DescentBB

"Donald Trump fired his campaign manager, because a campaign manager is supposed to prevent the candidate from being a racist misogynist ★■◆● that seventy percent of the voters hate."


I think those 70 percent are highly enjoying watching the campaign melt down, self-destruct, beg for money and search for the first clue how to run a General Election strategy.

still remember what I said how a businessman shouldn't be in politics?

The good news is 13% of the US supports Donald Trump.

So I can look at a crowd anywhere in the states and see one out of ten (rounded down to the nearest whole number) support trump.

And yet Trump won the GOP nomination. How do you do that if only 10% of the people support you?. And how is it he is within 5 points of Hillary?

sigh, Woody, let's walk through the math again. The GOP primary electorate consisted of 23 million people participating, that is about 18 percent of a typical General election turnout(the Dems, by the way, pulled nearly 30 million to the polls in 2016 primaries, despite the propaganda about some whopping GOP turnout). Of that 18% roughly 55 percent seemed to choose Trump, as best as I can estimate overall. That would give you about 10% of the overall electorate supporting him. This isn't atypical, but the game going forward is to get the other 10 percent from the GOP base, swing some Dem voters and hammer the independant vote, which makes up 58% of the General electorate. Lotsa luck.

and, reason #134 why folks don't like Trump: He's just paying campaign funds to himself:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie ... bfcN&pfr=1


by the way, Woody, it would seem that not too many folks are lining up to run for Veep on this ticket. Plus, the dear, departed Mr. Lewandowski was in charge of the search process. Looking good! I'll bet a lot of those donors the Donald mocked on the run to winning over the idiot fringe(read GOP primary voter) are just emptying their wallets to help him now.

callmeslick wrote:sigh, Woody, let's walk through the math again. The GOP primary electorate consisted of 23 million people participating, that is about 18 percent of a typical General election turnout(the Dems, by the way, pulled nearly 30 million to the polls in 2016 primaries, despite the propaganda about some whopping GOP turnout). Of that 18% roughly 55 percent seemed to choose Trump, as best as I can estimate overall. That would give you about 10% of the overall electorate supporting him. This isn't atypical, but the game going forward is to get the other 10 percent from the GOP base, swing some Dem voters and hammer the independant vote, which makes up 58% of the General electorate. Lotsa luck.

Blue collar dems are going for Trump as will the independants out of work. Think those without a job are going to vote in another 4 years of Obama via Hillary. Lotsa luck. And I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from but Dem votes were way down while Rep. voter turnout hit record highs.

keep telling yourself that. The Dem crossover numbers look like they'll be minuscule. Hillary is starting to gain traction in every group you cite, thanks partly to a dismal job by Trump at running a campaign. Further, wait until HIllary picks a running mate. I'd not be shocked to see that it may be someone appealing to just those economically dispossessed voters.

Nov. is still a long way off. Who knows what may happen.

I know the same thing I've known all along. Trump will NEVER be elected President.

For what it is worth, you also said he would never be the GOP nominee.

care to find that quote?

Yeah, it was a TB thread on who would win the nominations. Believe you picked Rubio:

oh, if that is what you mean, Vander, my picks are:

Hillary will likely carry the Dems
Rubio will carry the GOP, via party pressure
Trump will run as an independant.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22586&hilit=rubio

There you go.

that was my guess at the time, but all along, I've only been CERTAIN of one thing. I even offered a wager, but no Trump supporter managed to grow a pair and take it. At no time did I suggest that Trump couldn't potentially gull the majority of the 'party of stupid'(TM-Bobby Jindal 2012).

Seems I too offered a bet but you got scared of the odds
.

don't recall any bet around the general, but mine.....still, let's get back to the presumptive nominee, who seems to be spending on himself:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... b7Kz&pfr=1

I've been around politics my whole life, and never heard of a candidate paying HIMSELF a salary out of campaign funds.I'm sure it gets done, all the time, especially by lowlife, fly-by-night candidates.

I think slick you need to read better sources. Trump loaned his campaign over 12 million and he used that money to pay for expenses...like the use of his helicopter to ferry him around. Now look at Hillary and see how she uses her donations of which she self funded only about 300k.

he's doing nothing short of funnelling 25 percent of the money back to himself and his companies along with family businesses. Nothing whatsoever new about that, but the taking of 3500 per month is odd, to say the least. Hell, I'm not in his supposed 'category' but I give that much to charity per month. What the hell does he need to be paying himself for?

