ;-) Just to clarify the $43 million is money spent by Clinton and Trump on ads this week. Its reported she has sent over $150 million on TV ads alone throughout her campaign. Edited November 1, 2016 by Hendricks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Just to clarify the $43 million is money spent by Clinton and Trump on ads this week. Its reported she has sent over $150 million on TV ads alone throughout her campaign. ?43 million you say? Wherever did that come from? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 The last thing the USA is. Is a democray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) If ever there was a chance to see them unmasked it's now. Clinton is done like diner and even though they had a plan, it is now in taters because plan B is going to be in described video. There is a reason why there is such a thing as beyond a reasonable doubt in law when given both sides to a story. Remember that when the shit hits the fan. Look at all that is out there because it's coming. God bless America. Edited November 1, 2016 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 One pollster whose polls aren't moving much thinks the "swings" are fake. https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/11/01/beware-phantom-swings-why-dramatic-swings-in-the-p/ I'm still in for Clinton with a 5-7 percentage point win. Early vote and ground game matters more than media nonsense at this late stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 FBI have also been tweeting lots of copies of their many, many investigations into Trump all day long in an attempt to not be seen as biased. It's a cluster feck out there at the moment I'm seeing reports that Comey is basically trying to keep a lid on an intra-FBI brawl, including agents who are still mad that Comey didn't go after Clinton harder and agents that are still mad that Comey isn't joining other intelligence agencies in agreeing that Russia is meddling with the election on the side of Trump. At this point, it's all anonymous sources, so who the f--- knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnrazor Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I, strangely, feel Trump would be a safer bet, Clinton just seems dangerous??? She'd have Putin pressing the button pdq! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvoys Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 http://cesrusc.org/election/ Can anyone who understand all the polling maths, make sense of why LA Times (liberal paper) has been consistently out of step with the average polling? What is a daybreak poll? Here they have Trump flip off the charts with a five point lead. Also NY Times are saying poor early voting minority turnout is looking ominous for Hillary. The Dems will have only their own hubris to blame if the world is subjected to the daily sight of this manchild for the next four years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) Hillary pushing the women button. Latest speech goes through "How can you support a man with these views if you have a daughter [pause] ... if you have a wife ... if you have a sister etc etc ... how can you support this man" spiel , with religious revivalist type whoops of support from the audience at each pause. The climax is "If you have a son ... do you want him looking up to a man like that". Disappointed that she didn't end with "and if you have a husband like mine you know what I am talking about". Edited November 2, 2016 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 It shouldn't be shocking that the Russians are meddling in US elections. The US meddles in elections around the world all the time, and it's not like we've got terribly warm relations with Putin at the moment. It's embarrassing that Trump is so willing to be a stooge, but I don't think it's tinfoil hat or anything SHOCKING! to get all bothered about. Including Russian ones, the US played more than a small part in rigging the '96 Russian election that kept Yeltsin in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Hillary pushing the women button. Latest speech goes through "How can you support a man with these views if you have a daughter [pause] ... if you have a wife ... if you have a sister etc etc ... how can you support this man" spiel , with religious revivalist type whoops of support from the audience at each pause. The climax is "If you have a son ... do you want him looking up to a man like that". Disappointed that she didn't end with "and if you have a husband like mine you know what I am talking about". Which is why a lot of American women can't stand the sight or sound of her whiney voice. He's still at it as well apparently. This time it's the women who (he appointed on a rather hefty salary) heads up his very own charitable foundation. Well they do say it begins at home. Oh and that'll be the same foundation where his hunter of a daughter sits on the board with another very healthy salary. Keeping it in the family too. What a guy slick Willie is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Which is why a lot of American women can't stand the sight or sound of her whiney voice. He's still at it as well apparently. This time it's the women who (he appointed on a rather hefty salary) heads up his very own charitable foundation. Well