Would You Consider Trump Supporters Bad...
Society & Culture0 min ago
Trump Is Getting Increasingly Desperet
http://
US election 2016: Trump says election 'rigged at polling places'
He will blame everybody but himself for his current situation.....He is even disagreeing with his running-mate.
US election 2016: Trump says election 'rigged at polling places'
He will blame everybody but himself for his current situation.....He is even disagreeing with his running-mate.
Answers
As I and many others have said countless times, Clinton is a long way from the ideal choice but despite that she is far, far, far better than Trump . It is a case of the least bad wins. Against a 'decent' candidate Clinton would not stand a chance but against Trump she is a dead cert to win! The USA desperately needs to find a better way of electing a president. At the...
12:33 Mon 17th Oct 2016
Trump has in a way made a virtue out of his 'stupidity' mikey. But post election he won't need to play the 'anti establishment' figure any more to try to get elected.
You can some up the difference between Trump and the Clintons in one word: Wall: Bill famously signed the peace wall in Belfast, in the hope that one day it would no longer be needed, and for all his non political faults, is a hero there. Trump is a builder of walls.
Clinton H may not have her husband's charisma but she will be a good president I think
You can some up the difference between Trump and the Clintons in one word: Wall: Bill famously signed the peace wall in Belfast, in the hope that one day it would no longer be needed, and for all his non political faults, is a hero there. Trump is a builder of walls.
Clinton H may not have her husband's charisma but she will be a good president I think
"Mikey, you’re forgetting she’s a consummate liar."
So is Trump, only more so.
But that said, the problem is that criticism of Hillary Clinton is often justified, and that's been enough to allow people to feel that a measurably worse candidate in virtually every respect is nevertheless worth considering.
So is Trump, only more so.
But that said, the problem is that criticism of Hillary Clinton is often justified, and that's been enough to allow people to feel that a measurably worse candidate in virtually every respect is nevertheless worth considering.
[i]you’re forgetting she’s a consummate liar[i]
Mikey was listing the differences. Trump lies even when he doesn't appear to know what he's talking about. The Trump Winery, for instance. He explained how he owned it, it was the biggest winery of the East Coast, and it made wine as good as any in the world. Alas, it's never made a top 100 list anywhere, it isn't the largest on the coast and ....tadaaa... he owns nothing whatever of it. It's nothing to do with him at all.
Hillary's a liar, they say?
Mikey was listing the differences. Trump lies even when he doesn't appear to know what he's talking about. The Trump Winery, for instance. He explained how he owned it, it was the biggest winery of the East Coast, and it made wine as good as any in the world. Alas, it's never made a top 100 list anywhere, it isn't the largest on the coast and ....tadaaa... he owns nothing whatever of it. It's nothing to do with him at all.
Hillary's a liar, they say?
It's generally accepted by anyone who has looked into it thoroughly that Trump tells lies at a rate that is vastly in excess of anything Clinton managed. In the first debate, Trump is considered to have made something like five or ten times as many inaccurate, misleading or downright false statements as Clinton did. So disputing the claim that Trump is "more so" is, at least, on shaky ground.
I agree that Clinton isn't squeaky clean, though. There are a number of reasons I'm troubled by her candidacy for reasons that aren't anything to do with her per se either -- for example, how can it be right that (before Trump stepped in) there was a strong chance this would have been a Clinton v. Bush election race? Jeb Bush, this time around, but then that would have made 24 years since 1988 where the leader of the most powerful country, and self-styled head of democracy, was drawn from one of two families. This can't be held against Clinton personally, but still it's not ideally democratic is it?
She's also a bit too much of a politician and represents certain excesses or problems with the system that we could do without. And yes, she does lie, and has often totally changed her positions on many topics probably because it's politically convenient to do so rather than out of a genuine conviction that she was wrong before.
