[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50811659]end of his campaign increasingly nervous man etc. etc.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how long until this joke eventually wraps around and starts being used by Trump supporters :v:
"I-increasingly nervous man, guys! Trump's still got it, really!"
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50811665]I wonder how long until this joke eventually wraps around and starts being used by Trump supporters :v:
"I-increasingly nervous man, guys! Trump's still got it, really!"[/QUOTE]
kinda like that old Bernie getting beaten by Hillary pic.
I never said it will end his campaign but you can already see the amount of damages done and, if you have been paying attention to the news, some top veterans GOP have denounced like McCain who wrote a pretty powerful statement in support of the Kahn.
Also, pretty sure some Trumplings have started to use that nervous man joke as a way to dismiss any negative statements against Trump.
[QUOTE=Bobie;50807396]because the #neverhillary camp exists within a reality distortion field[/QUOTE]
mumble mumble violent video games
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50807247]Obama's speech was certainly the best by far. Very well done, eloquently put, dismissed the Republicans and supported Clinton well. It shows by far that Obama is perhaps the most talented American orator in the last 20 years, and definitely tied the whole event together IMO.[/QUOTE]
Thus proving that charisma and ability to be an effective president are independent.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50811763]Thus proving that charisma and ability to be an effective president are independent.[/QUOTE]
He was a pretty effective president. Limp-wristed foreign policy, but thats what you get when you hire a Democrat.
BUT THE NOWCAST SAID TRUMP WOULD WIN A WEEK AGO!!!! ITS HAPPENING!!!!!!!!!!
[editline]1st August 2016[/editline]
or my favourite, HE'S GOING TO BECOME A LIBERAL AFTER THE GOP NOMINATION!
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50811763]Thus proving that charisma and ability to be an effective president are independent.[/QUOTE]
Well he had a republican congress so
Hillary got a significantly higher bump than Trump did after the conventions. There were a number of really solid speakers and every major party figure [i]actually fucking unified behind the candidate[/i]. There was no Cruz event. There was some actual degree of party unity, even with some protesters - we didn't have speakers refusing to endorse and [i]the majority of the party[/i] saying they were less likely to vote for the candidate after the convention. That's a great sign.
Also, I don't care if Obama's speech sounded like Reagan. I don't see how that's supposed to convince me to vote for the other candidate - someone [i]disturbingly[/i] further right than Reagan. Obama is distinctly more conservative than Hillary. The entire political climate of the US has been shifting right [i]constantly[/i] since the 80s, except on some token social issues. Reagan would be a centrist or a conservative Democrat in today's political world. The Democrats are basically the equivalent of the Conservatives in the UK and other centre-right parties in the rest of the west.
When the GOP's platform is as fucking horrendously regressive as it is, and the DNC has the [i]single most progressive major party platform in history[/i], the choice is pretty fucking obvious. Want to stop sliding right and join the rest of the world? Don't vote like you had a lobotomy.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50812892]Hillary got a significantly higher bump than Trump did after the conventions. There were a number of really solid speakers and every major party figure [i]actually fucking unified behind the candidate[/i]. There was no Cruz event. There was some actual degree of party unity, even with some protesters - we didn't have speakers refusing to endorse and [i]the majority of the party[/i] saying they were less likely to vote for the candidate after the convention. That's a great sign.
Also, I don't care if Obama's speech sounded like Reagan. I don't see how that's supposed to convince me to vote for the other candidate - someone [i]disturbingly[/i] further right than Reagan.[B] Obama is distinctly more conservative than Hillary[/B]. The entire political climate of the US has been shifting right [i]constantly[/i] since the 80s, except on some token social issues. Reagan would be a centrist or a conservative Democrat in today's political world. The Democrats are basically the equivalent of the Conservatives in the UK and other centre-right parties in the rest of the west.
When the GOP's platform is as fucking horrendously regressive as it is, and the DNC has the [i]single most progressive major party platform in history[/i], the choice is pretty fucking obvious. Want to stop sliding right and join the rest of the world? Don't vote like you had a lobotomy.[/QUOTE]
How Obama is more conservative than Hillary? Under his administration, he penned the Recovery Act 2009, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and the Affordable Care Act, all of which helped shift the U.S. political climate to the left - maybe not much but at least America became a bit more economically progressive in the long term.
