DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential campaign thread 6

Perhaps she meant 47 percent and not 50.

So fun to watch many of the posters here who cried and cried when Mit mentioned the 47 percent when it was caught on an open mic but Hill says it in a prepared speech and all they can do is defend and deflect. Laughable.

Haus, There is no question in my mind that she blundered for saying those words out loud. But again, I think that she wasn't totally wrong. I don't know if it's half, or a third or a quarter of the supporters of Trump, but it's some number that certainly fall for his Bigotry and Racism and sexism.

I do believe others find the frank nature of his speeches to be a refreshing break from the mundane rhetoric of career politicians. I see the attraction of that. And I admit, at first I was thinking, Hey, just maybe!

Today, I'm for just about anyone but Trump. (actually, I'm not for Clinton either)

It'd be half of 47%

I think there are more people comfortable with alt right white nationalist ideals than would like to openly admit. You referenced shy Tory, I think there's a similar phenomenon with nativism. People don't openly admit that they don't want different races and ethnicities mixing together.

Master persuader? You mean con artist right?

And Romney put 47% of the entire nation into a basket. The difference is, people on the other side suck up for his statement.

That's funny, seeing as the group of people he's manipu....my bad, "persuading" is his own supporters.

Nobody else is buying it. Actually, what's been happening is less people crossing over to vote his way, and more people jumping ship.

If that's how you view persuasion, then sure, he's doing an amazing job.

His "master persuasion" involves speaks in very short sentences of about five to six words. Then he repeats the important words endlessly (e.g. illegal immigrants). Hustlers and con artists talk the same way. Talk in simple language that your target will understand. That's how you build confidence in the target. Just sound loud and confident. People will believe anything you say.

He uttered this phrase the other day that summarized his campaign: "They're taking our jobs like babies." That is how a presidential candidate talks in 2016.

His favorite word right now is 'rigged' and 'unfair'

How come the "stop making excuses" crowd keeps making excuses for Trump's excuses?

It does not describe any of the Trump supporters that I know. Literally none. Some might have a suspicion that I'm just oblivious to this and that's their right, but I would say that I know the kind of sentiment that you're talking about, I see it occasionally on the internet and it's blatant and in-my-face when I see it. So I kind of know what you're talking about.

Spending too much time on the internet, social media, watching TV, etc. gives people a kind of warped sense of reality. My reality, in real life talking to real people (or going on Facebook and seeing posts from real-life friends) is that this stuff doesn't apply to them. The 'half' number that she threw out just seems completely ridiculous.

That was four years ago, and he lost. I forget what the exact details on that were-- something about the number of people who don't taxes or something along those lines?

I don't care to get too deeply into this because obviously that did not go over well and he probably shouldn't have said it (again, I don't remember exactly what he said or in what context). I would say that putting people in the basket of not paying taxes is a whole heck of a lot different than putting people in the basket of racism, sexism, and bigotry. The latter ruins reputations and costs people their jobs. The former obviously has a negative connotation, but I don't think it's as big of an accusation. Beyond that, I wish Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney would just go away. They should have done a better job four years ago and if they did, we would be talking about their reelection right now.

Clinton's lead has been shrinking for weeks although it has more or less stalled the last few days.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-show-trumps-momentum-has-stalled-for-now/

Do you think people would openly admit supporting ideologies which could possibly socially ostracize them? This entire election you've argued people not openly supporting trump but will vote for him. The Internet reveals a lot more about what a persons thinking than your comfortable admitting.

Ummm

It wasn't anything to do with taxes. Romneys own words were “dependent on government,” “believe that they are victims,” and think government “has a responsibility to care for them.”

Don't worry your little heart bro. Her lead will widen after the first debate.

Provided your boy will show up, though

Depends how close of a friend they are. I have some friends who trust me with close secrets, so I think if they were harboring such thoughts, one of them would be bound to slip eventually. Realistically though, I can't read minds. What you are implying is certainly possible, sure. I can only judge based on words and actions, not thoughts.

I have said that there are people who are hesitant to admit they will vote for Trump due to the unprovoked acts of violence and harassment that some Trump supporters have received this election season. Maybe I could dig up what FBO posted about his experiences at Trump rallies in California and Arizona. They more or less matched what the "conspiracy sites" had been saying all along. Another thing I've said all along: most of the Trump supporters I know are just regular dudes who work and don't cause too much trouble. It's not in their character to go around flaunting the fact that they are going to vote for Trump (there are a couple exceptions, lol).

