- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 106,885
- Reaction score
- 98,982
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Ah yes, Tres Borrachos: most famed DP leftist.
Went right over your head...:lamo
You leftists are hilariously low information.
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.
+1Find a source not behind a paywall would ya?
Worked fine for me, and I've never subscribed to Washington Post for anything ever.
Many pay sites have a free monthly or initial use allotment of free reads.I'm not getting a pay wall, and I have no subscription to 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.Maybe I just have my settings to delete cookies after I close my browser. Dunno, don't care. It's just the Washington Post.
+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.
No problem, it happens - thanks for the response.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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! :applaudarty
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! :applaudarty
Gee, I wonder why she'd have one for him??? :lamoThey've called him on it, esp. Fox News (see Megyn Kelly).
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I've been saying it the entire time. Trump is a Clinton plant.
These people need to be ****ing arrested. Seriously.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?