But all that said, Trump answers none of these problems. Tired of lying politics? Trump lies to absurd degree? Sick of insiders running the system? Trump was an insider himself, for many years (and if you don't believe me, ask him yourself, as he freely admits to this -- with the caveat that he then claims this makes him uniquely suited to fixing it, if you believe that). Sick of the wealthy avoiding taxes and abusing the system? Trump again... (even more so outrageously as he complained about everyone else dong it).
He's tapped in to an anger about the current state of affairs very well, but his supporters are bound to be disappointed either way.
I agree that Clinton isn't squeaky clean, though. There are a number of reasons I'm troubled by her candidacy for reasons that aren't anything to do with her per se either -- for example, how can it be right that (before Trump stepped in) there was a strong chance this would have been a Clinton v. Bush election race? Jeb Bush, this time around, but then that would have made 24 years since 1988 where the leader of the most powerful country, and self-styled head of democracy, was drawn from one of two families. This can't be held against Clinton personally, but still it's not ideally democratic is it?
She's also a bit too much of a politician and represents certain excesses or problems with the system that we could do without. And yes, she does lie, and has often totally changed her positions on many topics probably because it's politically convenient to do so rather than out of a genuine conviction that she was wrong before.
But all that said, Trump answers none of these problems. Tired of lying politics? Trump lies to absurd degree? Sick of insiders running the system? Trump was an insider himself, for many years (and if you don't believe me, ask him yourself, as he freely admits to this -- with the caveat that he then claims this makes him uniquely suited to fixing it, if you believe that). Sick of the wealthy avoiding taxes and abusing the system? Trump again... (even more so outrageously as he complained about everyone else dong it).
He's tapped in to an anger about the current state of affairs very well, but his supporters are bound to be disappointed either way.
A few people on here this morning are attacking Hilary, when the subject matter of this thread is how Trump is getting desperate, because he is behind in the Polls.
But if Hilary isn't to every bodies taste, and I except that she may not be, why give your support to Trump ? Whatever Hilary has have done or said, it can hardly cancel out what Trump has said and done, in full public view.
There are other candidates on offer, and if people are not very find of Hilary, why vote for Trump, instead of others or abstaining ?
But if Hilary isn't to every bodies taste, and I except that she may not be, why give your support to Trump ? Whatever Hilary has have done or said, it can hardly cancel out what Trump has said and done, in full public view.
There are other candidates on offer, and if people are not very find of Hilary, why vote for Trump, instead of others or abstaining ?
One thing is certain here - there are obviously pro Clinton / Trump supporters , in this tug of war, whose opinions will not be changed , one way or another .
It won't be long before we know which side will fall on their faces or ba8ksides .
As to news organisations taking sides , i beleive there are more, in favour of trump .
Look at the totally impartial Fox News
It won't be long before we know which side will fall on their faces or ba8ksides .
As to news organisations taking sides , i beleive there are more, in favour of trump .
Look at the totally impartial Fox News
They' don't just say. The evidence is available
As it is for Trump, though Trumpeters prefer to ignore it. My point was that mikey was listing the differences between the candidates and you appear to think this isn't one , so why did you bother pointing it out? Or do you actually think Trump isn't a liar?
As it is for Trump, though Trumpeters prefer to ignore it. My point was that mikey was listing the differences between the candidates and you appear to think this isn't one , so why did you bother pointing it out? Or do you actually think Trump isn't a liar?
If one of our own politicians ( it doesn't make any difference which Party ) were to make promises that he/she would lower income tax, build millions of new homes, pour countless funds into the NHS, and make pretty well every other promise they could, they might be very popular.
But, if in between all these promises, they confessed to thinking it was OK to assault women, made all sorts of racist comments, dissed the mothers of our servicemen killed in Afghanistan, was rude and dismissive to disabled people, and insulted our non British-born residents, etc, etc, he would be immediately dropped by most people, and understandably so.
But in America, that very same person would still be popular, with millions of people set to vote for him !
Its crazy. I promise I will try not t ask this question again......but how much lower does Trump have to sink, before his support is severely damaged ?
