Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
What you fail to understand is that Trump has never made an error in his entire life. Just ask him.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?
- Thread starter Joey McGee
- Start date
What you fail to understand is that Trump has never made an error in his entire life. Just ask him.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
If you want to compare her to Hitler, then I am fine with that. I disagree, but I am not going to try to talk you out of it.
Similarly, if you want to compare her to Himmler, same thing.
And I will go so far as to say that as political insults go, Hitlery was pretty good - a few years ago.
But Himmlery? Really? Aren't you even a little embarrassed by the shoehorning? What's next, Goebbelsery?
Last edited:
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Noztradamus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,680
That's a beverage. not a language
No he meant "her".
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
The former, in sufficient quantity, leads to the latter in my experience
Exactly!
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
I was referring to all the people who call her Hitlery - those people compare Clinton to Hitler. I can see where the confusion comes from: the person appointing Himmlery would be Hitler, and in this metaphor, that would be Trump. But no, I was referring to Hillary + Hitler = Hitlery.
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
I would not vote for either. I would vote for other things on the ballot, though.
I think that a vote for Stein hurts both of them, because it's a vote for everything they stand against.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Okay. That seems logical.
(The Trump supporters may say "Great. One less vote for Crooked Hillary." And the Hillary supporters may say "At least there was not a vote for Crazy Trump.")
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,793
It's far from clear who Stein or Johnsons would take votes from.
In advertising, when comparing two products (one solid and cheaper, the other better but more expensive) it is often the presence of a third (inferior and even more expensive) that causes us to spend more money than we otherwise would have.
Johnsons seems to be even more open to immigration (possibly the key issue this election) than Clinton, which makes me think he will take cause voters to shift from Trump to Hillary.
In advertising, when comparing two products (one solid and cheaper, the other better but more expensive) it is often the presence of a third (inferior and even more expensive) that causes us to spend more money than we otherwise would have.
Johnsons seems to be even more open to immigration (possibly the key issue this election) than Clinton, which makes me think he will take cause voters to shift from Trump to Hillary.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Don't elections ultimately come down to JOBS (and the economy)?
1. If so, stemming immigration that dilutes jobs would be a plus.
2. Renegotiating trade deals to protect American industry seems a plus.
3. A business plan to cut bureaucracy and stimulate the economy seems attractive.
4. Stopping US companies from taking jobs overseas and paying almost no taxes (see EU/Ireland and Apple) seems a positive.
And who cares whether the person is likeable? Can they deliver? Or might deliver - and be worth a shot?
When standing in the voting booth -more of the same (which is not working), or change?
Wait for the debate - about policy and values.
Last edited:
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Though detailed tables are not provided, from the polling details I read Johnson's voters split in thirds: one third would vote Johnson whatever the circumstance, the other two go equally to Trump and Clinton. Stein's voters, a third go to Clinton and two thirds stay with Stein. However, in 4-way presidential polls Clinton's advantage shrinks when compared with 2-way polls, which partially contradicts what I said above.
As always, the difference is in the questionnaire and polling method. Forced Clinton vs Trump are giving now 53-54/46-47. Not forced Clinton vs Trump give about 4% for other candidates no matter that option is not provided (but tallied as an answer). When offered a full range of candidates, third-party candidates raise to 15%.
In fact, Johnson is doing so well in Utah, Colorado and New Mexico that he's guaranteeing those states to be blue. Imagine that, a blue Utah!
As always, the difference is in the questionnaire and polling method. Forced Clinton vs Trump are giving now 53-54/46-47. Not forced Clinton vs Trump give about 4% for other candidates no matter that option is not provided (but tallied as an answer). When offered a full range of candidates, third-party candidates raise to 15%.
In fact, Johnson is doing so well in Utah, Colorado and New Mexico that he's guaranteeing those states to be blue. Imagine that, a blue Utah!
NoahFence
Banned
Wait for the debates....
That's precious!
And it's not the immigrants fault regarding the jobs. Its the bottom-feeders that hire them.
That's precious!
And it's not the immigrants fault regarding the jobs. Its the bottom-feeders that hire them.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
It would seem a plus. But international negotiations with countries like China are a delicate manner. Donald "I know more than the generals, I know more than foreign policy advisors" Trump may not understand all aspects of the negotiations. China might say, "Mr. Trump we will accede to all your demands if your government (1)stops inviting ROC leaders to Washington, (2) moves all military vessels at least 1000 miles from Taiwan, (3) and supports all our South China Seas claims." Would Trump understand the ramifications?
Here we agree.
Here we disagree.
If Trump had a record of delivering, then I would consider your position. But Trump does not have a record of delivering. He has a record of making sure he gets money before everything falls apart.
Furthermore, if he is worth a shot, then how come so many members of his own party are distancing themselves from him if not downright denouncing him?
If Trump had managed to really pivot, then he might even be leading in all the swing states. But he didn't. He let his temper and ego incessantly get the better of him and he managed to turn more and more of the country against him.
In addition, one need only look at his campaign to see that he does not know how to deliver. How many key states have slipped through his fingers because of his refusing to use data when allocating resources and his dragging his feet in constructing a ground campaign. The press has pointed out that in some critical states, the Trump campaign didn't have a working phone number! This is a guy who deserves a shot!? Not hardly.
But before we can answer that question we have to ask why are President Obams's plans not working. How much of that not working is the result of a policy being flawed and how much of that is the result of an obstructionist Congress?
Again, here we agree.
Or perhaps we don't. I have already bet some money on Trump not showing up for three debates.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Wait for the debates....
That's precious!
And it's not the immigrants fault regarding the jobs. Its the bottom-feeders that hire them.
You now
(laughing hysterically)You after the debates and the election
(sobbing uncontrollably and pounding the floor)Tero
Philosopher
I'm waiting for cost estimate for The Wall from after the Mexico trip. How much per foot? Non union Mexican labor of course.
NoahFence
Banned
You now
You after the debates and the election
I want you to explain to me, using math, how he's going to win the election when he's going to lose Women, Minorities and sane whites.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,094
By not allowing said minorities to vote. The GOP is doing this and is pretty good at it.