I trust Nate Silver's prediction over a comic strip writer.
The writer himself just openly admitted he's thin skinned. That's all I needed to know.
So did you go back and read the rest of the post after you said you had stopped reading? Everything about being thin-skinned was after that. [edit: I guess you didn't say you stopped reading but I kind of took your post as that]
He didn't say he was thin-skinned, by the way. He said that he can appear to be thin-skinned because he, like Trump, is quick to go on offense when they are attacked. That is a distinction with a difference.
I know there is a lot to digest in his post and some of its astute points are bound to make some people uneasy.
He didn't say he was thin-skinned, by the way. He said that he can appear to be thin-skinned because he, like Trump, is quick to go on offense when they are attacked. That is a distinction with a difference.
That's also a nice way of protecting yourself and not admitting (publicly) you have a fragile ego.
I trust Nate Silver's prediction over a comic strip writer.
Nate Silver's just released odds are 59.6% Hillary vs 40.3% Trump. That is reasonable. I personally think Trump's odds are better than that (at least 50/50) but I'll admit that a lot of that is intuition.
It is 50/50.
I just don't see Trump winning Pennsylvania or taking any traditionally blue states.
I posted this on the last page. New Mexico has a crap ton of immigrants that will be voting. Kaine locks down Virginia. Colorado is a wildcard, but I think they're becoming more liberalized.
Cosmo magazine did something no other media outlet has done, ask a Trump tough questions. I was actually kind of impressed. Matt lauer could learn something.
Fox News Poll: Clinton and Trump in a one-point race among likely voters
The presidential race is tight. Hillary Clinton tops Donald Trump by just one point among likely voters in the four-way ballot. In the head-to-head matchup, Trump’s up by one point.
Clinton receives 41 percent to Trump’s 40 percent, according to a new Fox News Poll, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 8 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 3 percent.
In a two-way matchup, likely voters give Trump the edge over Clinton: 46-45 percent.
You brought up something I've wondered about, how do you calculate likely voters?
I believe that they start with registered voters, and then further refine the list by asking them how likely they are to vote in the coming election ..... and they then remove all who fall below a certain level.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Hillary and Trump have been going back and forth, on twitter, in interviews, on everything. I don't think this is an act. The whole idea that Trump was a "plant" to get Clinton elected looks more ridiculous with each passing day. They hate each other.
These debates are going to be great. I hope the moderators let them go at it. I'm not asking for no moderators, just that they let them voice their displeasure of each other, if they choose to.
Before anybody goes and calls me pathetic for rooting for that, I would add one thing: I think the high-stress nature of such a debate would go a long way toward revealing the character and composure of both candidates. Being the president is a tough job. Decisions have to be made in demanding, high-stress situations.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I think that if the mods and Hillary keep on message and stay with policy issues, Trump sinks.
His main strength so far in debates has been attacking his opponent with catch phrases and degradation rather than actually addressing issues and policy. So I can understand how his supporters would rather see a knock down drag out rather than a substantive debate.
Maybe he has learned what the nuclear triad is by now?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I think that if the mods and Hillary keep on message and stay with policy issues, Trump sinks.
His main strength so far in debates has been attacking his opponent with catch phrases and degradation rather than actually addressing issues and policy. So I can understand how his supporters would rather see a knock down drag out rather than a substantive debate.
Maybe he has learned what the nuclear triad is by now?
eh, I should have known my post was going to come off like that. I don't want a knock down drag out fight with catch phrases and degradation. I want to see real, meaningful debate. I just wouldn't mind if they let their real feelings about each other and other topics be known. Get it all out there. At the very least, it would make for good TV and maybe more people would tune in for the others. I can see how others might find that distasteful.
Yeah, I guess we just disagree on this one. We all know they hate each other and I don't see anything meaningful, educational or informative in such an endeavor.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Here recently though, hillary's been doing a fair amount of attacking Trump as well.
Well, between her coughing, he seizures, her nearly passing out. Not being rushed to a hospital, rather going to her daughter's apartment. Isn't that what everyone does when they can't walk? Nope, no e.r. for her.
On a side note, I would like to encourage everyone to donate to the Clinton Foundation. With all the good work they do, they deserved more money.
The foundation actually, in 2014, spent 6% of their $91.2 million in expenditures, on charity.
That's $5.2 million actually donated.
They raised, in 2014, $178 million.
Get this: They spent more on travel ($7.9 million), on office rent and office supplies ($6.6 million) and depreciation ($5.3 million) than they did on charitable donations.
The foundation has a reported $345 million in assets, $125 million of that is in cash. And they donated/gave away/funded/granted $5.2 million.
Check out the vid, posted here earlier. Granted, it was NOT by a doctor that has treated her. But it made a whole lot of sense.
He went slowly, showed video, described what happened, etc. It's worth a watch. But, I know hillary defenders will just ignore it. Just as hillary dis likers throw it out as proof.
Watch the video - then come back and say "nope, don't believe it."
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban offered Donald Trump an unusual deal on Friday: $10 million in exchange for a four-hour interview.
In a series of tweets, Cuban initially said Trump could have the money go to the charity of his choice. But he subsequently suggested that the GOP nominee, who says he’s worth more than $10 billion, could actually use the money.
