That is possible, but here's the other side of that: expectations for Trump will be so low going into the first debate that he can't help but "win" by not drooling all over himself or pooping into his hand and throwing it at someone.
The dangerous game with breaking down someone's image is it can also lower the bar they have to clear.
Well I would have thought so, but his convention speech was pretty poorly received according to that Gallup poll. And the bar last week was set amazingly low, especially after bringing out Christie and Giuliani to make asses of themselves. Most people thought he just had to get through it on script and it would be well received, but it wasn't. He's going to have to do more than say he'll bomb the #### out of ISIS, or that he'll have the best plans and negotiate the best deals. That has worn thin because that's been his base speech for almost 14 months now. He needs to avoid the bat#### for sure, but he also needs to avoid more reruns. I'm not sure he has the ability to bring anything new to the table though.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
The Muslim parents who lost their son in Iraq was truly powerful, and such a great line about how Trump has never sacrificed anything to this country.
Also this speech by this pastor ranks up there as one of the finest, what an orator! The inflection in his voice, the power, the passion, this guy reminds me of Martin Luther King.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Basically every single argument you have against Hillary applies also to Trump, except that he's never actually crafted or voted for legislation, because again, he has absolutely zero political experience. All of the complaints just made there about Hillary--not a single one of those policies is something that Trump would dramatically differ from.
You make the mistake of thinking that because I have issue with Hillary I would support Trump. I support neither.
I think the American people have been caught again in the whole 'lessor of two evils' approach to politics, and the result will be 4 more years of failed policies. What is hilarious is how everyone suddenly think Hillary will be 'great' for America. She has NOT been great till now, and will not be great once she is POTUS.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
The electoral college makes it damn near impossible for a third party candidate to ever win the Presidency. Therefore you have to vote for the better of the two candidates, and also vote downticket for men and women who better support your views, so that those people downticket in the house, the senate, local representatives, etc--those are the people who help craft legislation, who really and truly guide the way the country moves.
The absolute biggest reason to vote Hillary is the three SCOTUS seats up for grabs. Trump cannot replace those. Period, end of story.
The way people vote makes it impossible for anyone else to win. If people voted for Gary Johnson he would win. But they won't because they are fanatical about supporting the Democrats or the Republicans and can't possibly see that the options both sides present are pure crap.
Sanders had a great chance to win the Democratic nomination, but Hillary and her DNC cronies made sure they smeared him and put up as many roadblocks as possible so that he doesn't win. Now they have successfully maneuvered the Hillary campaign into the conversation as the 'better than Trump' which is obviously is, and people will go for it. Does it make her a good candidate? No, she is the same only corrupt Hillary are before. But at this point, at least she isn't Trump.
I am glad I live in Canada, where our PM of 10 years at least wasn't a corrupt, manipulating liar like the next POTUS will be.
Here is the crime platform she's currently running on. A lot of her old positions have changed.
You do realize she takes money from the private prison industry, right? And you do realize that the emails leaked by Wikileaks talk about giving big donors essential meet time with POTUS once the election is over? I wonder how that conversation will go.
"Hey Hillary, we basically paid for your campaign and you promised to listen to us once you are elected, so that justice reform plan you were mentioning? Yeah, we can't survive if you stop sending as many lower class black males to prison as possible, so you can't push that legislation through. Oh on the war on drugs? That has to stay too."
I framed that badly, but the impression I got from by googling is that several medias have tried to dig into it pretty seriously over the years, finding nothing worse than bad optics. There was also a 2015 State Department subpoena that didn't seem to lead anywhere. (We would otherwise have heard from it by now I believe.)
There is a lot of speculation that the Clintons are using the foundation to funnel money to their political campaigns from foreign donators that would otherwise be barred from donating campaign money. Would not surprise me if that was the case, and there are some numbers thrown around that do make things look possibly shady.
Another case of "nothing ever proven" however.
You actually honestly believe that one of the most powerful political families in the world would not be able to control how much access or 'digging' could be done into their 'foundation?'
Hillary won't even release what she says during the speeches she gives to Wall Street.
You make the mistake of thinking that because I have issue with Hillary I would support Trump. I support neither.
I think the American people have been caught again in the whole 'lessor of two evils' approach to politics, and the result will be 4 more years of failed policies. What is hilarious is how everyone suddenly think Hillary will be 'great' for America. She has NOT been great till now, and will not be great once she is POTUS.
I hate this mindset. Being POTUS is one of the hardest jobs in the world. A lot is riding on every single decision. Sometimes they don't work out, but the vast majority of choices work out well, not only for the U.S., but for the majority of the world. It isn't that all these policies fail, but they are imperfect, mostly because they won't always apply to everyone. Such is the nature of governing large bodies of people. However, the vast majority of Americans have good, no, GREAT lives, especially compared to the rest of the world. Just because things are imperfect doesn't mean that things are failing. It's not dichotomous.
But what you want is to try and make a "more perfect union" to borrow the phrase. You want to see problems and attempt to address them without destroying what you've already built that seems to be working well. This is what Donald Trump wants to do. He wants to go back to the Good 'Ol Days of the 1950s when white men dominated the country and nobody else's problems were even considered. That's what he means by "Make America Great Again", great for white men of his generation. Or, if I'm being generous, he simply wants to be in power for the sake of his own ego with no real intention on governing (I remind you of the VP offer he made to Kasich to handle both international and domestic affairs....which is pretty much everything).