[QUOTE=Chaitin;50812982]How Obama is more conservative than Hillary? Under his administration, he penned the Recovery Act 2009, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and the Affordable Care Act, all of which helped shifting the U.S. political climate to left - maybe not much but at least America became a bit more progressive in the long term.[/QUOTE]
Nobody seems to remember the '08 election, when Hillary was running on a platform that involved [i]universal health care[/i]. She's been advocating universal health care since she was First Lady, and eventually just went "okay fuck it" when Obama won and she realized Congress would never go for it. She's not significantly more liberal than Obama, but she's somewhat more liberal, and that was a common theme in the '08 elections.
When she was a senator, her voting record shows she voted more liberal than 70% of Democrats and 85% of all members. Obama's senate voting record was more liberal than 82% of all members. Hillary's was 93% similar to Sanders.
Obama is at least somewhat more conservative than Hillary on specific issues. Instead of trying to differentiate herself from Obama like she had to do in 2008 when running against him, she's tying herself to Obama and emphasizing their similarities (of which there are many). She's not going to be worse than Obama in anything other than public speaking.
[QUOTE=Chaitin;50812982]How Obama is more conservative than Hillary? Under his administration, he penned the Recovery Act 2009, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and the Affordable Care Act, all of which helped shift the U.S. political climate to the left - maybe not much but at least America became a bit more economically progressive in the long term.[/QUOTE]
Clinton's [url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate]DW-NOMINATE score[/url] is more liberal than Obama's and she ranked as the 11th most liberal Senator when she was in Congress. Her proposals on climate change and student debt also go further than Obama's (per [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-progressive_us_572cca08e4b0bc9cb0469098]this article[/url])
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50812403]He was a pretty effective president. Limp-wristed foreign policy, but thats what you get when you hire a Democrat.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's better than having a delusional, idiotic Republican.
Trump's [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-rigged-election-226523#ixzz4G7MvF6pm%C2%A0]now saying[/url] he thinks the election will be rigged
[QUOTE=smurfy;50813212]Trump's [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-rigged-election-226523#ixzz4G7MvF6pm%C2%A0]now saying[/url] he thinks the election will be rigged[/QUOTE]
Of course it will be rigged. Trump can't lose. Remember what he said, he always win.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50813212]Trump's [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-rigged-election-226523#ixzz4G7MvF6pm%C2%A0]now saying[/url] he thinks the election will be rigged[/QUOTE]
Wow, I figured it would be at least September before Trump started finding ways to blame anyone but himself for his failure.
Just an update, Clinton has now 82% chance of winning if the election was held today (63% chance polls-only without 538 forecast and 67% chance polls plus 538 forecast). A huge bump over the last few hours.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JdlyTo9.png[/IMG]
[URL="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/"]http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/[/URL] (For poll+forecast/-forecast)
and for people thats gonna claim 538 is bias, only his plus forecast is
despite his bias against trump ( you can tell by his numerous articles ), his polls only forecast has always given trump a fair shake
he was one of the first that gave indiana to trump by a wide margin earlier than anyone else when everyone thought indiana was definitely ted cruz territory
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;50813306]and for people thats gonna claim 538 is bias, only his plus forecast is
despite his bias against trump ( you can tell by his numerous articles ), his polls only forecast has always given trump a fair shake
he was one of the first that gave indiana to trump by a wide margin earlier than anyone else when everyone thought indiana was definitely ted cruz territory[/QUOTE]
Even his Polls-Plus isn't biased. Polls-plus adds some easily-modeled stuff like a convention bounce (polls shortly after a convention are considered biased towards that candidate for a few weeks), assumes that more voters will leave third-party candidates towards election day (likely a Trump benefit, given the Libertarian edge over the Greens), and more heavily weighs demographics when estimating who undecided voters will vote for.
Also, when you look at the house-adjustment for individual pollsters, you'll find most of them push the poll towards Trump. Read that again: 538 knows that most polls underestimate Trump, so even their polls-only model usually gives Trump more of a percentage than the poll claims. There's one in my state that 538 pushed from "50-50 tie" to "Trump leading by 5%"! I don't know how you can argue that they're biased [I]against[/I] him, when their own numbers look tilted in his favor if anything.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50813361]Even his Polls-Plus isn't biased. Polls-plus adds some easily-modeled stuff like a convention bounce (polls shortly after a convention are considered biased towards that candidate for a few weeks), assumes that more voters will leave third-party candidates towards election day (likely a Trump benefit, given the Libertarian edge over the Greens), and more heavily weighs demographics when estimating who undecided voters will vote for.