they do say it begins at home. Oh and that'll be the same foundation where his hunter of a daughter sits on the board with another very healthy salary. Keeping it in the family too. What a guy slick Willie is. Nepotism is not unusual among wealthy families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Which is why a lot of American women can't stand the sight or sound of her whiney voice. He's still at it as well apparently. This time it's the women who (he appointed on a rather hefty salary) heads up his very own charitable foundation. Well they do say it begins at home. Oh and that'll be the same foundation where his hunter of a daughter sits on the board with another very healthy salary. Keeping it in the family too. What a guy slick Willie is. Nepotism is not unusual among wealthy families. A Clinton sitting on the board of the Clinton Foundation? Whatever next! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 http://cesrusc.org/election/ Can anyone who understand all the polling maths, make sense of why LA Times (liberal paper) has been consistently out of step with the average polling? What is a daybreak poll? Here they have Trump flip off the charts with a five point lead. Also NY Times are saying poor early voting minority turnout is looking ominous for Hillary. The Dems will have only their own hubris to blame if the world is subjected to the daily sight of this manchild for the next four years. From what I understand it, the LA Times picked a fixed set of people to re-poll the whole way through the campaign, and then weight off of it. And in the process, they got one 19-year old black Trump voter, who because of the small size of the set, skews the demographic weighting considerably. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html They came up with a perfectly defensible if somewhat rigid methodology, but got bit by bad luck. Probably. We'll know Tuesday -- who knows, maybe they're the only ones who've been right all along. And regarding minority turnout, some of that's not having Obama on the ballot, but some of it is the product of aggressive voter suppression on the part of the GOP, by limiting early voting, passing strict voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, and shutting polling places. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-naacp-voter-suppression_us_5817634fe4b064e1b4b385df Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Which is why a lot of American women can't stand the sight or sound of her whiney voice. He's still at it as well apparently. This time it's the women who (he appointed on a rather hefty salary) heads up his very own charitable foundation. Well they do say it begins at home. Oh and that'll be the same foundation where his hunter of a daughter sits on the board with another very healthy salary. Keeping it in the family too. What a guy slick Willie is. Now that's one sided! Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation's board of directors consists of Donald Trump, one Trump employee and Trump's FOUR eldest children (they put a max of half an hour each a week at last report in 2014). Trump has also personally been accused of god knows how many sexual assaults, affairs and acts of misconduct. But Clinton's husband is the dick. Unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 A Clinton sitting on the board of the Clinton Foundation? Whatever next! The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation, to give it its full name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Oh, and none of the Clintons receive any income from the foundation whatsoever. This info's not hard to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Gordons Gloves Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I, strangely, feel Trump would be a safer bet, Clinton just seems dangerous??? She'd have Putin pressing the button pdq! Putin won't be pressing the button if Trump is in charge, given that he has a very cosy relationship with him apparently. Sure, Hillary and Putin might lead us to the brink again, but unlikely that the button would ever be pushed. Contrast that with the fact that with the election of Trump it gives validation to the racists that will hunt down muslims and immigrants, the validation that it's ok to be a sexual predator and the validation that it's ok to mock the afflicted and it leads to a far less safe prospect. Oh - and Trump wants NATO to be either disbanded or pay massive amounts for it - that doesn't leave me with a feeling of safety. Putin won't be pressing the button if Trump is in charge, given that he has a very cosy relationship with him apparently. Sure, Hillary and Putin might lead us to the brink again, but unlikely that the button would ever be pushed. Contrast that with the fact that with the election of Trump it gives validation to the racists that will hunt down muslims and immigrants, the validation that it's ok to be a sexual predator and the validation that it's ok to mock the afflicted and it leads to a far less safe prospect. Oh - and Trump wants NATO to be either disbanded or pay massive amounts for it - that doesn't leave me with a feeling of safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Now that's one sided! Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation's board of directors consists of Donald Trump, one Trump employee and Trump's FOUR eldest children (they put a max of half an hour each a week at last report in 2014). Trump has also personally been accused of god knows how many sexual assaults, affairs and acts of misconduct. But Clinton's husband is the dick. Unbelievable. The point is Trump is not the only dick. What sticks in some people's gullet is the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign and its supporters making such a huge play of Trump's abuse of and disrespect towards women (no firm evidence of anything other than verbal abuse as yet) in the context of Bill's admitted abuse of his position with one White House intern (oh sorry of course he did not have sex with "that woman") and others' allegations which Hillary summarily dismissed at the time, insulting the women concerned. One of the latest Clinton ads digs up a tape of Trump of 20 or more years ago (the Clinton years) being asked if he treated women with respect to which he replies "I can't really say I do". At least Trump showed some self knowledge and honesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 A fine mess How did America get to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 The point is Trump is not the only dick. What sticks in some people's gullet is the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign and its supporters making such a huge play of Trump's abuse of and disrespect towards women (no firm evidence of anything other than verbal abuse as yet) in the context of Bill's admitted abuse of his position with one White House intern (oh sorry of course he did not have sex with "that woman") and others' allegations which Hillary summarily dismissed at the time, insulting the women concerned. One of the latest Clinton ads digs up a tape of Trump of 20 or more years ago (the Clinton years) being asked if he treated women with respect to which he replies "I can't really say I do". At least Trump showed some self knowledge and honesty. I don't disagree with any of those comments, but Trump is running for President and Bill Clinton isn't, so what Trump says and does is germane to the current election campaign. Bill Clinton's serial abuse of women while he was president shoudn't be a factor, imo. However, Hillary Clinton's insulting comments about the women her husband abused are relevant, and she should be called out for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 The point is Trump is not the only dick. What sticks in some people's gullet is the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign and its supporters making such a huge play of Trump's abuse of and disrespect towards women (no firm evidence of anything other than verbal abuse as yet) in the context of Bill's admitted abuse of his position with one White House intern (oh sorry of course he did not have sex with "that woman") and others' allegations which Hillary summarily dismissed at the time, insulting the women concerned. One of the latest Clinton ads digs up a tape of Trump of 20 or more years ago (the Clinton years) being asked if he treated women with respect to which he replies "I can't really say I do". At least Trump showed some self knowledge and honesty. You're joking, right? This is the same Trump who said in the debates, "No one respects women more than I do. No one." (At which point the audience audibly laughed) Nobody has claimed the Clintons are without flaw. But this is a dramatic abuse of false equivalence. It's the equivalent of every time Celtic shows up and trashes Tynecastle, and justifies it by pointing to one moderately objectionable sign in the home section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 The point is Trump is not the only dick. What sticks in some people's gullet is the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign and its supporters making such a huge play of Trump's abuse of and disrespect towards women (no firm evidence of anything other than verbal abuse as yet) in the context of Bill's admitted abuse of his position with one White House intern (oh sorry of course he did not have sex with "that woman") and others' allegations which Hillary summarily dismissed at the time, insulting the women concerned. One of the latest Clinton ads digs up a tape of Trump of 20 or more years ago (the Clinton years) being asked if he treated women with respect to which he replies "I can't really say I do". At least Trump showed some self knowledge and honesty. Seymour made some accusations and I responded, simple as that- some of them can be thrown harder back at Trump and one was an outright falsehood. I'm not the one making false claims (although I've read that 3 of Trump's kids are on the board, not 4, I'm happy to be corrected), and anyway, Bill Clinton isn't even running for office! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 You're joking, right? This is the same Trump who said in the debates, "No one respects women more than I do. No one." (At which point the audience audibly laughed) Nobody has claimed the Clintons are without flaw. But this is a dramatic abuse of false equivalence. It's the equivalent of every time Celtic shows up and trashes Tynecastle, and justifies it by pointing to one moderately objectionable sign in the home section. I said he was honest 20 years or more ago. He has since become a politician, like the Clintons, and like all politicians lies through his teeth when required. You think Bill's treatment of women (and Hillary's acceptance of it and excusing of it) is "one moderately objectionable sign"? More widely, if the treating women with respect was a necessary qualification to be President not many of the 40 odd Presidents would have made it to office. FWIW I think the Clinton campaign is overdoing the shock about Trump's attitude to women. It will go down well with the liberals and sophisticates on the coasts and the ultra-feminist and LBGT demographic, but may backfire elsewhere. You have to live a sheltered life if failure to respect women shocks you. Just read some of the threads about women in the Shed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) Seymour made some accusations and I responded, simple as that- some of them can be thrown harder back at Trump and one was an outright falsehood. I'm not the one making false claims (although I've read that 3 of Trump's kids are on the board, not 4, I'm happy to be corrected), and anyway, Bill Clinton isn't even running for office! He is running around the country campaigning for Hillary. And Hillary's effective condoning of Bill's behaviour is a matter of record. Accuse Bill and Hillary attacks the accusers. Accuse Trump and Hillary attacks Trump. Sheer hypocrisy. Edited November 2, 2016 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 He is running around the country campaigning for Hillary. And Hillary's effective condoning of Bill's behaviour is a matter of record. Accuse Bill and Hillary attacks the accusers. Accuse Trump and Hillary attacks Trump. Sheer hypocrisy.Every accusation Seymour made against the other candidate's spouse can be hit back at his actual candidate with topspin, except the one that was a lie. Now THAT'S hypocrisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I don't disagree with any of those comments, but Trump is running for President and Bill Clinton isn't, so what Trump says and does is germane to the current election campaign. Bill Clinton's serial abuse of women while he was president shoudn't be a factor, imo. However, Hillary Clinton's insulting comments about the women her husband abused are relevant, and she should be called out for them. Fair enough. What I was saying is that the contrast between what Hillary is saying now about the accusations against Trump and what she said about the accusations against Bill is germane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 A fine mess How did America get to this That, my friend will be a question which will haunt and baffle millions of people long after the votes have been cast and the new president inaugurated. If Clinton wins, then the Republicans will wonder how the heck someone like Trump was not only able to stand in the first place but win the parties nomination, a guy with no political experience whatsoever. I can see moves within the Republican party, if they are able to, to prevent this happening again, maybe only sitting senators, governors or the likes will be eligible to run. If Trump wins, then there will be serious questions raised within the Democratic party as to how someone with so much baggage, scandals, investigations etc etc was the parties nomination. Neither candidate should be anywhere near the White House IMO, and that gets us back to your original point, of how did America find itself where it is right now. But I'll leave you with this sobering thought. This time next week there will be a new American president elect and it could very well be a guy who's never held any political office in his life, a guy with no diplomatic experience whatsoever, a guy who is known not to listen to his advisors and he'll be in charge of the Worlds only super power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I, strangely, feel Trump would be a safer bet, Clinton just seems dangerous??? She'd have Putin pressing the button pdq!I there is some logic in that feeling. The closest to the nuclear Third World War came when an idealistic President with a penchant for interfering abroad to spread "freedom" round the world also felt the need to show to right wing critics that he wasn't soft on communism. So Kennedy found his policy being driven by right wing Cuban exiles, driving Castro and Cuba further into the arms of Russia. It was Reagan and Nixon, who were not challenged by the right, who came to an accommodation with Russia and China (despite Reagan's "Let's bomb Russia" gaffe). Putin has decided that Russia's interests are in Assad destroying ISIS in Syria. I think he is right (and in fact that it is also in our interests). Trump maybe recognises that, while other politicians in the West bleat about children being killed, which is what happens in war (including of course the wars the West starts with less clear and convincing objectives). I think Trump would also be less inclined to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries as the West has repeatedly done in North Africa and the Middle East with generally disastrous results for the populations of that region and for stability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Gordons Gloves Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 