The New York Times is, you mean. Here is a link to their recent article about this phenomenon: Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat Also, we actually have a whole thread about the topic of this article (Registered Democrats for Trump). Here it is, in case you missed it: [B]http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=271478[/B]
Holy crap. I can't believe I took the time to politely respond to your assertion about the poll, and show definitively that the data absolutely does not show what you say it does. No response from you in the very thread you created, and now you're back in here crowing the same misinformation. It's such a simple thing to see when one reads the source which you quoted in your own OP, there should at least be some embarrassment on your part to discover how wrong you got it. I don't remember you being as trollish as TJ or texx or others so I'm surprised at this. Get your butt back in your thread and make a rebuttal.
The New York Times wrote the article. Here it is, starting with the title: Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat If this is just too upsetting for you, without even so much as a trigger warning, then you need to get with the NYT and ask them for a retraction, I guess.
He's clearly not intelligent enough to process the information that he posts in these threads, so he just ignores counter arguments and then regurgitates the same garbage over and over. He's a shining example of what the Republican Party has become: dumb people who think that if they yell the loudest and ruffle the feathers of people who disagree with them that they win the argument.
Bwahaha. And now you are down to name calling and personal attacks. That is the sound of you tapping out.
Tapping out from what? There's not even a debate here, every one of your threads is just you posting a bunch of crap and not responding to anyone who brings up a valid counter argument. I really don't know what it is you think you're accomplishing, people like you are exactly why I went from being a moderate who voted primarily Republican to a moderate who pretty much just votes Democratic now. You're the type of low information voter that Trump and Cruz target, you're just too stupid to realize it.
Aw, poor baby. Facing the truth is too hard, so instead of making an actual rebuttal you've retreated to trolling. I see you're picking up tex's schtick. It's too bad to see you sink, but I can see how the present state of affairs has pushed you to desperation. Even tex's troll game has been slipping lately. The constant drip of embarrassment coming from the republican primary must be grating, as you watch the country shift away from the right in disgust. What a sad time for you, staring down a long road into the barrel of national defeat. Cheering for Cruz and defending Trump, while knowing that the far, far majority of Americans revile them both and would support Hillary over them in droves (and easily defeat any "establishment" candidate as well.) How does it feel, knowing that even if the republicans nominate a not-bat****-crazy candidate, they'll lose handily to Hillary Clinton? Must hurt, huh? Hey, you wipe away those tears, lilprentice. There's months and months of bad news and numbers to deflect.
i think politics is very stupid by design to keep the power hungry buffoons busy with their nonsense back and forth
Kirsten Powers weighs in with this article at USA Today. She appears to be one of the few leftists who identify themselves as feminists who really are advocates for ALL women and not just those who share their leftist political priorities: Notice how Kirsten has laid out the standards that the feminist left has applied to this issue as the measure that should be applied to Hillary and Bill Clinton. Also, let's not forget that Hillary has aligned herself with these expectations when she said recently that sexual assault victims have the right to be believed.
Hillary Clinton is running for president, which means Bill Clinton’s sex life is relevant again. Donald Trump mentioned it last week, jabbing the candidate and the former president in a tweet marked by his unique syntax. “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong!” On Monday, citing Trump, ABC News reporter Cecilia Vega asked Bill Clinton whether his affairs were “fair game.” The ex-president was flustered. At the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus warned Team Clinton that Bill’s past behavior was a real liability for the campaign, and writing for National Journal, Ron Fournier cites “senior Democrats” who “worry the old allegations will gain new legs.” This worry—and Trump’s obvious bet that he can harm Hillary using Bill—might make sense if this were 2004 or even 2008. But in 2016, it’s an odd—even bad—bet. Why? Because much of the American electorate is too young to care, and even if it did, political attacks don’t work the way they once did. This November, if projections hold true, 31 percent of all eligible voters—68 million people—will be between 18 and 35 years old. This year’s youngest voters, in other words, were born at the tail end of Bill Clinton’s second term, in 1998. At most, they might remember the 2008 election. Most likely, their earliest political memory is the re-election of Barack Obama. At the other end, the oldest voters in this group might remember Bill Clinton—they were 10 or 11 when he was elected, and teenagers when he won re-election. The most conservative people in this cohort might respond to attacks on Clinton for his infidelity, but they are a minority. Americans who turned 18 when Bill Clinton was president are among the most liberal voters in the electorate. The only group more liberal are voters who turned 18 under George W. Bush. They account for most of the 68 million, and overwhelmingly backed Obama in 2008 and 2012. Will this group care about Bill Clinton’s infidelity? Anything is possible. But odds are that they won’t, and that Trump’s attacks—along with similar jabs from other Republicans—will fall short, for the simple reason that they’re too young for it to matter to their political identity. This gets to two broader points about this election. The first is that, for as much as Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush have been criticized as past-their-prime in national politics, it’s also true that they’re essentially unknown to large numbers of voters. A younger country means both candidates have a chance to introduce and redefine themselves, which Clinton is trying to do, hence interviews with celebrities like Lena Dunham and a forthcoming appearance on the comedy Broad City. The second is that the GOP coalition isn’t just whiter than the one backing the Democrats; it’s considerably older, too. If the Bill Clinton attacks make any sense, it’s only as a tool for mobilizing conservative voters; after all, the typical Republican voter is closer to their 50s than their 30s, and has a clear memory of the Clinton years. This underscores the extent to which there are two separate electorates in American politics that no longer overlap. Republicans talk to one group of Americans, Democrats to another. And in turn, that illustrates one of the fundamentals of contemporary political life: Persuasion is a dead letter. You don’t attack to move voters from one side to another—the “swing voter” has largely disappeared—you attack to boost your party. Bill Clinton’s infidelity might become an issue in this election, but it won’t take votes from Hillary. Instead, it will just remind Republicans why they wanted to vote against Democrats in the first place. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...inton_s_extramarital_affairs_reveals_how.html
Apparently the Democratic talking points here are to insist this about Bill Clinton, but somehow not about Hillary Clinton. This is where your article misses the mark. The only reason anyone cares about this now is because Hillary has been out on the campaign trail 'Playing the woman's card,' complete with comments suggesting that survivors of sexual harassment and assault should be believed. This is a problem for her, because not only does her husband have a long list of women who have claimed to be victims of his sexual abuse, in some cases with women who were his subordinates in the workplace, but she has herself intimidated and harassed these women in an effort to silence their efforts to hold him accountable, and HILLARY is now fronting her campaign with this same person. Hillary has done this to herself. If she wants this to go away, she will have to retire her husband and refrain from 'Playing the woman's card' any further during this campaign. Otherwise, it is SHE that is fair game. Her husband is just going to be the tool that is used to hold her accountable with.
Yeah.... Donald Trump's ex-wife accused him of RAPE...... so that should end all this BS. Candidate (wife) of man accused >>>> Candidate accused of RAPE by ex-wife