Well, there are far too many people who are like that and who have that attitude. That much is right. I don't think anybody would seriously argue that.

I don't think it's 47%, fwiw. That number is obviously too high. Where it came from and what the context was, I don't know. don't really care either.

I'm not worried. I will be fine either way. Trust that. If Hillary wins, I will be upset for a while but I'll get on with life and will pull for her to do well and put the country first.

Earlier this summer, I had already resigned myself to the reality that she would probably win, although I'm not so sure about that anymore. I think it's too close to call right now. Too much can happen and that very well may be at the debates.

You and I obviously disagree on how the debates will go, but here's another point to consider: Trump has already been the recipient of so much hatred that it seems unlikely that the debates could hurt him that much. It's "baked into the cake" as Scott Adams wrote in one blog post.

Hillary, on the other hand, has much more to lose. Imagine if she gets caught, again, labeling a quarter of our people as "deplorables" (racists, sexists, etc). Imagine if she, again, has a major medical meltdown, collapses, and is out of commission for days. That would be a disaster for her campaign. I suppose a health-related incident could conceivably happen to Trump as well, but he has not shown any signs of that happening. He seems robust and energetic, but it's a long election season and things happen. I get that.

Just kind of a random question. Who do you think the candidates for the 2020 elections will be?


If Hillary wins in 2016 = I'll be shocked if Paul Ryan doesn't run. Ted Cruz would look really good in the eyes of conservative voters.

If Trump wins in 2016 = I'm looking at Sherrod Brown. He's almost progressive as Bernie. Doesn't have anywhere near the skeletons that Hillary does. I give Elizabeth Warren a chance too.

Agreed Haus but you have to remember that today that sweet old neighbor lady who has always been a good Christian and finds Homosexuality to be a sin is now labeled a Homophobe Bigot Scumbag deserving of our hate.

The guy with 5 kids who always looked out for his family and wants to protect them by not importing terrorists is now labeled a Xenophobe Bigot Scumbag.

Today, your opinion as a citizen only counts if it is the right one, the acceptable one.

What she believes is not nor has not ever been the issue.

It's using those beliefs to discriminate against people who believe differently than her that's the issue.

Nobody wants to import terrorists. However, a lot of people take issue with trying to make some kind of blanket statement that over one billion Muslims on the planet are all a terrorist threat.

j/c

3 of clintons server technicians refused to testify to congress about the e-mail scandal. That's their right, I know. But to refuse to testify on the grounds they may incriminate themselves? No smoke there, folks.



I wonder what they did that they are afraid they could incriminate themselves? Or, did the clinton foundation pay them off, so they wouldn't incriminate hillary?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-server-technicians-rebuff-questions-u-congress-165705734.html

The clintons and/or their campaign can't even remember the lies they tell.

This is too easy.

This weekend.....first, she was "overcome by the heat." Then, shortly, it was "she was dehydrated". Then, it was "she has pneumonia".

2 hours later, she's supposedly all better.

And her campaign says "She refuses to drink water, that's where the dehydration comes from".


And hillary has been quoted as saying this (in 2008):




http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/13/clinton-campaign-cant-even-tell-truth-water/

Well, I guess if you don't know anyone that is openly racist or bigoted, that's terrific. I can't say that, I know entirely too many that are.

I think your eyes are clouded a bit, but hey, you are allowed to think what you want. As am I.

Or they just refused to testify cause their tired of the situation.

Remember, trump is within his rights not to release his tax returns, either.

Right?

And what was your excuse? He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

So if they aren't required by law to testify, then why should they?

Right?

Oh, I DID say it was their right. You didn't miss that, did you?

The right to not self incriminate ones self under oath is just that: a right.

As a general rule, one would only do that if there was something they were hiding.

I can just imagine their thought process: "hey, we have absolutely NOTHING to hide. That's why we flew to DC, but, you know, we're tired of this whole thing so we're going to refuse to answer any questions."

And "she said the check was in the mail".

Imagine the line of questioning: Why did you delete the e-mails?

"Well, because hillary told us to".

What was IN the e-mails?

"Well, a lot of stuff that could get her in trouble. Not us, her."

And people just ignore it.

Hey, her health doesn't matter either.

I'm just making sure bro.

They don't have to do anything, just like your boy doesn't have to do anything.

We're all on the Same page, right?

Here is where Trump is brilliant, though ..... in the way he listens and taps into the frustrations of ordinary people.

