• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Practice saying "President Clinton."

Trump's scampaign is going to implode, and Hillary is sadly going to be President. The year the GOP could have shut down Obama we instead chose the chump... just... mind boggled.

The premise behind the OP is that there was no campaign to implode. It was all glitter and fireworks this whole time.
 
Find a source not behind a paywall would ya?
+1

Worked fine for me, and I've never subscribed to Washington Post for anything ever.
I'm not getting a pay wall, and I have no subscription to the Washington Post.
Many pay sites have a free monthly or initial use allotment of free reads.

If you've hit that limit by clicking on other forum posters' links here, you're SOL. Apparently some forum members such as Renea, myself, and others have hit the WaPo Online limit, but you and some others have not:

***

YOU'VE READ YOUR MONTHLY LIMIT OF FREE ARTICLES

Washington Post Subscriptions
You obviously love great journalism.
With special savings on our National Digital edition, you'll never miss a single story again.

Get the National Digital edition
Show me more offers


***


Maybe I just have my settings to delete cookies after I close my browser. Dunno, don't care. It's just the Washington Post.
You may not care, but it interferes with other forum members ability to view your source materials and effectively participate in your thread.

Unfortunately it's not always readily apparent a given site is a pay site, until you run afoul of the free viewing limit.
 
+1


Many pay sites have a free monthly or initial use allotment of free reads.

If you've hit that limit by clicking on other forum posters' links here, you're SOL. Apparently some forum members such as Renea, myself, and others have hit the WaPo Online limit, but you and some others have not:

***

YOU'VE READ YOUR MONTHLY LIMIT OF FREE ARTICLES

Washington Post Subscriptions
You obviously love great journalism.
With special savings on our National Digital edition, you'll never miss a single story again.

Get the National Digital edition
Show me more offers


***


You may not care, but it interferes with other forum members ability to view your source materials and effectively participate in your thread.

Unfortunately it's not always readily apparent a given site is a pay site, until you run afoul of the free viewing limit.

I'm sorry to hear you couldn't access the article. There was an amazing photo of Michelle Obama wrestling a lion with one hand while strangling a Nazi with the other. Oh well.
 
I'm sorry to hear you couldn't access the article. There was an amazing photo of Michelle Obama wrestling a lion with one hand while strangling a Nazi with the other. Oh well.
No problem, it happens - thanks for the response.

But as good as that sounds, I'm not going to send them my money! ;)
 
Trump is in for a rude awakening. The press gleefully gave him all the airtime he wanted. Allowed him to say crazy stuff and did not call him on it. Good for both rating and at the same time tilted the primary to someone Hillary may actually be able to beat.

Now that he is firmly in control of the nomination, the same press is going to kill him over the same words they fawned over a couple of months ago.

They've called him on it, esp. Fox News (see Megyn Kelly).
 
Not strolling in any bubble. Just observing. Lot's of extraordinary effort by the Progressive Machine to find any nail to hang a coat on. To me, that suggest substantial fear.

I didn't deny Hillary will be President, but given how offensive she is to a very large population of people, it seems wise to consider the jury is still out.

I think you're right, I think a lot of people want a reason not to vote for Hillary and there's a lot of time left, including the debates, which are probably going to break viewing records.
 
You might want to stroll outside of your bubble to get an idea of Trump's favorability ratings. Otherwise you might make the same mistake Republicans did right before the Obama/Romney election, or the same mistake I made right before the Bush/Kerry election.

Or the same mistake the Republican establishment made before Trump took them out one by one. Did you believe Trump would come out on top when the race began, or even have a remote chance?
 
I think you're right, I think a lot of people want a reason not to vote for Hillary and there's a lot of time left, including the debates, which are probably going to break viewing records.

Hey JC. Long time. Trust all is well.

Indeed, there is much water yet to flow under the bridge. People have been wrong so many times this election season, I wonder why they keep setting themselves up for to repeat the same result.

It should be crystal clear that people are so upset by the nature of things, there is little that will get in the way of their desire to do something about it.
 
Hey JC. Long time. Trust all is well.

Indeed, there is much water yet to flow under the bridge. People have been wrong so many times this election season, I wonder why they keep setting themselves up for to repeat the same result.

It should be crystal clear that people are so upset by the nature of things, there is little that will get in the way of their desire to do something about it.

:agree And doing well here, hope you are too!
 
Or the same mistake the Republican establishment made before Trump took them out one by one. Did you believe Trump would come out on top when the race began, or even have a remote chance?

Greetings, JC. :2wave:

I thought at the beginning he was just "bored," and doing it to see if he could! With the millions of votes he got, he isn't likely to leave quietly, IMO. He does NOT like to lose!
 
Greetings, JC. :2wave:

I thought at the beginning he was just "bored," and doing it to see if he could! With the millions of votes he got, he isn't likely to leave quietly, IMO. He does NOT like to lose!

Hi Pg *hug*,

I agree. I think he has some tricks up his sleeve and there's a long way to go.

Btw, congrats on your Cavs! :applaud :party
 
The bottom line is this. The Democrats have offered up the most vulnerable, most beatable candidate in our recent history...only to be matched by the GOP offering up the worst candidate in out ENTIRE history. The base will vote for Trump. Some of the moderates will as well, while a large swath of Republicans sit it out...again. However the Indies, Liberals and Moderate Democrats will all vote for Clinton. The GOP has no one to blame for this abortion but themselves and their bobble-headed base.

