fixedSkjellyfetti wrote:Reading the title should be sufficient for an understanding of the article. Right??
This is one reason why our society is going in the shitter. Journalism has morphed into writing click bait headlines and the readers are too lazy / uninterested to read more than the click bait headline.
Like DB1 picking the national champ. You know, I don't think I've ever seen MM and DB at the same time. Just sayin.Ivytalk wrote:So that great prognosticator Michael Moore thinks Drumpf is going to win. That's the kiss of death!
Just listening to Gov Rendell (former donk gov PA) talk about how in 1988 when he was working on the Dukakis campaign after the conventions they were up by 17 points in the polls in mid Aug. EVERYONE at that point was saying Dukakis was going to steamroll HW Bush.......and Bush won by 8 points, 41 states to 9. Basically a 25 point swing in the polls in less than 3 months.SDHornet wrote:This thing is over, RCP has hilldog up 4+ points in the head to head, and the polls with Johnson & Stein. Trump had some momentum, but true to conk form (yeah yeah he isn't a conk, whatever) he squandered it and is now likely to get steamrolled. He better hope for some juicy wikilinks to save his sorry racist ass.
Agree 100%. People should take the time to read the whole blog, even though everyone knows it's harder to write a good short blog (or legal brief) than a long one.Skjellyfetti wrote:Reading the title should be sufficient for an understanding of the article. Right??
This is one reason why our political system us going in the shitter. Journalism has morphed into writing click bait headlines and the readers are too lazy / uninterested to read more than the click bait headline.
Meh. Everything pre-24 hour news cycle is meaningless. It's a different age now...oh look, Trump kicks out a crying baby at his latest rally:BDKJMU wrote:Just listening to Gov Rendell (former donk gov PA) talk about how in 1988 when he was working on the Dukakis campaign after the conventions they were up by 17 points in the polls in mid Aug. EVERYONE at that point was saying Dukakis was going to steamroll HW Bush.......and Bush won by 8 points, 41 states to 9. Basically a 25 point swing in the polls in less than 3 months.SDHornet wrote:This thing is over, RCP has hilldog up 4+ points in the head to head, and the polls with Johnson & Stein. Trump had some momentum, but true to conk form (yeah yeah he isn't a conk, whatever) he squandered it and is now likely to get steamrolled. He better hope for some juicy wikilinks to save his sorry racist ass.
The polls now are like the pre season polls. Don't mean much till Oct/Nov..
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/po ... .html?_r=0“Don’t worry about that baby. I love babies,” Mr. Trump said. “I hear that baby crying, I like it. What a baby, what a beautiful baby. Don’t worry, don’t worry.”
But Mr. Trump’s pacifying platitudes did nothing to comfort the howling infant, whose persistent wails seemed to be getting on the candidate’s nerves.
“Actually, I was only kidding, you can get that baby out of here,” Mr. Trump said a few beats later with a slight smirk as laughs and a few gasps escaped from the crowd. “Don’t worry, I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking. That’s O.K. People don’t understand. That’s O.K.”
Good for her. Hopefully we'll see more and more Republicans putting principle before a short term desire to win.As someone who has worked to further the Republican Party’s principles for the last 15 years I believe that we are at a moment where silence isn’t an option. We are here today in part because as a party in the past we have remained silent when things have made us uncomfortable. Instead of speaking out against instances of bigotry, racism and inflammatory rhetoric whether it’s been against women, immigrants or Muslims, we made a calculus that it was better to say nothing at all in the interest of politics and winning elections. For me, if our party has a future, we have to change that trajectory and lead by example.
We have to stop thinking that winning at any cost is more important than governing principles.
And if the smoking gun is provided and it sinks Clinton, you will blame Assange. You will refuse to blame the originators of the corrupt actions. Just remember, if there is nothing newsworthy in the e-mails, then it is Assange that is the only ass. But I'm guessing that Clinton and the Dems will join him in that category.JohnStOnge wrote:The biggest worry I have is Julian Assange. I had no idea that he's got a thing against Clinton but I saw him interviewed and you can really see it. He does NOT like her and I think he is REALLY out to get her.
Without that kind of thing I'd feel pretty optimistic. I think both candidates are so well known that it'd be hard for impressions to change much without some bombshell (enter Assange).
I would blame the Democrats for picking a candidate with so much baggage. All they needed to do was just select a relatively normal nominee and it would be "no worries" right now.CAA Flagship wrote:And if the smoking gun is provided and it sinks Clinton, you will blame Assange. You will refuse to blame the originators of the corrupt actions. Just remember, if there is nothing newsworthy in the e-mails, then it is Assange that is the only ass. But I'm guessing that Clinton and the Dems will join him in that category.JohnStOnge wrote:The biggest worry I have is Julian Assange. I had no idea that he's got a thing against Clinton but I saw him interviewed and you can really see it. He does NOT like her and I think he is REALLY out to get her.