“I’ll add an option. If you need it, I’ll write you the check and you can keep the money rather than give it to charity,” he jabbed.
Cuban also listed a few terms for the interview, including that it would only be about Trump’s policy proposals and that no one besides a broadcast crew would join them in the room.
Mark Cuban. (AFP Photo/Doug Pensinger) Mark Cuban (AFP Photo/Doug Pensinger) The billionaire Shark Tank star, who frequently taunts Trump on Twitter, issued the offer hours after Trump slammed him in a Fox Business interview Friday morning. Trump dismissed Cuban’s intelligence when asked about the Mavericks owner’s prediction that the markets would tank if Trump won the presidency.
“I know Mark. And the problem with Mark, he’s not smart enough to understand what we’re doing. He’s really not smart enough, in my opinion, to understand what’s going on,” Trump said. “I’ve known him for a long time. He tweets me all the time. He sends me so many tweets.”
Cuban and Trump have had an on-again, off-again relationship over the years. They used to trash each other on Twitter, but Cuban warmed to Trump at the start of the campaign and even said he would consider being the GOP nominee’s vice president. Trump held a rally last summer in the Mavericks’ arena.
But things have clearly soured since then.
View Cuban’s Friday tweets offering Trump $10 million below:
Cuban: Trump is the 'master of headline porn'
Billionaire investor says the Republican presidential nominee has done a great job of setting the media's agenda
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Yeah, I guess we just disagree on this one. We all know they hate each other and I don't see anything meaningful, educational or informative in such an endeavor.
But there is. It's what I was implying originally when I said it could show the character and composure of the candidates. Trump has been painted as crazy and that he comes off the hinge too easily. Clinton has similarly been painted as having a drinking problem and a short temper.
How much truth there are to these things is up for debate. But say Hillary starts attacking him relentlessly for some of the controversial things he said earlier in the election season, he doesn't take the bait and instead responds diplomatically, doesn't that tell you something? If he responds in a bizarre, out of control tirade, well that would tell us something as well.
Same applies to Hillary. I still have my doubts that she can mentally handle a high-tension, stressful debate (or situation) that gets a little out of control. I want to see that happen and I want to see how she responds. If she could maintain her composure (and her balance), I'll admit that I would be impressed.
Moments ago, Donald Trump acknowledged that Barack Obama was born in the United States. You all know that’s a big deal because Trump was the leader of the so-called “birther” movement, which critics called racist.
But watch the festival of cognitive dissonance that happens today among Trump’s critics and the media. They need to explain why the birther thing was racist. What exactly is the reasoning for that connection?
Jake Tapper says the connection between the birther movement and racism is so obvious that you would have to be “naive” to think it wasn’t about race, given that Obama is black. And also given that the “birther” idea had no credible evidence.
But how does that explain why Trump said Ted Cruz was Canadian? Is it because Trump is also racist against Canadians?
That’s the problem the media will have to wrestle with today. And Trump has turned all of them into idiots because there is no real answer to the Ted Cruz analogy. A rational person would look at this situation and say that Trump uses every available option to win, and birtherism helped him get this far because it gave him a launch pad.
Birtherism also allowed Trump to do what hypnotists call pacing and leading. First, he matched the Obama-hating Republicans by being one of them. That’s called pacing. Once they accepted him as one of them, he was in the position to lead. He just did that by saying Obama was born in this country.
The answer to why Trump pursued the birther issue is that he thought it would work for him, persuasion-wise. And it did. Unambiguously. Just the way a Master Persuader would expect.
First he paces, then he leads. Watch for that pattern in everything he does.
Can't persuade the minority or women vote, however.
Doesn't sound very masterful to me.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Fox News host Sean Hannity is taking a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook and threatening to sue a media outlet for negatively covering him.
His target? CNN.
“I would love to sue them for slander when they say, ‘Oh, he wants Hillary [Clinton] on her deathbed and dead,’ when I said just the opposite,” Hannity said on his radio show Thursday. “I know it’s hard to sue when you’re a public figure, pretty much people can call you anything, and I’ve been called pretty much everything. But I’m thinking of suing them. Maybe I’ll get David Boies, my buddy, to do it.”
Advertisement
AdChoices
Hannity was likely referring to comments CNN’s Brian Stelter made earlier in the week. Stelter called out conservative media for floating rumors about the Democratic presidential candidate’s health long before she revealed she was suffering from pneumonia.
“These are people who bring up rumors and innuendo about Clinton’s health, and have been doing it for years,” Stelter said, pointing to Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones. “I’m not saying Hannity or Limbaugh fit into these necessarily, but some of these figures want her to be sick. They want her to be dying. They want her to be on her death bed.”
Unfortunately for Hannity, he doesn’t have much of a case for slander. Stelter was accurate in saying that Hannity had speculated about Clinton’s health, and he clarified that the “death bed” remark didn’t necessarily apply to the Fox New host. Only remarks that are both false and defamatory are punishable under current libel laws.
If Trump is elected president, however, it could be a different story. The Republican presidential nominee frequently lashes out at media coverage of his campaign, vowing to “open libel laws” to make it easier to sue journalists.
“When The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