That, my friend will be a question which will haunt and baffle millions of people long after the votes have been cast and the new president inaugurated. If Clinton wins, then the Republicans will wonder how the heck someone like Trump was not only able to stand in the first place but win the parties nomination, a guy with no political experience whatsoever. I can see moves within the Republican party, if they are able to, to prevent this happening again, maybe only sitting senators, governors or the likes will be eligible to run. If Trump wins, then there will be serious questions raised within the Democratic party as to how someone with so much baggage, scandals, investigations etc etc was the parties nomination. Neither candidate should be anywhere near the White House IMO, and that gets us back to your original point, of how did America find itself where it is right now. But I'll leave you with this sobering thought. This time next week there will be a new American president elect and it could very well be a guy who's never held any political office in his life, a guy with no diplomatic experience whatsoever, a guy who is known not to listen to his advisors and he'll be in charge of the Worlds only super power. Add to that a guy who wants to demonize anyone that is different to him. In particular Muslims, immigrants, refugees, the LGBT community etc. If Clinton loses, the DNC have nobody to blame but themselves. Any other democratic presidential nominee would have had this sewn up weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I'm still in for Clinton with a 5-7 percentage point win. Early vote and ground game matters more than media nonsense at this late stage. I also suspect this will be the final outcome, give or take a point or two. And in electoral college terms, I think she'll win comfortably. If she doesn't, it'll be the biggest fluff of an open goal in the history of US politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I said he was honest 20 years or more ago. He has since become a politician, like the Clintons, and like all politicians lies through his teeth when required. You think Bill's treatment of women (and Hillary's acceptance of it and excusing of it) is "one moderately objectionable sign"? More widely, if the treating women with respect was a necessary qualification to be President not many of the 40 odd Presidents would have made it to office. FWIW I think the Clinton campaign is overdoing the shock about Trump's attitude to women. It will go down well with the liberals and sophisticates on the coasts and the ultra-feminist and LBGT demographic, but may backfire elsewhere. You have to live a sheltered life if failure to respect women shocks you. Just read some of the threads about women in the Shed. I don't expect everyone joining in late to read the entire thread, but the only thing shocking about Trump's comments was how many people who were kinda okay with Trump before but then decided that was the last straw. Because yes, if Trump's offenses are a trashed toilet and a few rows of broken seats, one moderately offensive sign is a gross overstatement for the Clintons' problems. He is a trainwreck of awfulness, from his anti-immigration hysteria to his talk of banning entry to the US for Muslims to his birtherism to his cheating contractors to lying about his philanthropy and committing tax fraud and his serial business failures and ignorance of his own privilege. So no, I'm not shocked by his comments about women any more than I'm shocked and embarrassed that the GOP has fallen to being a party that would nominate him, and the country and the world seem to be blind enough to think that one problematic email server or Bill's philandering somehow mean HRC is "just as bad." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Now that's one sided! Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation's board of directors consists of Donald Trump, one Trump employee and Trump's FOUR eldest children (they put a max of half an hour each a week at last report in 2014). Trump has also personally been accused of god knows how many sexual assaults, affairs and acts of misconduct. But Clinton's husband is the dick. Unbelievable. Trumps a dick I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Question for our American posters or anybody else who may know. If Trump wins, surely he'll have to give up being Chairman & President of the Trump Organisation? Surely he'll not be allowed to sit on the board of said organisation, for one when will he have the time to run a company and if he's running the company then he's not running the country, there is no way he can do both and then of course what happens when or if Trump companies start to get US government contracts, imagine the political shit storm that's going to cause. So does anybody know what happens, or are you lot perhaps going into uncharted territory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Every accusation Seymour made against the other candidate's spouse can be hit back at his actual candidate with topspin, except the one that was a lie. Now THAT'S hypocrisy I was responding to FA's post and not defending Trump you slurper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Putin won't be pressing the button if Trump is in