Also, when you look at the house-adjustment for individual pollsters, you'll find most of them push the poll towards Trump. Read that again: 538 knows that most polls underestimate Trump, so even their polls-only model usually gives Trump more of a percentage than the poll claims. There's one in my state that 538 pushed from "50-50 tie" to "Trump leading by 5%"! I don't know how you can argue that they're biased [I]against[/I] him, when their own numbers look tilted in his favor if anything.[/QUOTE]
538's numbers aren't at all biased, even if their editorialized content often is. Silver does literally everything he can to adjust his methodology when it isn't up to par. 538's data is really really solid, and their predictions are solid too. Compared to the "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" predictive polling of the past, predictions have become absurdly accurate.
[QUOTE=Chaitin;50813290]Just an update, Clinton has now 82% chance of winning if the election was held today (63% chance polls-only without 538 forecast and 67% chance polls plus 538 forecast). A huge bump over the last few hours.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JdlyTo9.png[/IMG]
[URL="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/"]http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/[/URL] (For poll+forecast/-forecast)[/QUOTE]
This makes me feel a bit relieved now that people are finally realizing what a shithead Trump is
Trump is a Hillary plant.
:v:
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50812892]Hillary got a significantly higher bump than Trump did after the conventions. There were a number of really solid speakers and every major party figure [i]actually fucking unified behind the candidate[/i]. There was no Cruz event. There was some actual degree of party unity, even with some protesters - we didn't have speakers refusing to endorse and [i]the majority of the party[/i] saying they were less likely to vote for the candidate after the convention. That's a great sign.
Also, I don't care if Obama's speech sounded like Reagan. I don't see how that's supposed to convince me to vote for the other candidate - someone [i]disturbingly[/i] further right than Reagan. Obama is distinctly more conservative than Hillary. The entire political climate of the US has been shifting right [i]constantly[/i] since the 80s, except on some token social issues. Reagan would be a centrist or a conservative Democrat in today's political world. The Democrats are basically the equivalent of the Conservatives in the UK and other centre-right parties in the rest of the west.
When the GOP's platform is as fucking horrendously regressive as it is, and the DNC has the [i]single most progressive major party platform in history[/i], the choice is pretty fucking obvious. Want to stop sliding right and join the rest of the world? Don't vote like you had a lobotomy.[/QUOTE]
Progressive is not always good.
[editline]2nd August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50813462]This makes me feel a bit relieved now that people are finally realizing what a shithead Trump is[/QUOTE]
imagine for a second actually thinking Donald Trump is not an incredibly intelligent individual.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50813763]
imagine for a second actually thinking Donald Trump is not an incredibly intelligent individual.[/QUOTE]
that has nothing to do with what the person said
just because someones smart, doesnt mean they arent a shithead
not to mention he really isnt as smart as people think. his net worth grew 300% from 1987 (4 billion bucks) which is a lot, until you compare it to someone like bill gates, who's net worth grew by over 7,000% in the same timeframe.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50813254]Wow, I figured it would be at least September before Trump started finding ways to blame anyone but himself for his failure.[/QUOTE]
I'm expecting his concession speech will be like that plus a promise to return in 4 years, but by then the GOP will have rigged there primaries just the like the DNC so he can't come back.
Going after the Khan family was a huge mistake.
I don't like her, but I'm still glad her numbers recovered
Vote for hillary "net positive" clinton!
It seems like despite all the booing and stuff, the Convention succeeded in converting Sanders supporters into Clinton supporters - the proportion of Sanders supporters who say they will vote for Clinton has [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-opens-point-lead-trump-national-poll/story?id=41053374]soared to 91%[/url] after the convention.
If Clinton is still leading comfortably a couple of weeks from now, this election will basically be a done deal
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50813763]
imagine for a second actually thinking Donald Trump is not an incredibly intelligent individual.[/QUOTE]
Putting aside the fact that his post was not an indictment against his intelligence, Trump is probably incredibly knowledgeable about real estate, business, business law and things like that but it seems in most things that a president should be knowledgeable about he comes up woefully short.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50807112]So much for the DNC being more of a shitshow than the RNC, and for it helping Trump rather than Clinton. :V[/QUOTE]
I am an outsider, but it's surprising that ANY candidate in the Democratic Party would be* at odds with a character like Donald Trump at any time of the race. Biden would probably be much further ahead if he were the front runner ATM.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.