Quite right. This current crop of GOP leaders are about as useful as tits on a boar.
 
Hi Pg *hug*,

I agree. I think he has some tricks up his sleeve and there's a long way to go.

Btw, congrats on your Cavs! :applaud :party

I'd have to agree. I don't think it's even close to being over. Only time will tell.
 
Panic mode? I think you've confused them for the GOP, who is currently busy rewriting the rules so they can opt for a different nominee.

Just say "cheating"
 
Hi Pg *hug*,

I agree. I think he has some tricks up his sleeve and there's a long way to go.

Btw, congrats on your Cavs! :applaud :party

They had to fight for it, and every minute of that game was exciting, wasn't it?!! They are expecting 800,000 to a million people at a Victory parade in Cleveland tomorrow, and the same in downtown Akron on Thursday! His job might be in Cleveland but he grew up in Akron, by God, so that justifies having two parades! :thumbs: :lamo
 
They've called him on it, esp. Fox News (see Megyn Kelly).
Gee, I wonder why she'd have one for him??? :lamo

But yeah - recently she's been really going after him!

I also suspect he realizes now may not be the time to go back after her, but who knows? He seems to break conventions with impunity and get away with it. But it couldn't hurt to have Fox on his side. He needs the GOP establishment-line types, and Fox seems rife with them.
 
Trump is in for a rude awakening. The press gleefully gave him all the airtime he wanted. Allowed him to say crazy stuff and did not call him on it. Good for both rating and at the same time tilted the primary to someone Hillary may actually be able to beat.

Now that he is firmly in control of the nomination, the same press is going to kill him over the same words they fawned over a couple of months ago.



It is not the media who are killing him, but Trump's own words. They gleefully gave him air time on the most ridiculous statements ever made in an election campaign. Then was time to let the parties choose their man, now is the time to take a closer look at who Trump really is.

The truth is, Trump doesn't have a clue how to run a national election campaign, he is where he is by virtue of his one true talent, boisterous and belligerent self promotion.
 
The rank and file kook left is in panic mode. They know deep down DJT is going to rake Crooked Hilly over the coals. Whether you like the guy or not, he's going to kick Hilly's butt up between her shoulders. Win or lose it's going to be funny as hell this summer. Can't wait.



Not having a clue who you might consider "rank and file kook left", I am unaware of anyone panicking when the OTHER guy has had to fire his campaign manager on the cusp of a convention.

The stink of fear in that move is almost palpable.
 
I first became aware of the claim some weeks ago that Trump wasn't actually running a campaign, but I think this article most clearly delivers the numbers that supports this theory. It's also why I am tempted to risk making a fool of myself and join the voices who say that Donald is deliberately running a failed campaign to deliver the White House to Hillary. But what do you think? After reading the article and taking in the stark contrast with Clinton's strategy, do the numbers support a picture of a campaign intended to win?

So here's an interesting question.


If Trump was running a campaign with the sole purpose of making Republicans look like idiots, and then throwing the election to Hillary in an epic way, designed to crush Congressional Republicans and deliver to her the Presidency....


....what would he have done differently?
 
So here's an interesting question.


If Trump was running a campaign with the sole purpose of making Republicans look like idiots, and then throwing the election to Hillary in an epic way, designed to crush Congressional Republicans and deliver to her the Presidency....


....what would he have done differently?

No. And a famous right wing writer whose name I can't remember right now specifically said that. I'm inclined to think you read the same editorial that I did, or that the conclusion is so intuitive to deduce that anybody could be expected to arrive at it as well.
 
Last edited:
Donald Trump isn’t running a bad campaign. He’s not really running a campaign at all.



The article is overwhelming in the difference it illustrates between Clinton and Trump's campaign. While Trump has been having a jolly time getting free press for saying ridiculous, amoral, and extraordinarily inconsistent things, that will not transform into a general election win. Meanwhile, Clinton's campaign machine was thoroughly constructed, up and running since the beginning of her primary campaign. You'd almost think she's done this before.

Consider the differences in ad spending in critical swing states:

View attachment 67203086

I first became aware of the claim some weeks ago that Trump wasn't actually running a campaign, but I think this article most clearly delivers the numbers that supports this theory. It's also why I am tempted to risk making a fool of myself and join the voices who say that Donald is deliberately running a failed campaign to deliver the White House to Hillary. But what do you think? After reading the article and taking in the stark contrast with Clinton's strategy, do the numbers support a picture of a campaign intended to win?

I've been saying it the entire time. Trump is a Clinton plant.

In addition, the former president and Mr Trump also held a brief phone call in 2015, ABC news reported. This took place before the mogul embarked on his campaign for the presidency.

donald-hillary-800.jpg


These people need to be ****ing arrested. Seriously.
 
Last edited:
I've been saying it the entire time. Trump is a Clinton plant.



These people need to be ****ing arrested. Seriously.

I've said it before: Trump is a cartoon dreamed up by a far-leftist loon's fever-dream of what a Republican looks like. A cartoon that just so happens to be entirely accurate with a not-insignificant portion of Republican voters taken into account.
 
Back
Top Bottom