charge, given that he has a very cosy relationship with him apparently. Sure, Hillary and Putin might lead us to the brink again, but unlikely that the button would ever be pushed. Contrast that with the fact that with the election of Trump it gives validation to the racists that will hunt down muslims and immigrants, the validation that it's ok to be a sexual predator and the validation that it's ok to mock the afflicted and it leads to a far less safe prospect. Oh - and Trump wants NATO to be either disbanded or pay massive amounts for it - that doesn't leave me with a feeling of safety. Putin won't be pressing the button if Trump is in charge, given that he has a very cosy relationship with him apparently. Sure, Hillary and Putin might lead us to the brink again, but unlikely that the button would ever be pushed. Contrast that with the fact that with the election of Trump it gives validation to the racists that will hunt down muslims and immigrants, the validation that it's ok to be a sexual predator and the validation that it's ok to mock the afflicted and it leads to a far less safe prospect. Oh - and Trump wants NATO to be either disbanded or pay massive amounts for it - that doesn't leave me with a feeling of safety. You have to be trolling. There can be no way you wrote that and meant it. At least not sober. Unfriggin'believable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Every accusation Seymour made against the other candidate's spouse can be hit back at his actual candidate with topspin, except the one that was a lie. Now THAT'S hypocrisy Chelsea is a munter that's not a lie. Although I notice auto correct changed it to hunter. As for her not getting paid. Aye right enough she probably pays for the joy of working for mummy & daddy out her own pocket. As for the syrup's kids FA made no mention of them in his post so I had no reason to include them in my response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Question for our American posters or anybody else who may know. If Trump wins, surely he'll have to give up being Chairman & President of the Trump Organisation? Surely he'll not be allowed to sit on the board of said organisation, for one when will he have the time to run a company and if he's running the company then he's not running the country, there is no way he can do both and then of course what happens when or if Trump companies start to get US government contracts, imagine the political shit storm that's going to cause. So does anybody know what happens, or are you lot perhaps going into uncharted territory? Any normal candidate would have already declared that he was giving it up. At this point, who the f--- knows. A lot of us speculate that Trump would never serve the full term -- that'd he'd get 6 months into it and get frustrated that he can't just say things that come into his head and yell at people, and decide to quit. At which point, we'd be left with President Pence, which is still extremely horrifying albeit in a much more predictable sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I don't expect everyone joining in late to read the entire thread, but the only thing shocking about Trump's comments was how many people who were kinda okay with Trump before but then decided that was the last straw. Because yes, if Trump's offenses are a trashed toilet and a few rows of broken seats, one moderately offensive sign is a gross overstatement for the Clintons' problems. He is a trainwreck of awfulness, from his anti-immigration hysteria to his talk of banning entry to the US for Muslims to his birtherism to his cheating contractors to lying about his philanthropy and committing tax fraud and his serial business failures and ignorance of his own privilege. So no, I'm not shocked by his comments about women any more than I'm shocked and embarrassed that the GOP has fallen to being a party that would nominate him, and the country and the world seem to be blind enough to think that one problematic email server or Bill's philandering somehow mean HRC is "just as bad."I don't know if the first words are accusing me of being an ignorant Johnny-come-lately to the thread. In fact I have followed it from the beginning although contributing more intermittently than others. I have also followed the campaign in the media and while in California for a month in June and in New York last month. My recent posts were not defending Trump. I hope Clinton wins. But I was criticising the OTT obsession with Trump and his women and arguing that it may well be counterproductive for the Clinton campaign, especially given the hypocrisy angle which contributes to the dislike, indeed hatred of Hillary of many Americans, men and women. While in New York the media reaction after the last debate was 90% about Trump's "you're a nasty woman" comment. Now in the grand scheme of things that rates about 2 out of 10 as a political insult, yet it was played up in the belief in the liberal media that it would so outrage women (and some men) that it would swing things in Hillary's favour. I doubted that at the time and still doubt it but Hillary bangs on. As you point out there are many things on which Trump is (IMO) more vulnerable and which may actually if he is elected impact more on the American people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Chelsea