The Future President, Donald Trump

Of course Donald Trump has said that if you're not a multimillionaire you're a "loser".

Your maths is still pretty lousy. Trump does not command 50% of the electorate.



You wish. Sorry but I'm not interested.

Here's the most powerful (and chilling) case for Trump you'll ever hear



The rest at the source. This has been the year of insanity for politics.

Good article in a Guardian from August re various authors and their thoughts on Trump:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/12/donald-trump-understanding-american-phenomenon

I think you have found out why Glueboy is in love with tRump. He is his identical twin.

I see you deleted another one of my responses...kiddie games ...how pathetic.

Mr. Trump has a theme and he likes it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters



http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-clinton-could-shoot-someone-not-get-prosecuted-n645966





American lives just aren't worth much to him.


So depressing that anyone thinks he's someone to consider voting for.

OMG...nothing but histrionics...he has never advocated shooting anyone...you know this and are purposely trying to inflame the narrative...what a drama queen.

He is the 21 st century "Lonesome Rhodes".
Nothing less,,... nothing more.

Trump's base consists of largely uneducated white old men, with a smattering of their wives (after all, theyre prolly even less educated if they look up to their "man").

This is what happens when a person like Trump lives in a cloister all his live. He just doesn't understand the consequences of committing a crime. I'm just wondering what the polls will show, now that he's proven he's crazy.

It's no surprise that the Gardian doesn't like Trump. In any event these were obviously words sopken ironically, and taken out of the context in which they were said.

Still it's a bit amusing to see our Canadian neighbors among those getting a case of the vapors over it. Why do you care? Are things a bit boring up there?

Hillary has indicated that a large fraction of Trump supporters are somewhat subhuman. How do you feel about that?

Well, maybe not sub-human in an evolutionary sense, but when you see them at Trumps Bund rallies, I don't see humanitarians or very much of the milk of human kindness. I see a mob.

Perhaps you put too much emphasis on appearances and don't look hard enough. People aren't stupid, but complacent elites very often are.

As a matter of fact, Trump encourages violence. He said he'll pay for any legal fees resulting from the violence. He not only encourages violence, but condones it.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

perhaps you're trying way too hard to put lipstick on a pig.

I can't delete you responses.

Try living in the real world.

Complacent elites??? You want to know what's rich? I view some folks as self-congratulatory elites who imagine they are the unofficial ruling class. That's why I see them as always bemused in a complacent fashion. Think of Carl Rove. Now, I wouldn't call them stupid, they might be, but I'm more than willing to hear them out before I paint them with the stupid brush.

I find it chilling and frightening when his Bund members start chanting 'Lock her up'.

If you think that's frightening, this'll make you load your pants

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/09/trump-iranian-boats-that-make-improper-gestures-will-be-shot-out-of-the-water/

"And, by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people, that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water," Trump said to thunderous applause. Soon the crowd began to chant: "USA! USA! USA!"

[EDIT] The scary part here is the crowd's response

From PDiddie's blog


Over at Twitter #BasketOfDeplorables (which has been trending all day) I saw a comment that hit home for me that said that’s what happens when you spend “all August fundraising with elites”. I agree with that conclusion.

Her election to lose, and she's doing her damnedest to lose it.

You could not pick a worse, more inept, inexperienced or offensive joke of a presidential candidate than Donald Trump. The United States has become the butt of international ridicule over our very own “Kim Jong-Un.” Any candidate running against Trump from the opposing major party with a pulse ought to be beating him in the polls by double digits. But Hillary Clinton isn’t.

The Democratic nominee is barely ahead of “the most unpopular presidential candidate since the former head of the Ku Klux Klan,” and a recent CNN poll puts her at 2 percent behind Trump. Granted, it is only one poll, and several other recent polls have found her a few percentage points ahead. Still, no Democrat could ask for an easier Republican candidate to beat. In the history of American presidential races, it is likely we have never had a more comically unsuitable figure as Trump nominated by a major party. And yet Clinton is struggling to come out ahead.

I haven't had a conversation with a single solitary Hillary supporter that is willing or able to discuss the reasons why she isn't crushing Trump. Her flaws, mind you, not his and not those of his base.

The Democrat’s ardent supporters—those who have championed her from Day One—claim that we live in a sexist country and that her gender is what is standing in the way of most Americans embracing her. They assert that the media and her critics hold her to an unfairly high standard. But in a country where white women have benefited far more from affirmative action policies, how is it that we easily elected the nation’s first black president twice, only to stumble over a white female nominee?

