A collection of Paul Keating (Australian PM, late '80’s) insults:
The polls in question were Clinton vs Trump compared to Sanders vs Trump. So far the polls for Clinton vs Trump look dead on.
Clinton was a poor choice in as much as the DNC “choose” and altered the outcome of the primary. Clinton is and has been a bought candidate and this is why her support in a give-away election is so poor. The Democrats are suffering the fall out of “installing” their candidate. They deserve it. We don’t.
There is some actual, verifiable racism among some Trump supporters:
We are not making this up. He’s got verifiable white power supporters. It’s not in our imaginations. David Duke is not a sprite, he’s a real human being who believes in white supremacy. And he supports Trump.
So, no, not all of Trumps supporters are racist. Duh. But he is getting the white power vote. I don’t know what we do about that other than call that shit out and show it for what it is. If that makes me a “bad guy,” then I guess I’m going to hell.
What backstage shenanigans? A legitimate question. The only thing I saw from the DNC hack was some lower level staffers not exactly on board with Sanders suddenly becoming a Democrat and throwing around some less than supportive emails about that. Did you think that affected the vote enough to cost him 3 million votes? I don’t think so, but if you want to make a compelling case, I’m all ears.
What corruption? Serious question. Because she’s withstood 25 years of Right Wing attacks and so eventually people just assume this is true because they’ve tried to paint her with that brush so many times, but there’s very little “there” there. Example: the supposed corruption about Clinton Foundation influence. They found no evidence that the donating to the Foundation led to any policy changes or favors. And it’s has an “A” rating from Charity Watch. And it’s provided AIDs medicine to Africans. The email scandal is a politically motivated attack when Colin Powell did the same, as well as giving her tips on how to run her server. And so on.
Yup. I wish we didn’t have political dynasties in this country. Not sure how to combat that since there is no Constitutional limit.
-corporate power in government
Yes, but we need to get Citizens United overturned.
You blaming her for Bill getting his dick sucked? GTFO with that nonsense.
This is an easy thing to say without backing it up. What are you talking about specifically? I think she was late to recognize gay marriage and the “super predators” thing was a huge mistake.
-being a jerk to people
You’re adorable. Welcome to politics.
Still, she’s not a racist, bigoted, xenophobe, so she’s got that going for her, which is nice.
Sorry, it is. If they go to a rally for a terrorist or donate money to terrorism or put a “kill all the infidels” bumper sticker on their car, then call me.
Solid trump supporter there… but yeah, Trump isn’t stirring up any racism… it’s all in our heads.
:game_die: Would You LIKE to Play a Game? :video_game:
“of course there is no us and them, but them that do not think the same.”
- Eugene Hutz
David Duke supports trump. David fucking Duke.
I’m thinking …run and hide!
She voted for the war.
She had the responsibility to investigate the administration’s claims before voting for the war. I had no such responsibility, but I read the Powell presentation in detail, and recognized that the photos included didn’t show the new construction they were supposed to show, so I could figure out that the administration’s claims weren’t entirely honest.
An engineer shouldn’t sign off on a new dam without checking out the plans. It doesn’t matter if the politicians say its good. It doesn’t matter if the public says its good. It’s the responsibility of that engineer to check out the plans.
A politician shouldn’t vote for a new war without checking out the casus belli.
If that’s a purity standard, well, maximum lead levels in municipal water supplies, and minimum ph levels, are also purity standards.
i quote myself from earlier in this thread[quote=“navarro, post:24, topic:85071”]
there is no way of truly comparing trump and clinton as candidates or as politicians. it’s not even so much an apples to oranges comparison as much as it is an apples to burning deep sea oil rigs comparison. this election is a choice between a very cautious, utterly conventional democratic candidate and a demagogic, careless, completely abnormal candidate who, while he might represent the most ugly racist streak inherent in the party of cruelty the present day republican party has become, goes so far beyond the norms they have left standing that it is truly breathtaking.
i realize you and i are going to disagree on certain fundamentals, the second amendment for one, and you can provide whatever texture you want to your reality, i put up with the same kind of thing from popobawa4u in 4 out of 5 threads they post in, but your casual dismissal of clinton as corrupt without reckoning with the context of 30 years of unverified or disproven sleaze that has been dumped on her and her husband by a calculating yet reckless group of rightwing billionaires is remiss and you should seriously check your premises before you make your conclusions out loud.