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that this isn't a choice between the "lesser of two evils" in the traditional sense of politics, this is a choice between a career politician who is imperfect, but is at least trying to do the hard job of governing, or a megalomaniac who was bored with making money by screwing people over and working the system, and decided to run for office presumably for ####s and giggles.
The fact that people can't see that a vote for Hillary isn't necessarily because they love her so much or that she's earned it, it's because a vote for Trump might lead to the end of the U.S.A. as we know it (that's not a good thing BTW).
OH, and BTW, I've heard Gary Johnson speak many times. He's an idiot and isn't qualified to be president. That would be a terrible 3rd party candidate. It's not like we're talking about Ralph Nader here.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Jesus. You make it sound like she's the head of the Illuminati.
We've learned a few things about these people over the years, a lot of them pretty personal. Her husband was the President and he was screwing the intern. Remember that one? Where was their vaunted hush-up power then?
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. "Well yeah, they looked into it, but the fact that they didn't find anything is proof of their dastardly ways".
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The way people vote makes it impossible for anyone else to win. If people voted for Gary Johnson he would win. But they won't because they are fanatical about supporting the Democrats or the Republicans and can't possibly see that the options both sides present are pure crap.
Sanders had a great chance to win the Democratic nomination, but Hillary and her DNC cronies made sure they smeared him and put up as many roadblocks as possible so that he doesn't win. Now they have successfully maneuvered the Hillary campaign into the conversation as the 'better than Trump' which is obviously is, and people will go for it. Does it make her a good candidate? No, she is the same only corrupt Hillary are before. But at this point, at least she isn't Trump.
I am glad I live in Canada, where our PM of 10 years at least wasn't a corrupt, manipulating liar like the next POTUS will be.
No, Gary Johnson wouldn't win, because the electoral college exists. This isn't a popular vote scenario, look at 2000. Gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the electoral college and Nader snagging Dem voters.
For better or worse, with the electoral college it is a vote for the lesser of two evils. Period.
You do realize she takes money from the private prison industry, right? And you do realize that the emails leaked by Wikileaks talk about giving big donors essential meet time with POTUS once the election is over? I wonder how that conversation will go.
"Hey Hillary, we basically paid for your campaign and you promised to listen to us once you are elected, so that justice reform plan you were mentioning? Yeah, we can't survive if you stop sending as many lower class black males to prison as possible, so you can't push that legislation through. Oh on the war on drugs? That has to stay too."
Money talks.
This isn't a phenomenon unique to Hillary. Lobby groups, and more recently super PAC's, have been influencing, if not buying, elections for decades. Everyone knows that money buys access. Why do you characterize all this institutionalized graft as a Hillary thing?
This isn't a phenomenon unique to Hillary. Lobby groups, and more recently super PAC's, have been influencing, if not buying, elections for decades. Everyone knows that money buys access. Why do you characterize all this institutionalized graft as a Hillary thing?
Because Hillary comes out and talks about justice reform and people think something will actually happen. How can you reform a justice system when the money paying for your re-election campaign is generated by how corrupt the system currently is?
For some strange reason people are suddenly inclined to overlook that. I suppose it has a lot to with looking at Trump and suddenly Hillary looks so much better.
No, Gary Johnson wouldn't win, because the electoral college exists. This isn't a popular vote scenario, look at 2000. Gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the electoral college and Nader snagging Dem voters.
For better or worse, with the electoral college it is a vote for the lesser of two evils. Period.
The point is that if people really wanted change, they would vote for it. Obama was right. The reason the political process doesn't work is because half the country doesn't give a crap.
Canada doesn't have the best system to vote in our PM either, but we don't have crazies running for office.
Worst case scenario with Hillary? Status quo. Money stay in politics, no change on immigration, foreign policy largely remains the same. She has a bad presidency and she's out in 4 years.
What's the worst case scenario with Trump?
Conservative, far right SCOTUS for the next 20 years. He destroys our credibility with NATO. Colludes with Putin to allow Russia to take Crimea and any of the Baltics that it desires. Tries forcing troops to use torture and pushes for other actual war crimes. Guts any existing campaign finance laws allowing the US to become a full oligarchy. Dramatic rollback of women's and LGBT rights. Defaults on US debt, throwing the world economy into a tailspin.
But sure, they're exactly the same.
The Following User Says Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Scott Adams
@ScottAdamsSays
I can't tell if people are more angry at the things Trump didn't actually say or the things he doesn't plan to do but you think he will.
Scott Adams
@ScottAdamsSays
I can't tell if people are more angry at the things Trump didn't actually say or the things he doesn't plan to do but you think he will.
Good point. Now could you please apply the same zeal you show in defending Trump into defending Hillary? You know, the woman who's been accused of a billion things and never once found guilty on a single one. The one who is smeared daily yet for some reason you've not managed to pick up your flag of justice for her.
Because you did mention you were doing this not because you support Trump but instead because you're in this for the altruism of discourse (in so many words). I thank you in advance for your upcoming feverish defence of her.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Scott Adams
@ScottAdamsSays
I can't tell if people are more angry at the things Trump didn't actually say or the things he doesn't plan to do but you think he will.
I'm confused by this statement.
People are angry because of what he has said...
Walls, deportation, cozying up to Putin, torture, abandoning NATO, knowing more about ISIS than the generals, wanting people to beat protesters, punish women who get abortions, etc, etc.
That quote is from someone who clearly can't read or hear
Edit: oh yeah, Putin is a better leader than Obama, he wants to limit freedom of press, steal land from other countries
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 07-29-2016 at 11:58 AM.
