http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html Wow, it looks like Kasich really was offered the most powerful VP of all time, in charge of domestic and foreign affairs, so that Trump could work on "make America great again"...
He just cant help himself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-even-legal-immigrants-are-a-security-threat/ He now wants to ban LEGAL immigrants from the Philippines where 84% are Christians.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Oh, wow. <a href="https://t.co/CKpbiNSutz">pic.twitter.com/CKpbiNSutz</a></p>— Jason Sparks (@sparksjls) <a href="https://twitter.com/sparksjls/status/762321415387254784">August 7, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Is that like a false reality PR post? This election is going to get weird. There is no real on the internet and Trump is running a surreal campaign. Freedom of speech is chaos, vetted opinions need to be sought out over the noise. I don't think we will learn until after this campaign though. Buckle up!
1. For all the "economic anxiety" talk: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump leads Clinton w/those making 100K+, she leads with those making below it: <a href="https://t.co/fShglcvZB0">pic.twitter.com/fShglcvZB0</a></p>— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) <a href="https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/762292450064998400">August 7, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 2. I don't think Trump can talk himself out of the hole that he is in now: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Clinton lead on Trump in "understands international affairs" is huge: <a href="https://t.co/aHs8SyalSV">pic.twitter.com/aHs8SyalSV</a></p>— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) <a href="https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/762291748441907202">August 7, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Not only is he viewed by a majority of voters as not having the temperament and knowledge for the office, he is also viewed as not trust-worthy despite all his supposed "tell it like it is" brand. His trust-worthiness number is in fact lower than Hillary's. If a rather large majority of voters don't really trust Trump, I am not sure what impact an attack coming out of his mouth (or his twitter account) is going to make. That 34% or whatever of his hard-core base will believe him, but will the people outside of that sphere, even those who don't like HRC much listen to him? Something similar can be said about HRC (to a lesser extent, I think). However, this is where having allies help. She doesn't have to do her own attacks-- She's got people who are more popular and most trusted doing making her point for her (Obama, Kaine, Biden, the Khans, the #NeverTrump Republicans). Trump himself has also been helping to make Hillary's point. 3. At this point, it feels that some external event will need to happen, and Trump will need to actually take advantage of it rather than screwing it up, to shake up the race. We'll need another juicy WikiLeaks batch of emails, a war or a financial crisis between now and November.
Wouldn't they just replace her with Kaine, find a new VP nominee, and move forward? Kaine, who is basically your generic Democratic national candidate, might even up doing better at the polls anyway given that he has far less baggage.
This seems to be the most frequent response whenever criticizing Hillary Clinton. Protect the SCOTUS! I am a Republican/libertarian. I've voted for a few Democrats in local races, but by and large, I consider myself a moderate Republican. However, I know that Donald Trump is not a Republican, nor is there a conservative thread in his body. So it really irks me when conservatives respond to anything negative about Trump, anything positive about Hillary, or anytime you generally try to correct the record, with something along the lines of, "you know what you're getting with Hillary, more liberal justices, so Trump is automatically a better option." There are a million things to disagree with these people about in regard to a Trump or Clinton presidency, but this has to be the most annoying. Donald Trump has released a list of judges he would supposedly choose if elected. They have taken his word as gold. He's never been conservative or Republican, yet now all of the sudden he is the man who is supposed to ensure our court doesn't tilt too far to the left? How do people put trust in this man? I just don't understand. I don't think he's a racist, I don't think he's necessarily a moron, but I do think he acts like a shock jock and is unfit for the presidency. That isn't to say Hillary is fit, but Donald Trump surely isn't. They're both terrible choices for entirely different reasons. Every Trump supporter that gets upset with me for criticizing Trump or refusing to support him, are blaming me and people like me for giving Clinton the election. However, it's the 14 million Republican primary voters that gave this election to Clinton, by nominating a personality (an obnoxious one at that) and not a serious Republican candidate. I mean at the very least they could have chosen an obnoxious reality star that was an ACTUAL Republican. /rant
I like this rant. I also like turning the tables on Trump supporters and blaming them for electing Hillary. I think Trump played these angry folks like a violin and the only reason I think he might not have planned to give this to Hillary all along is that he is such a narcissist that he couldn't possibly have started something thinking he might fail.
I mean, come on, a bit misogynistic, eh? And since when has Trump ever ridden a motorcycle? Why do they have a Trump booth here in Sturgis? Please.
I agree. We had 16-17 choices on the Republican side, many of whom had legitimate experience and accomplishments. Almost none of whom had the outrageous, vitriolic personality of Donald Trump. We chose the reality TV guy. We could have nominated probably any of those other guys and beat Hillary Clinton. But we chose Trump... When discussing candidates early in the process, people get so upset when you talk about electability. "That's the problem with today's politics," they say. And in general I kind of agree. We shouldn't nominate people we don't support or trust...which is exactly why I question people's support of Trump. How do you trust a guy who's never been a Republican before and has been very vocal of that fact with his previous public comments on policy matters. So not only did you choose a guy that isn't electable in a general campaign, but you chose a guy who doesn't actually represent any of the things you supposedly support. You're absolutely right. He tapped into their anger, and that's all they latched onto. Maybe we do need literacy and poll taxes...
This is hilarious - from his speech today: What a great vision of America....in 1916 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ican_metal_into_the_spine_of_this_nation.html
No you dont. The Republican narrative has been about anger and grievance since Obama was elected. This was bound to happen. Tea party victories have been fueled by anger and distrust and by politicians who made promises they couldn't keep. You had politicians who campaigned on repealing the ACA, reversing Dodd-Frank and other items that weren't possible. Everyone knew Obama would veto those things and until 2014, Democrats had the Senate as well. So naturally you have a base stoked by anger by politicians who made promises they couldn't keep. And here comes a buffoon who could capitalize on that. This was years in the making. Rather than talking about silly things like poll taxes, demand more from your leaders. They should be campaigning in reality rather than a fantasy world where they could somehow magically make Obama disappear.
First off, I was not serious about poll taxes. And Tea Party angst was not entirely about Democrats/Obama, they were just as much disgusted with their own party for not following the platform for years -- and not just Presidential candidates -- and for making promises that never came through. I agree, much of that is on politicians who campaigned from Day 1 of the Obama Admin to make him a one-term President. They set themselves up for disaster. That being said, it's entirely appropriate to campaign on reversing a particular act that you and your constituents collectively oppose, even if it's not politically feasible due to votes. Trump supporters have basically Tea Party'd the Tea Party. Trump was an outsider to even the supposed outsiders, and to them, that was better than anyone else. It's foolish. And you're telling me to "demand more from my leaders," who exactly am I to demand more from? This was a voters decision. There were plenty of candidates discussing the issues, they were just ignored due to Trump's antics attracting most of the media attention. So I disagree with your assertion that the Republican party has campaigned simply on anger. Otherwise, I'm not really sure what we're disagreeing on.
I don't think that would hand the election to Trump. He would still lose to Tim Kaine or Smokin Joe Biden.