This morning, he almost sounded like Bernie during his live teleprompter speech attacking Hillary. His liberal side is starting to show.

while woody is waiting for those 'blue collar dems' to run to the Orange Baboon, more and more guys like this are going for Clinton:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

And a secret service agent writes a very unflattering book about the Clintons. So whose jumping ship affiliations do you think will strip more votes away from whom?

Is there any reason we should give a ★■◆● about said agent?

woodchip wrote:And a secret service agent writes a very unflattering book about the Clintons. So whose jumping ship affiliations do you think will strip more votes away from whom?

won't have much effect now that a couple dozen folks who worked with him claim it to be a load of BS.

as fact check notes, Woody isn't the only one in the Trump camp willing to toss out absolute fabrications and lies:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck ... li=BBnb7Kz

a rewording of the math, from a longer article in the NY Times:
"Here is a fact Mr. Trump would be well advised to consider: The total number of Republican primary voters this year, more than half of whom voted for somebody other than Trump, is significantly smaller than the number of minority voters that will vote this November. Put another way, Trump is losing minority voters alone by more than twice the total number of people who voted for Trump in the GOP primaries."

Speaking of fact check:

CNN Money’s “fact-checkers” Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel ended up with egg on their faces on Wednesday after they rated as “false” a well-established and proven Clinton Cash fact involving Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approving the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government, as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

callmeslick wrote:while woody is waiting for those 'blue collar dems' to run to the Orange Baboon, more and more guys like this are going for Clinton:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

Doesn't it bother you slick, as a Democrat, that conservatives are starting to give their endorsements to Clinton? I know that Trump is a wack job who's pissing off a lot of Republicans, but isn't this telling us that Clinton might be a little too cozy with quite a few conservatives to really be a true progressive Democrat?

note, TC, those endorsements are SOLELY due to concerns over the lack of temperment of her opponents. I don't exactly expect any of these folks to be actively campaigning for her, nor supporting 90% of her agenda in office. Worth noting, though, is the number of folks who do cite her as someone you can work with, as that is the sort of person who sometimes is needed to get things done. Example might be LBJ, real cozy with a lot of old school racists, but managed to force the hands into relenting on Civil Rights.

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

welcome to a Representative Republic and how the nuts and bolts of politics work, Spidey.

woodchip wrote:Speaking of fact check:

CNN Money’s “fact-checkers” Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel ended up with egg on their faces on Wednesday after they rated as “false” a well-established and proven Clinton Cash fact involving Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approving the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government, as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

This post was super interesting to me. And since woodchip doesn't know anything about it's significance, and I did the research, I would like to share my findings.

The quote above is from Breitbart (go figure). The article attempts to attack CNN, commonly known as the "Clinton News Network." CNN ran a fact check on one of Donald Trump's speeches. In the speech, Mr Trump said "Clinton ran the State Department like a personal hedge fund." This statement was determined to be false (also, I don't think Mr Trump knows what a hedge fund is).

The issue is related to the transfer of uranium to a Russian-owned company named Uranium One. This company has "operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States." In fact, most of these countries own subsidiaries of Uranium One. The "who owns what, when, and where" gets really complicated even when talking about the initial creation of Uranium One, which is the result of a merger with a South African minerals company plus a number of other acquisitions over several years.

A couple people related to Uranium One and its subsidiaries are Clinton Foundation donors (though who isn't a CF donor these days, really?). There is no hard evidence that the transfer of uranium to Uranium One is related to donations. Also, the State Department cannot approve the transfer of uranium by itself, a number of other agencies must also sign off.

After looking over the facts I don't see anything criminal or fraudulent, just your average crony capitalism.

And one of those organizations that would have to sign off on the deal would be the IAEA, correct Vision?

Ferno wrote:And one of those organizations that would have to sign off on the deal would be the IAEA, correct Vision?

Possibly. Uranium One does business within our borders so it's likely any materials sold would stay here for resale. At the very least everything is under the control of the U.S.NRC (first and foremost), then probably the DOE. I think a lot of people want to imagine the sale of uranium to Russians as something equivalent to Iranian uranium enrichment, but that makes absolutely no sense. It's more or less simple commodities trading, no different than a Russian company in the US buying wheat or corn. Capitalism in action. Maybe Trump is just jealous because Mrs Clinton is a better capitalist?