The problem is not her gender. [...] Her refusal to even attempt to embrace bold progressive values and her inability to read the simmering nationwide anger over economic and racial injustice are the larger obstacles to her popularity.

In positioning herself first and foremost as what she is not—Trump—Clinton is picking only the low-hanging fruit. My 9-year-old son could make fun of Trump in clever ways, and does so routinely. For Clinton to fixate on Trump’s endless flaws suggests that her own platform has little substance. For example, in a recent speech she said of Trump, “He says he has a secret plan to defeat ISIS. The secret is, he has no plan.” While these kinds of statements might make for funny one-liners, Clinton’s main credential is that she once led the State Department, and she did so with such hawkishness that Americans who are weary of endless wars are not impressed by the experience. (Not to mention that she was caught telling lies about her private email server while secretary of state.) If she proposed diplomacy over war, a plan to exit Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria, a promise to withhold weapons from Saudi Arabia, a commitment to Palestinian human rights, etc., voters might sit up and take note.

Forget hoping she abandons her bellicosity; no candidate as experienced as Clinton should be committing such tone-deaf gaffes. Not even in a room full of five- and six-digit check-writers.

Black voters tend to vote Democratic—a fact the party has taken for granted for decades. But if Clinton wants to earn those votes, she could take a page out of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s book and visit (or send a representative to visit) the ongoing occupation of Los Angeles City Hall by Black Lives Matter activists. BLM is calling on Mayor Eric Garcetti to fire Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck over a spate of killings by officers that has made his department the most violent of all departments nationwide. Instead, Clinton goes to Beverly Hills for a fundraiser to hobnob with wealthy donors and celebrities, including Garcetti.

One thing I have noticed, anecdotally, is some black voters and influencers starting to move away from her. I cannot tell for sure if this is meaningful or not.

Rather than reaching out to American voters on such issues, Clinton has been busy pandering to one particular community: the uber-rich. According to a New York Times article, she has made multiple trips to wealthy enclaves over the past month alone. In addition to Beverly Hills, she has visited Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons, rubbing elbows with celebrities and other rich elites. Just in August she raised more than $140 million through such fundraisers—easy fodder for the GOP to criticize in a new set of ads.

While making herself accessible to America’s upper classes, she has made herself almost completely unavailable to the press. Until Thursday, Clinton had not held a single news conference in 2016, inviting the unflattering comparison to President George W. Bush, who came under fire for avoiding interactions with the media. Bush was skewered for acting like he was hiding something, afraid the press might ask hard questions that would invite a blundering response. Clinton, one could argue, does not need to win over the press—most mainstream outlets already embrace her nomination and are pushing hard for her election. A recent article by Paul Krugman in the Times is a prime example. Ordinary Americans, however, continue to be unimpressed.

Perhaps Clinton feels that she can win without trying. After all, she has said publicly to her supporters, “I stand between you and the apocalypse.” She is positioning herself as a better option for president than the apocalyptic one. But that’s not saying much. And perhaps that is the point.

Maybe Clinton thinks she does not need to win over ordinary Americans. She knows she has the support of the Wall Street elite, the Pentagon war hawks and even a growing number of Republicans, one of whom implored his fellow Republicans to save the party by voting for Clinton.

And yet all of that may not be enough, as the polls are showing.

Hillary Clinton is running the worst possible campaign at the worst possible moment in the cycle, at the worst time in political history (history at least as long as I've been alive, anyway).

If Clinton loses this election, it will not be because Americans are dumb, racist misogynists who would cut off their noses to spite their faces in refusing to elect a sane woman over an insane man. It will not be because too many Americans “selfishly” voted for a third party or didn’t vote at all. It will be because Clinton refused to compromise her allegiance to Wall Street and the morally bankrupt center-right establishment positions of her party and chose not to win over voters. This election is hers to lose, and if this nation ends up with President Trump, it will be most of all the fault of Clinton and the Democratic Party that backs her.

As I post this today, I still think she wins. But if we're using the two-horse-analogy, she's fading fast and in danger of being overtaken at the finish line. I have to say, given these most recent national polling developments -- which again are not the Electoral College, and most assuredly not the EC or even the popular vote as Surveyed by a Monkey -- I am still bemused at those Democrats who allow themselves to believe, in however slight an amount it may be, that Texas may flip. I think they're just trying to scare progressives into voting for her, and that, sadly, is working. For a party that gets so few votes in Texas, the Greens certainly punch above their weight in terms of engendering fear, loathing, and contempt from partisan Democrats.

Two things to keep in mind:

The media sells you the notion that the race is close; and
If Clinton does lose, it won't be Jill Stein's fault but she'll be blamed anyway.