Without that kind of thing I'd feel pretty optimistic. I think both candidates are so well known that it'd be hard for impressions to change much without some bombshell (enter Assange).
Huh? Are you paying attention? The DNC rigged it for hilldog. There was never any other candidate in mind.JohnStOnge wrote:I would blame the Democrats for picking a candidate with so much baggage. All they needed to do was just select a relatively normal nominee and it would be "no worries" right now.CAA Flagship wrote: And if the smoking gun is provided and it sinks Clinton, you will blame Assange. You will refuse to blame the originators of the corrupt actions. Just remember, if there is nothing newsworthy in the e-mails, then it is Assange that is the only ass. But I'm guessing that Clinton and the Dems will join him in that category.
I doubt that there will be anything in the e mails bad enough to me personally prefer Trump over ANYBODY including Hillary. But I think there's a good chance that Assange has things that will influence others.
I dunno but I'm pretty sure none have ever gone as far as Obama went today in out and out saying the other Party's candidate is unfit for the office.DSUrocks07 wrote:When was the last time a sitting President has been so active in a election that he has no part of?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
I love this, so you have the JSO types in the world jumping on the hilldog train that is getting a full fledged seal of approval from Obama thereby putting them in line with him and his broke dick mentality. You seriously can't make this shit up. At the end of the day, the establishment types are all one and the same.DSUrocks07 wrote:When was the last time a sitting President has been so active in a election that he has no part of?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
That's just politics...and you are lapping that shit up like it's going out of style.JohnStOnge wrote:I dunno but I'm pretty sure none have ever gone as far as Obama went today in out and out saying the other Party's candidate is unfit for the office.DSUrocks07 wrote:When was the last time a sitting President has been so active in a election that he has no part of?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
But, what the heck. In this case it's the truth so it's kind of hard to be criticize him for doing it.
It has nothing to do with being with the "establishment" and very little to do with Hillary. Hillary just happens to be the only alternative. It's all about avoiding having a very dangerous, immoral, dishonest, and unstable individual ending up as President.SDHornet wrote:I love this, so you have the JSO types in the world jumping on the hilldog train that is getting a full fledged seal of approval from Obama thereby putting them in line with him and his broke dick mentality. You seriously can't make this **** up. At the end of the day, the establishment types are all one and the same.DSUrocks07 wrote:When was the last time a sitting President has been so active in a election that he has no part of?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
And yet you are voting for hilldog.JohnStOnge wrote:It has nothing to do with being with the "establishment" and very little to do with Hillary. Hillary just happens to be the only alternative. It's all about avoiding having a very dangerous, immoral, dishonest, and unstable individual ending up as President.SDHornet wrote: I love this, so you have the JSO types in the world jumping on the hilldog train that is getting a full fledged seal of approval from Obama thereby putting them in line with him and his broke dick mentality. You seriously can't make this **** up. At the end of the day, the establishment types are all one and the same.
She's not as immoral as he is. She's not as dishonest as he is. She's not as dangerous as he is. And she's not unstable at all.SDHornet wrote:And yet you are voting for hilldog.JohnStOnge wrote:
It has nothing to do with being with the "establishment" and very little to do with Hillary. Hillary just happens to be the only alternative. It's all about avoiding having a very dangerous, immoral, dishonest, and unstable individual ending up as President.
JohnStOnge wrote:She's not as immoral as he is. She's not as dishonest as he is. She's not as dangerous as he is. And she's not unstable at all.SDHornet wrote: And yet you are voting for hilldog.
Consitution be damnedJohnStOnge wrote:I dunno but I'm pretty sure none have ever gone as far as Obama went today in out and out saying the other Party's candidate is unfit for the office.DSUrocks07 wrote:When was the last time a sitting President has been so active in a election that he has no part of?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
But, what the heck. In this case it's the truth so it's kind of hard to be criticize him for doing it.
There hasn't been a major Party candidate for President that represents as much of a danger and who has been so unfit as Donald Trump in my lifetime. All I hope is that Obama going after him increases the chances that Trump doesn't get elected because that would be a VERY bad situation.
The biggest threat to Hillary is Hillary and it is a yyyyuuuuuge threat.JohnStOnge wrote:The biggest worry I have is Julian Assange. I had no idea that he's got a thing against Clinton but I saw him interviewed and you can really see it. He does NOT like her and I think he is REALLY out to get her.
Without that kind of thing I'd feel pretty optimistic. I think both candidates are so well known that it'd be hard for impressions to change much without some bombshell (enter Assange).