is a munter that's not a lie. Although I notice auto correct changed it to hunter. As for her not getting paid. Aye right enough she probably pays for the joy of working for mummy & daddy out her own pocket. As for the syrup's kids FA made no mention of them in his post so I had no reason to include them in my response. Well it must be wrong if you say "aye right", jesus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I don't know if the first words are accusing me of being an ignorant Johnny-come-lately to the thread. In fact I have followed it from the beginning although contributing more intermittently than others. I have also followed the campaign in the media and while in California for a month in June and in New York last month. My recent posts were not defending Trump. I hope Clinton wins. But I was criticising the OTT obsession with Trump and his women and arguing that it may well be counterproductive for the Clinton campaign, especially given the hypocrisy angle which contributes to the dislike, indeed hatred of Hillary of many Americans, men and women. While in New York the media reaction after the last debate was 90% about Trump's "you're a nasty woman" comment. Now in the grand scheme of things that rates about 2 out of 10 as a political insult, yet it was played up in the belief in the liberal media that it would so outrage women (and some men) that it would swing things in Hillary's favour. I doubted that at the time and still doubt it but Hillary bangs on. As you point out there are many things on which Trump is (IMO) more vulnerable and which may actually if he is elected impact more on the American people. Fair enough. The main thing I was taking issue with was that Trump was honest and self-aware. I think he has exactly none on of either quality, nor has he ever. If he said that about respecting women, it's because he thought it was the punchy, attention-getting thing to do at the time, not because he'd given it any thought. Also, I had an additional thought on this after I hit "post:" imagine the political shit storm that's going to cause. I realize it's possible, but at the moment it's beyond me to imagine a bigger political shit storm than the one we're living in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I there is some logic in that feeling. The closest to the nuclear Third World War came when an idealistic President with a penchant for interfering abroad to spread "freedom" round the world also felt the need to show to right wing critics that he wasn't soft on communism. So Kennedy found his policy being driven by right wing Cuban exiles, driving Castro and Cuba further into the arms of Russia. It was Reagan and Nixon, who were not challenged by the right, who came to an accommodation with Russia and China (despite Reagan's "Let's bomb Russia" gaffe). Putin has decided that Russia's interests are in Assad destroying ISIS in Syria. I think he is right (and in fact that it is also in our interests). Trump maybe recognises that, while other politicians in the West bleat about children being killed, which is what happens in war (including of course the wars the West starts with less clear and convincing objectives). I think Trump would also be less inclined to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries as the West has repeatedly done in North Africa and the Middle East with generally disastrous results for the populations of that region and for stability. I doubt if American foreign policy will change much regardless of who wins the Presidency. On the other hand, I think there will be a huge difference in domestic issues, especially if the new President has a compliant Congress. Those other areas include: - appointment of Supreme Court justices - the approach to climate change - deteriorating racial tensions, especially with police - Roe v Wade - affordable health care - the $20 trillion national debt - illegal immigration - gun control The Republicans and Democrats have radically different views on how to address those matters. Most of us think that the Presidential campaign has been a gong show. That could just be a taste of what's to come in the next four years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Any normal candidate would have already declared that he was giving it up. At this point, who the f--- knows. A lot of us speculate that Trump would never serve the full term -- that'd he'd get 6 months into it and get frustrated that he can't just say things that come into his head and yell at people, and decide to quit. At which point, we'd be left with President Pence, which is still extremely horrifying albeit in a much more predictable sense. Personally I get the distinct impression that Trump hasn't got a clue what he's about to let himself in for, if he won the presidency that is. It's probably just me, but I just think he thinks that he'll be able to treat the presidency like running his companies, he'll wander into the oval office at around 8 am, hold a meeting with some advisors, issue some orders, read and sign some papers, then off to lunch, maybe get a few holes in (steady now) of golf in the afternoon. I don't think he realises it's a 24 hour 365 days a year job, as said maybe it's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.