Ha, fixed. All I did was copy OCR’d text from a screenshot posted on Twitter of a web site…that has a typo.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Boingertown.
The Clintons have become to the national Democratic party as a parasitic wasp is to a caterpillar. Is it the caterpillar who is at fault, or the wasp??
Not blaming either - just saying I told you so.
Of course he has some crazy racist supporters. I would be willing to bet that all of the members of the KKK support him. But we are only talking about a few thousand people. I am sure that there are some groups of terrible people who support Hillary as well. But they are not the base, and they do not direct policy. If Trump actually came out with White supremacist platform policies, he would lose the support of millions. Probably the whole party.
Making the other side out to be a bunch of stereotyped monsters is a well used political tactic. Don’t fall for it. The vast majority of people are decent, charitable and empathetic.
ordinarily it irritates me when someone dismisses a statement by saying you just can’t understand because you aren’t _____________ where _____________ represents whatever combination of race/ethnicity/gender/religion/educational level/job you might want to mention so as to obviate the need to communicate or even the possibility of communication across the obvious divide because it does deny the power of communication. i have to say though, for you and @lava to dismiss one of the most qualified candidates for the presidency who is eligible for the job as “poor choice” or as being a “parasitic wasp” is to ignore the objective reality of the past 25-30 years. if that’s really the best you can do with the reality of what has been inflicted on the clintons since bill was first elected governor and continues today and use the history of unverified and debunked claims against them as a sign that they are and were inferior, or perhaps you would prefer parasitic, candidates is as singular a denial of reality as i’ve seen in a long time. keep denying it if you like but we will be a hell of a lot better off 8 years from now if clinton is elected than we will 4 years from now if we elect trump.
I’m related to a number of enthusiastic Trump supporters, and work with many more. I could have told you which ones were likely to vote for him before he even ran, based on years of experiencing how well they managed socially to appear decent and charitable, but in reality they’re bigoted and hate-filled.
Don’t fall for their outward appearance. Pay attention to what they say after the black Muslim woman leaves the room.
Based upon what? The only way you could say this is if we hold the election today and the actual vote mirrors the polls.
Time Magazine: The Problem With Bernie Sanders’ Polling Argument
General election polls taken months before voting day have a history of being wrong. According to data compiled by FiveThirtyEight, general election polls taken a year in advance have been inaccurate by more than 5 percentage points in the last 10 out of 14 elections for which there is data.
Even polls six months out are inaccurate, too. For example, at this point in the 2000 election, late April polls showed then-Gov. George W. Bush with a strong national lead of five points over then-Vice President Al Gore. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by half a percentage point that November.
Part of the discrepancy has to do with the early unfamiliarity of the candidates. This year, despite months of frequent coverage on television, social media and the press, Sanders is not as well known as Clinton. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 56% of Americans say they know Clinton “a lot” while just 38% say the same as Sanders. And while Clinton’s negative ratings may be baked-in after decades in the public eye, Sanders has not received that kind of scrutiny.
But even many of Sanders’ most ardent supporters do not believe he’d be the best candidate to face Clinton in a general election. In Wisconsin, where Sanders trounced Clinton by a 14-point margin, a CNN exit poll showed that 54% of voters believed that it was Clinton who had a better chance of beating Donald Trump in November.
If history is a guide, early general election head-to-head polls can only say so much. “Pollster aren’t making predictions. They’re trying to determine the state of the race right now,” said Jennifer Necci Dineen, a pollster and faculty member at the University of Connecticut. “Six months from now is even still a little bit early.”