Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[Burgold]

11 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Hell no she shouldn't apologize for calling Trump's supporters deplorable.  They ****ing are and they should be publicly shamed by everyone until they crawl back under their rocks.  Trump's support breaks down thusly: 1 part weak-kneed republicans who can't go against the party even when it does serious harm to the country, 1 part idiots, and 1 part neo-nazis and white supremacists.

The groups aren't mutually exclusive.  And each should be ridiculed.  But you can forgive people for being in the first two.  The people in the last one are just useless.

I don't want to agree with this, but it's getting harder and harder not to.

[No Excuses]

Just now, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Trump voters need to be held accountable.  There is no excuse for them at this point.

 

I agree but Clinton should stay above it. Let your surrogates go on the attack. But I also see why she would do this. Her saying this generates the most buzz. 

It honestly just makes me sad that this is even required.

Shes officially in the mud with Trump now and we're going to be slinging a ton of poo on each side until November.

[Larry]

Just thought I'd point out:  Hillary did not claim that ALL Trump supporters are (bigots and similar things). She claimed that ABOUT HALF of them are. 

(And there's actually support for the notion that about half of the people who supported him in the primaries, actually deserve those labels. Not sure it's still in that ballpark, though. Lots of folks have moved into that big circus tent, since the early primaries). 

[StillUnknown]

4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I agree but Clinton should stay above it. Let your surrogates go on the attack. But I also see why she would do this. Her saying this generates the most buzz. 

It honestly just makes me sad that this is even required.

Shes officially in the mud with Trump now and we're going to be slinging a ton of poo on each side until November.

 

it concerns me because its pretty well established that mud doesn't stick to trump. no matter how accurate it may be

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just thought I'd point out:  Hillary did not claim that ALL Trump supporters are (bigots and similar things). She claimed that ABOUT HALF of them are. 

(And there's actually support for the notion that about half of the people who supported him in the primaries, actually deserve those labels. Not sure it's still in that ballpark, though. Lots of folks have moved into that big circus tent, since the early primaries). 

 

By count of the latest polls, I think 65% of Republican voters are still completely on board with birtherism.

So really her number might be an underestimate.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

By count of the latest polls, I think 65% of Republican voters are still completely on board with birtherism.

So really her number might be an underestimate.

 

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

By count of the latest polls, I think 65% of Republican voters are still completely on board with birtherism.

So really her number might be an underestimate.

 

Yeah, but to me, "birther" is proof of "delusional". But it's not proof of "racist". 

What I think was more damning was the poll run by PPP (whoever that is), of people who voted for Trump in the NC primary. Going from memory, it said that when asked who they wish had won the Civil War, around 40% of Trump voters said "the South". (And another 30% said "not sure". Which at least makes me wonder if those were people who wanted the South, but didn't want to admit it). 

BUT, that was just one poll, in just one state, in a very early primary, of just people who voted in the primary. (A group which probably doesn't represent all the people in Trump's tent, today). 

[twa]

I think Hillary is doing a fine job....and her minions.

 

 

 

[LD0506]

When you have neo-Nazis giving press conferences talking about "the Jewish question" it's damned sure time for someone to speak out.

I agree, I would rather candidates ran for something instead of just against the other guy, that's a race to the bottom, but is it even possible anymore? How could anyone turn a blind eye to the utterly vile spew that has run through this campaign cycle?

[DogofWar1]

Well, whether it's good politics or not there are two things to note here:

1. She's said it, cats outta the bag, and

2. She's not wrong, in that polls support her characterization based on her chosen parameter of "deplorable."

 

What she should do now, is own it.  Get all the polling data she can and show what she was talking about.  Get every instance of Trump pandering to these groups, and show it.  Tie them together.

Simultaneously, be very clear that the other half are just ordinary Americans who are scared for their livelihoods, and aren't deplorable at all, but they unfortunately have been tricked into following a deplorable man, who has no interests at heart except his own.

That's when you play the flip flops.  All eleventy bajillion of them.  Especially the ones that happened at the same event, like last night when he attacked Clinton for being too hawkish, but then turned around and said he supported regime change in Iran a mere seven minutes later.

[RedskinsFan44]

She should not have said half, she should have said a fraction.  Half comes too close to indicting all, and who really knows what the actual percent is. The problem is it feeds into the divisiveness of this election and kind of undercuts her "stronger together" unity message.  That said it is frightening that Trump's pandering to all of the bad attributes she listed has been so successful.

 

[StillUnknown]

14 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

She should not have said half, she should have said a fraction.  Half comes too close to indicting all, and who really knows what the actual percent is. The problem is it feeds into the divisiveness of this election and kind of undercuts her "stronger together" unity message.  That said it is frightening that Trump's pandering to all of the bad attributes she listed has been so successful.

