Lump Left After A Bang On Face
Body & Soul0 min ago
Well, It Looks Like...
...the only thing between Trump and the White House will be Hillary. Fascinating.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jackdaw33. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think there's anyone objecting to you expressing your opinion Mikey. It's just that your opinion is wrong.
Even on what is on- and off-topic, for example. Corbyn is totally relevant, as is Sanders, as are a host of other "weirdo candidates", whose strength is that they have emerged from outside the establishment and captured the hearts of voters -- or at least enough voters to matter. Corbyn too benefitted from facing off against a field of other candidates rather than just one (and not exactly stellar candidates at that). Sanders was, for a time, matching or exceeding Trump's performances, but against a single candidate. And all three are, at least to start with, the same: they are anti-establishment and "refreshing", or at least appear so.
Of the three, Sanders is about to drop out of relevance, but maybe he will have dragged Clinton a little further left. Interestingly, Sanders was doing brilliantly in simulated polls against Republican candidates, and was predicted to thrash Trump (although the prediction should be taken with a pinch of salt given that this is before they would have faced off directly); Clinton is only narrowly ahead, because she's just not very engaging really.
That last is another point. I'm pretty sure mikey that you've spent most of the last year or so telling anyone who would listen that Clinton was a shoo-in. Really? Trump has made a pretty decent job of trashing the reputations of some seriously heavyweight politicians from across the Republican Party, and most of the rest are now going to have to pull off some remarkable u-turns if they want to get the Republicans in. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, John Boehner... the roll call is impressive (perhaps a little more so for US readers). Clinton has struggled to hold off a left-wing maverick who never had any real chance of winning. Can you really trust her to hold off Trump when I'm not convinced that even her supporters actually like her much? Her campaign message is something close to "Let's just give up on our dreams and settle". Oh, and she is very much the establishment candidate in an election where establishment candidates have been pretty much universally destroyed, or at least heavily battered -- and this despite putting all their effort and vast resources into it. Her turn may yet come to join the political death toll.
Even on what is on- and off-topic, for example. Corbyn is totally relevant, as is Sanders, as are a host of other "weirdo candidates", whose strength is that they have emerged from outside the establishment and captured the hearts of voters -- or at least enough voters to matter. Corbyn too benefitted from facing off against a field of other candidates rather than just one (and not exactly stellar candidates at that). Sanders was, for a time, matching or exceeding Trump's performances, but against a single candidate. And all three are, at least to start with, the same: they are anti-establishment and "refreshing", or at least appear so.
Of the three, Sanders is about to drop out of relevance, but maybe he will have dragged Clinton a little further left. Interestingly, Sanders was doing brilliantly in simulated polls against Republican candidates, and was predicted to thrash Trump (although the prediction should be taken with a pinch of salt given that this is before they would have faced off directly); Clinton is only narrowly ahead, because she's just not very engaging really.
That last is another point. I'm pretty sure mikey that you've spent most of the last year or so telling anyone who would listen that Clinton was a shoo-in. Really? Trump has made a pretty decent job of trashing the reputations of some seriously heavyweight politicians from across the Republican Party, and most of the rest are now going to have to pull off some remarkable u-turns if they want to get the Republicans in. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, John Boehner... the roll call is impressive (perhaps a little more so for US readers). Clinton has struggled to hold off a left-wing maverick who never had any real chance of winning. Can you really trust her to hold off Trump when I'm not convinced that even her supporters actually like her much? Her campaign message is something close to "Let's just give up on our dreams and settle". Oh, and she is very much the establishment candidate in an election where establishment candidates have been pretty much universally destroyed, or at least heavily battered -- and this despite putting all their effort and vast resources into it. Her turn may yet come to join the political death toll.
Jim....I am of the opinion that Trump is an ignorant, offensive, racist, bigot, and if he is elected to the White House, the world would be a considerably more frightening place than it is now. The point that I have been making is the Republican Party could have avoided this, in not having some many no-hoper candidates in the first place.
Trump is a fabulously wealthy man and it should have been foreseen that
that his wealth would outstrip other candidates. All those other candidates that have dropped out of the race have their share of the blame for the situation that the Party now finds itself in.....landed with a Candidate that they don't like and never wanted, who will probably lose them the Election.
Trump is a fabulously wealthy man and it should have been foreseen that
that his wealth would outstrip other candidates. All those other candidates that have dropped out of the race have their share of the blame for the situation that the Party now finds itself in.....landed with a Candidate that they don't like and never wanted, who will probably lose them the Election.
