Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (Read 391732 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #750 –
I think people see what they want to see. Hillary was terrible.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!
 

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #752 –
I predicted a trump victory months ago and was mocked, told to look at the polls. Funny they haven't  been brought up in a while, wonder why? Not that they matter, Hillary will lose the election because she's  a terrible candidate.  Americans want change so why would they elect the same party with a vastly inferior corrupt leader?
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #753 –
Nice article from Tony Wright in the Age:

Quote
... let's not try to judge the debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton from any halfway rational position.

That would require us to announce that Clinton won the thing because she mostly made sense, understood matters of policy, maintained her cool and kept a straight face in the presence of low-camp burlesque.

We're not in that universe any more.

Call a win for Clinton and you'd be confirming to Trump's supporters what to them is the obvious: Clinton is a more polished performer who knows her debating stuff ... because she's a member of the elite!

Until recently, the definition of elite was "a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society". Just the select group from which might emerge a worthy president, you might imagine.

But that was then. Elites in the moron-Trump era are to be despised because, umm, they're superior.

As for Clinton's frequent calls during the debate for the fact checkers, who needs facts when Donald Trump is frothing?

Let's just do what Donald does and tell a bare-faced lie.

He won.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election/donald-trump-won-and-hillary-clinton-lost-thats-a-lie-but-it-suits-the-times-20160927-grpiec.html
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #754 –
OMG, what about that face that Trump pulled towards the end of the debate?  It looked like the pissed-off supervillain face we've all seen in Bond films when the baddy realises things are going down the toilet.  Maybe he was auditioning for the next Bond film.  If so, he blitzed the audition.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #756 –
Quote from: madbluboy on
I predicted a trump victory months ago and was mocked, told to look at the polls. Funny they haven't  been brought up in a while, wonder why? Not that they matter, Hillary will lose the election because she's  a terrible candidate.  Americans want change so why would they elect the same party with a vastly inferior corrupt leader?

Have a look at the polls MBB ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html

The polls analysis gives Clinton a 70% chance of winning but I guess she could still lose . . . if the Republicans dump Trump.

And I just have to share a mate's take on the debate:

Quote
Just spent 90 minutes that I'll never get back watching these two, one a congenital liar and the other a narcissistic maniac unable to complete a sentence in English. Once the nuclear!!! The cyber is really bad!!! We shooda took their oil. Underwhelming in the extreme but Trump in a galaxy of his own as a nightmare. Clinton is just a regular nightmare.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #757 –
Quote from: DJC on
Nice article from Tony Wright in the Age:

I wonder though whether Hillary or Trump has "emerged from the ranks of the elite" or whether they are both lackeys of elite groupings?
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #758 –
Are you guys really arguing who won a debate? 

People are going to give a biased answer based on who they wanted to win. 

What a farcical democratic process.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #760 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
Are you guys really arguing who won a debate? 

People are going to give a biased answer based on who they wanted to win. 

What a farcical democratic process.

I don't have an opinion on who won Thry, but the anti-Democrat media are giving it to Clinton. Perhaps it's a double bluff  ;)

As to the process, I have to keep reminding myself that the US democratic model is a product of the 18th century and is hopelessly outdated.  Of course, ours is a more modern 19th century product.  It's just as well because we are equally conservative when it comes to changing the constitution.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #761 –
Quote from: madbluboy on
I predicted a trump victory months ago and was mocked, told to look at the polls. Funny they haven't  been brought up in a while, wonder why? Not that they matter, Hillary will lose the election because she's  a terrible candidate.  Americans want change so why would they elect the same party with a vastly inferior corrupt leader?

Polls are up and down and unreliable unlike here. The only consistent thing is majority if them have Clinton on front by an average of 3%. Not only that it comes down to polls in individual states as states there have a different amount of delegates. If you lead in California that's worth 55 delegates, Hilary is way in front there, where if you lead in a smaller state it might only be worth 5 delegates. On that basis Hilary is actually well in front.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #762 –
Interesting challenge for Trump.  Merely dangling the issue of Bill Clinton's indiscretions won't do much for him.  He'll have to do it directly and explain how this taints Hillary.  A direct attack may well be fatal for him.  Not only is he likely to pull the roof down on himself, it would actually allow Hillary to gain sympathy as she was cheated on and not the cheater.  To suggest she failed women because she stood behind Bill rather than his accusers verges on bizarre. I'd love to know if any women, feminist or not, sympathise with the likes of Genifer Flowers who made money from boasting about having an affair with Bill.  On the other hand, Trump also cheated on his wives, so how does this issue help Trump?

The more serious attack would be to go after the allegations made by Paula Yates and Juanita Broadderick.  The latter alleged rape but provided a sworn statement that there was never any rape before recanting the statement.  More importantly, Trump has faced rape and sexual assault claims too.  An ex-wife alleged rape in divorce proceedings even if she has tried to fudge that subsequently.  The wife of a businessman he was dealing with alleged he groped her.  And most amazingly, he faces a civil suit in which the plaintiff alleges he raped her when she was a child of 14 or so.  He's playing around with explosives.

I'd imagine that Clinton will be quick to nail him about the child rape case if he opens up the issue.  No doubt, Clinton doesn't want to go there first as it would be the ultimate in negative mudslinging, would open up Bill's issues and the case may not have much to it.  But if he attacks her with a half-baked allegation that she should answer for Bill's sins, especially if he peddles unproven rape allegations, then it would be fair game.  I suspect that most voters would say then that he brought it on himself.  Imagine Hillary asking him if he did rape a child after tying her to a bed at a party thrown by a convicted paedophile and whether he threatened that she would regret it if she told anyone.  What the hell could he say?  That would be an amazing moment.

I reckon if you're standing in petrol, playing with matches isn't a good idea.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #763 –
Odd spot in today's Age:

Quote
The Oregonian newspaper, which serves a US state that has legitimised cannabis, offered, as a pre-presidential debate service,  and experts' guide to the nine best 'weed strains' to get voters through the Clinton-Trump televised stoush, offering the best options to reduce nausea and stress.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #764 –
It's good to see that the ABC's News 24 has got its priorities right.  Live coverage of a rambling Trump was just cut short in order to cover a presser by Sydney's Josh Kennedy.  The latter certainly spoke more clearly and made more sense, not that Trump had set the bar all that high.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball