Why isnt Hillary destroying Trump in the polls?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You lefties sure do seem to play fast and loose with the 'no personal attacks' rule this forum purportedly has.

agreed, although this is pretty much an 'all-skate'. If I cross the line I'm sure it will be pointed out. Don't you sweat your safe space lil' camper.

 

[MongGrel]

Because everyone knows hillary can not be trusted. She is a corporate shill where everything is for sale.

What baffles me is why anyone would vote for hillary.

Your definition of everyone seems to be a bit off target.

 

[Atreus21]

Apparently because a somewhat sizable portion of Americans like the guy.

 

[fskimospy]

A Neocon with a pattern of regime change in the Middle East is neither sane nor competent.
By the Bloomberg standard neither one of them is fit to be President.

Bloomberg disagrees with your interpretation of the Bloomberg standard. Presumably he knows best, no?

 

[BxgJ]

You lefties sure do seem to play fast and loose with the 'no personal attacks' rule this forum purportedly has.

agreed, although this is pretty much an 'all-skate'. If I cross the line I'm sure it will be pointed out. Don't you sweat your safe space lil' camper.

I thought that was changed a few years ago? Allowed but not to be excessive, or something like that.

 

[Jhhnn]

In choosing Trump the Repub base just shows how badly they need an attitude adjustment. Barring some miracle, some cosmic reprieve, they'll get it in November.

 

[JEDI]

You lefties sure do seem to play fast and loose with the 'no personal attacks' rule this forum purportedly has.

you must be new here.
have a seat so we can initialize you for being a bible thumping conserve.

oh, and welcome to the P&N forum 🙂

 

[ivwshane]

You lefties sure do seem to play fast and loose with the 'no personal attacks' rule this forum purportedly has.

You should probably read the rules before you make shit up.

 

[Vic]

A Neocon with a pattern of regime change in the Middle East is neither sane nor competent.
By the Bloomberg standard neither one of them is fit to be President.

Clinton is predictable, Trump is not. And unpredictability is simply bad for business.

 

[MrA79]

You show probably read the rules before you make shit up.

A forum for more serious discussions of politics and current events. Passions are always high on all sides of these subjects so keep your posts on topic. PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Looks like I did.

 

[ivwshane]

A forum for more serious discussions of politics and current events. Passions are always high on all sides of these subjects so keep your posts on topic. PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Looks like I did.

Looks like you didn't.

So the question is; are you man enough to admit you were wrong or is this your way of telling us that you will be another contributor of more bullshit posts?

1. No thread-crapping, thread-derailment, off-topic posting, trolling, the intentional posting of logical fallacies or misinformation.
(rule permanently adopted by community vote Jun 06, 2012)

2. Insults or personal attacks are ALLOWED.
(the "no insult" rule was struck down by community vote Jun 06, 2012)
DH0 personal attacks and insults are acceptable in P&N

8/3/12 -- Insults and personal attacks, while permitted, are not to be excessively vitriolic or scatological in nature, nor will any one poster be allowed constantly engage in them. Please let common sense, and some idea of proportion and civility be your guide.

3. 2/6/16 -- Use of images: The written word is paramount in P&N. Images may be used in a post ONLY to supplement a written argument, but may not be your sole contribution to any one post, and must be used sparingly, in any case. Repetitive overuse of images by any one poster will also not be allowed.

 

[agent00f]

Wow.

The man organized for and was a member of the kkk, literally wore the hood. I like how you mentioned his "my bad" apology in passing though. Way to correct the record I guess. LOL

Ah, the perks of being a democrat.

I would think there's a difference between someone who disavows racism, and someone who openly embraces it like David Duke.

Only of those two has ideology relevant to this election, and I'll even give you a hint: it's the only whose "race realism" is rather popular with supporters of the orange campaign. Would you consider yourself a race realist?

What it means to be a Democrat will change as the right wing or #alt whatever fades into obscurity. The Democrat coalition will begin to splinter more along socio economic or even geographic lines once that occurs. Most of the LBGT people I know have widely different views on immigration, global intervention and other economic issues. Similarly, hispanic or other immigrant families well established in the American societal fabric are not unlike the immigrant waves that came before them, particularly those that are Catholic.

Regardless, the brand of politics represented by both Trump and Clinton will only further create political apathy and frustration. There is nothing inspiring about either outcome.

Centrists are often rather successful in politics, even if folks towards the ends sometimes hate them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

In choosing Trump the Repub base just shows how badly they need an attitude adjustment. Barring some miracle, some cosmic reprieve, they'll get it in November.

Hillary isn't an attitude adjustment for anyone. She is the better of two shitty choices, which isn't saying much. I don't understand why anyone on the left would actually celebrate such a "victory" unless they are the worst sort of Democratic shills.

A more refined turd is still a turd, and that's what we'll end up with.

 

[openwheel]

Because people in the US are unable to comprehend for themselves. This is a problem because they only care about themselves and believe the Universe centers around the US of A. They believe the Hillary smear as easily as their grocery store tabloids. Let's face it, those who try to equate Trump with Clinton are simply Trump supporters trying not to sound like complete morons. Anyone with any common sense knows Clinton is a far superior leader than Trump. It is sad for the US, and unfortunately the World is laughing at the Trump morons, as well as those who actually believe Hillary is a "murderer".

 

[openwheel]

Hillary isn't an attitude adjustment for anyone. She is the better of two shitty choices, which isn't saying much. I don't understand why anyone on the left would actually celebrate such a "victory" unless they are the worst sort of Democratic shills.

A more refined turd is still a turd, and that's what we'll end up with.

Translation:

I know my team sucks balls, but your team is not going to win the World Series either. ***blowing raspberry****

 

[trenchfoot]

Apparently because a somewhat sizable portion of Americans like the guy.

"That guy" could just as well have been Ted Nugent or Elmer Fudd and the loyalists will still vote straight party line.

And yes, the Dems have their share, but then I really don't think the Dems would ever allow a guy like Trump or anyone like him to win their primary. 😉

 

[Jaskalas]

Bloomberg disagrees with your interpretation of the Bloomberg standard. Presumably he knows best, no?

Presumably you'd know that Hillary Clinton's Neocon policy is neither sane nor competent.
Any standard that rejects on that basis will stand by my words.
Of course Neocons would disagree, but we shouldn't give a !@#$ what they want anymore. They've killed enough people these past 15 years.

 

[emperus]

Wow.

The man organized for and was a member of the kkk, literally wore the hood. I like how you mentioned his "my bad" apology in passing though. Way to correct the record I guess. LOL

Ah, the perks of being a democrat.

Not sure if you are serious, but the question is do you believe a person can change and if so what do you do when that person does. That question and the shades of gray it entails might be tough for most Republicans though.

 

[emperus]

I think a large reason the polls are still close is the media. Look at thiis example of Clinton and CGI. The argument is that she met with some people who donated to CGI and they _____. Yeah noone has come up with what that blank is yet. On the other hand, we have Trump's campaign manager who was on the Payroll of Putin and who influenced Trump's policy in favor of Russia. Yet, crickets there. Isn't that the kind of corruption the media is looking for in the CLinton/CGI case?

 

[Jhhnn]

Hillary isn't an attitude adjustment for anyone. She is the better of two shitty choices, which isn't saying much. I don't understand why anyone on the left would actually celebrate such a "victory" unless they are the worst sort of Democratic shills.

A more refined turd is still a turd, and that's what we'll end up with.

When you have nothing to build up the only answer is to tear down the other side. That's been the essence of Republicanism since 2008. They've done such a great job of spreading the FUD, tearing down & obstructing the govt of the people that they've destroyed their own credibility in the process, even among their base. They've sown the wind & now reap the whirlwind in the form of Trump.

He can't deliver, can't govern, simply because he's incompetent, out of his reality TV league. The party can't, either, because they're ideologically opposed to the whole idea of good government & therefore incompetent on a whole different level.

Hillary & the Democrats are none of that. We both know it. She'll do fine.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Oh, btw, Trump is rayciss. And Carter was leading Reagan in the polls. Go look it up.

I don't hear Clinton talking about mass expulsions. Trump has repeatedly announced intentions to cleanse our country of dark skinned people with such radical ideas like building a wall, exporting them all, and being a "law and order candidate" (more prisons, less drug treatment) whenever he mentions Hispanics, Muslims, or black folks. Only thing he hasn't announced yet is gas chambers.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't hear Clinton talking about mass expulsions. Trump has repeatedly announced intentions to cleanse our country of dark skinned people with such radical ideas like building a wall, exporting them all, and being a "law and order candidate" (more prisons, less drug treatment) whenever he mentions Hispanics, Muslims, or black folks. Only thing he hasn't announced yet is gas chambers.

Links to trump saying he will cleanse the nation? All I hear him say is he will enforce the law. If blocking people from nations on terrorist watch list is racism and hate, then so be it.

Jimmy Carter denied access to Iranians.

Franklin Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps, which was upheld by the supreme court.

I can go on and on about how various presidents did this or that. What trump suggest is a good decision.

 

[MrA79]

Looks like you didn't.

So the question is; are you man enough to admit you were wrong or is this your way of telling us that you will be another contributor of more bullshit posts?

Maybe you should try a mouseover on the forum link before you flap your gums. They clearly need to correct one or the other.

 

[Commodus]

Links to trump saying he will cleanse the nation? All I hear him say is he will enforce the law. If blocking people from nations on terrorist watch list is racism and hate, then so be it.

Jimmy Carter denied access to Iranians.

Franklin Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps, which was upheld by the supreme court.

I can go on and on about how various presidents did this or that. What trump suggest is a good decision.

Just because Carter and Roosevelt did similar things earlier doesn't make it right. Those were mistakes, too.

And you don't need links. Trump wants to "temporarily" ban all Muslims from entering the US. That's broadly discriminatory, against the principles of the country, and horribly flawed even if you sincerely believe that simply being Muslim automatically makes someone a threat. What's to stop a terrorist from lying to get in? Is the US going to dig through social network accounts or grill extended families to see if people are telling the truth? And how long would this ban last? Or will it be like Bush Jr.'s "war on terror," which was conveniently so vague that unjustified wars and civil liberty abuses were never going to stop so long as Bush or like-minded Republicans were in office?

Then there's the infamous "we'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" thing, combined with claims that Trump will deport all illegal immigrants. Never mind that neither idea is likely to come true (Trump is clueless when it comes to both politics and logistics) -- if they did come true, that'd be "cleansing." Particularly when Trump still sticks to his lie that Mexican immigrants are primarily rapists and other criminals. Between that and the proposed Muslim restrictions, he might as well just institute a ban on "the brown ones," because that's what he really wants.

Remember, many of the people emigrating to the US from those terrorist watch list countries are trying to escape extremism, not spread it. Check them carefully, to be sure, but don't lump a family bombed out of its home in Syria with ISIS. That's an oversimplification.

 

[Sonikku]

Most Repubs hated Trump til he got the nomination. Then they lined up in fucking lock step.