 

 

seems like some media cares more about Clinton's accurate characterization than the fact that Trump is willfully appealing to those types

[Larry]

Well, it does look like Trump (or a handler) has cut way back on the overt racism. He's not talking about religious purity tests or Mexico sending us rapists, the way he used to. 

He's still appealing to them. Just not as overtly. 

[StillUnknown]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

Well, it does look like Trump (or a handler) has cut way back on the overt racism. He's not talking about religious purity tests or Mexico sending us rapists, the way he used to. 

He's still appealing to them. Just not as overtly. 

 

and has been described as "presidential" for his actions 

[@DCGoldPants]

 

Quote

 

Eric Trump @EricTrump

Look at the #BasketOfDeplorables in Pensacola Florida last night! What a horrible statement. #CrookedHillary pic.twitter.com/GfevT0KUjd

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is....the picture is a year old and from Texas at Mark Cuban's arena. 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Was just coming here to post that. Notice the big Texas flag. And Mark Cuban called him out...

I've said before, I wish all our loud douchey billionaires were like Mark Cuban.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm sure the crowd was big in Florida. Could have posted a real pic and been fine. Had to go beyond for the biggest looking crowd pic he could find.

IMO Clinton was dumb to say that. Could have said he's embraced those who want minorities of race and religion wiped off the earth....and that would be true. Who is going to stand up and say "Yeah, I'm that person?" except those who do? Alt-Right style. 

[Bang]

I have no issue at all with her saying it. 

if you support Donald Trump at this juncture, you ARE what she says you are. unless somehow you can divest yourself from the near 100% approval rating Trump enjoys among neo nazis and race based hate groups.  and guess what. You can't. If you still support his campaign you support the embrace of the dangerously crazy, you support every ridiculous lie, you spit in the eye of our military, you utterly fail to demand your candidate give you anything of substance as to what he is going to do once you vote for him. One can only assume at this point that you don't care what he does. And in my book, that makes you one seriously stupid son of a ****. 

there is no excuse anymore. if you are still voting for him, you are deep in that basket. You have willfully decided to ignore the very big and very real red flags that are being waved every single day.

 

~Bang

[88Comrade2000]

16 hours ago, USS Redskins said:

I love Hilary's puppets.. Astounded she is not leading by 10-15 pts.

they just can't see that allot of people think she is an unlikeable, lying, lecherous cretin. I mean have they seen her give a speech? Howling like a banshee?

Its like, Obama is this gigantic lying POS but at least he is likeable,

Actually, I do think it's a valid question; as to why Hillary isn't leading by 10 points or more?  If anybody else was the Democratic candidate against Trump; wouldn't they have a at least a 10 point lead at minimum.

 

The people that Hillary made the comments about wouldn't be voting for her anyway.

[-9-]

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

13 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If anybody else was the Democratic candidate against Trump; wouldn't they have a at least a 10 point lead at minimum.

No. The GOP base would have vilified candidate X just the same.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No. The GOP base would have vilified candidate X just the same.

 

Agreed.  No chance that Sanders or O'Malley would hold a sizable margin right now.

[Bang]

18 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Actually, I do think it's a valid question; as to why Hillary isn't leading by 10 points or more?  If anybody else was the Democratic candidate against Trump; wouldn't they have a at least a 10 point lead at minimum.

 

The people that Hillary made the comments about wouldn't be voting for her anyway.

I tend to put it up to the fact that participating in a poll is a pain in the ass, and most people hang up on it.
So, to me polls are calling people, talking to the first 1000 who have nothing better to do than waste a half hour on the phone, and then convincing me that somehow their answers are indicative of hundreds of millions of people.
depending on where you call, you can get whatever answer you want the poll to say. Depending on when you call, you can manipulate the poll to answers that you want.

Amount of stock i put in polls = zero. Regardless of how scientific they want to tell me it is,, what it boils down to is telling me that one person's opinion is representative of a hundred thousand people, and that it will extrapolate out the way they say it will.

I ain't buying.

~Bang

 

 

[Larry]

8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No. The GOP base would have vilified candidate X just the same.

 

BUT, said smear campaign would have had to be new. It wouldn't be following TWENTY YEARS of smear campaign. 

[hail2skins]

HRC's campaign released a statement where she expresses regret for her Friday night comments and says she was wrong, while indicating that she will continue to call out bigotry.  Good move on her campaign's part, IMO.

Was with a gathering of mainly conservative folks last night and had the chance to ask a few about the election and volunteered that I thought Trump was going to win. More than one said "It doesn't matter....they're going to steal it from him anyway." 

Yup, this is where we're at.