How many of us have complained that we have crap candidates, and that the political machine decides who they want in office, and the vote of the people has almost become a secondary concern?

On this board, many of us complained that no matter who is elected, the overall policy of the country is set by the money above the candidates. That is where Trump has really shined as a politician. He has used words like Rigged, and crooked, and these are the very thoughts many of us expressed before he did. We can debate whether or not he is the guy to turn the country away from that course ..... and frankly, I doubt he is ..... but we know, without a doubt, that Clinton is just more of the same. I think that is one of the most brilliant things Trump has done ... amplify what people have seen as a problem .... and speak the language of many of those people. (and I say this as someone who is just making a statement on one specific aspect of his campaign, not as someone who plans on voting for Trump at all)

You nailed it and as someone who can't wait to vote for Trump, I agree.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...candidate-hope/

Here's an article about Trump's visit to Great Faith Ministries International Church in Detroit. I figured you might be interested in it. It shows a side to Trump that the mainstream media won't show you.

This post might have worked in the primaries.

But now? It doesn't work.

Money Above the candidates?

How many politicians, both right and left, has he donated campaign money to?

He IS the money above the candidates. You're literally voting the money directly into office.

/golf clap. Congrats.

He listened alright. He listened to conservatives emotional responses on everything, he listens to your fears, and he manipulated you into thinking he was more than a guy trying to push his brand.

So say what you want about Clinton, most people, including every single liberal on this board, already knew what Clinton is.

A lying scumbag.

However, the hilarious-if not sad- part to this is the fact that we already identified the lying scumbag in the republican primaries.

We told y'all EXACTLY who would murder Clinton in a general election.

But instead, y'all decided to pick the ONE person in the world worse than Clinton.

So is trump brilliant, or are you guys that clueless?

'Tis an ever going topic of conversation leading up to Election Day.

So is this election about electing a president or just venting anger? This election is going to have very dramatic changes because of the supreme court situation. Doing things purely out of emotion and anger is what liberals get blasted to hell for. If conservatives want to take the same approach, alright, but they will earn the label they have placed on liberals.

I guess I just don't understand the corruption angle. Hillary is bought off, but you want to elect the guy WHO BOUGHT POLITICIANS OFF. The corruption entity itself is okay...? Is it because he makes you feel good to vent?

exactly.

i've been saying that for MONTHS now. people complain about bought politicians, so the response is to hire the guy who's been doing the buying ?

where are they getting this logic at?

it would be one thing if the general theory went "well, look, in today's politics, unfortunately you need so much money to campaign, so we have to bite the bullet and deal with this during election cycles until the problem is fixed".

i would understand sooooo so much.

but that isn't CLOSE to the argument they are using. not even remotely.

Not only are they complaining about hillary being bought, they have completely ignored the two facts that:

1. Trump does the buying, and

2. ZOMG, the guy is actually bought by Russians!!

Candy, do you remember me saying before that government is inherently shady? that in ANY political system, there's a level of corruption that is naturally there, and that we have to figure out what level and how much of it we are willing to deal with in order to make sure society as a whole benefits?

right now, what i'm seeing not only from this board, but in real life, is the fact that people are blasting one level of corruption while ignoring the same levels with regards to their own ideology.

You go down the line of most/any clinton supporters and they will tell you she's a nefarious snake.

you won't get that from trump supporters. they have, HAVE ignored absolutely everything he's said or done, and will continue to do so.

remember the great Newt Gingrich: Feelings over facts.

Yo Swish, there is still some room left on the Trump bandwagon. All you have to do is jump on.

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/775389367087005696

lol, the bandwagon?

how come the only black guy there is pulling security lol.

i'm good bro. you can have that wagon all to yourself. send me a post card from Trump towers.

cause it certainly won't be from the WH.

Is that the first thing you noticed? Come on man. What about the fact that a major presidential candidate makes an unplanned (maybe?) visit to a restaurant and the patrons are overjoyed to see him. Maybe once Hillary rests up and recovers she can try this. I wonder how that would go over.

I noticed a ton of things.

A presidential nominee walking into a restaurant and being greeted with cheers?

I'm shocked. Simply shocked. That has never happened in the history of presidential elections.

Hillary has already been there, done that.

Lol, fair enough. I thought it was cool anyway. Maybe I've gotten a bit rusty on my video posting.

It is cool. I'm happy for the restaurant as any sort of celebrity/political appearance boost the traffic going into the business. No matter who is doing it.

Difference is they had to bus in and pay for Hillary's cheers.