But, if in between all these promises, they confessed to thinking it was OK to assault women, made all sorts of racist comments, dissed the mothers of our servicemen killed in Afghanistan, was rude and dismissive to disabled people, and insulted our non British-born residents, etc, etc, he would be immediately dropped by most people, and understandably so.
But in America, that very same person would still be popular, with millions of people set to vote for him !
Its crazy. I promise I will try not t ask this question again......but how much lower does Trump have to sink, before his support is severely damaged ?
After reading that last post I'm no longer sure whether mikey's habit of calling Trump "stopid" or "desperet" is deliberate or not.
There is actually quite a lot of evidence to suggest that some Trump supporters agree that he's an awful person, but are happy to tolerate it because he's also running on the Republican ticket. The reverse is also true, obviously, for Clinton supporters who are happy to overlook her faults in favour of supporting the Democrat party or just keeping Trump out. But these are the only two (realistic) choices before the American people. Jill Stein of the Green Party is... well, actually, that's probably enough to know why she doesn't have a chance. And the other main one is Gary Johnson but then he can't remember what A Leppo is or who he admires and can't seriously discuss his radical tax plans, or is a joke candidate otherwise. This leaves exactly two choices, both of which are arguably awful for various reasons. Unless you are in Utah, in which case you have a third choice in McMullin, who I don't think is running anywhere else but amazingly still has an outside chance of becoming president if the maths works out.
So the system is utterly a shambles, throwing up an unpleasant choice. My support for Clinton, such as it is, is based on the fact that she does at least represent problems that could be addressed next time out. Trump is unhinged and dangerous, lashing out at the smallest criticism, and I don't want him anywhere near the president.
Alas, all the really good candidates got weeded out in the nomination races. Bernie Sanders was probably far too left-wing to get elected but at least he was generally consistent and honest; Marco Rubio seems to me to be among the more attractive candidates in the Republican party, and perhaps his time will come again. At the very least, a Rubio v. Sanders campaign would have been far more about political viewpoints than about which candidate was the worse person.
There is actually quite a lot of evidence to suggest that some Trump supporters agree that he's an awful person, but are happy to tolerate it because he's also running on the Republican ticket. The reverse is also true, obviously, for Clinton supporters who are happy to overlook her faults in favour of supporting the Democrat party or just keeping Trump out. But these are the only two (realistic) choices before the American people. Jill Stein of the Green Party is... well, actually, that's probably enough to know why she doesn't have a chance. And the other main one is Gary Johnson but then he can't remember what A Leppo is or who he admires and can't seriously discuss his radical tax plans, or is a joke candidate otherwise. This leaves exactly two choices, both of which are arguably awful for various reasons. Unless you are in Utah, in which case you have a third choice in McMullin, who I don't think is running anywhere else but amazingly still has an outside chance of becoming president if the maths works out.
So the system is utterly a shambles, throwing up an unpleasant choice. My support for Clinton, such as it is, is based on the fact that she does at least represent problems that could be addressed next time out. Trump is unhinged and dangerous, lashing out at the smallest criticism, and I don't want him anywhere near the president.
Alas, all the really good candidates got weeded out in the nomination races. Bernie Sanders was probably far too left-wing to get elected but at least he was generally consistent and honest; Marco Rubio seems to me to be among the more attractive candidates in the Republican party, and perhaps his time will come again. At the very least, a Rubio v. Sanders campaign would have been far more about political viewpoints than about which candidate was the worse person.
As I and many others have said countless times, Clinton is a long way from the ideal choice but despite that she is far, far, far better than Trump .
It is a case of the least bad wins.
Against a 'decent' candidate Clinton would not stand a chance but against Trump she is a dead cert to win!
The USA desperately needs to find a better way of electing a president.
At the moment it is a glowing accolade for a Monarchy , thank God we do not have to elect a President!
It is a case of the least bad wins.
Against a 'decent' candidate Clinton would not stand a chance but against Trump she is a dead cert to win!
The USA desperately needs to find a better way of electing a president.
At the moment it is a glowing accolade for a Monarchy , thank God we do not have to elect a President!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.