Romney had HUGE crowds too, he lost too.

here's the latest intelligent prediction

http://i.imgur.com/NVbDNIo.png

Most people are sick to death of millionaire celebrities telling them how to vote.

She seems annoying and self-righteous, has that overly aggressive smart-ass look in her eyes and obviously needs to talk too much.

I don't see what the point is to try to grill a guy on stage because of the fact that he's not supporting Clinton because he can't trust her (that's all he's saying).

Is this campaigning or is this supposed to be an entertainment? Because it sure isn't entertainment, and it is in no way entertaining.

One can bash politics in a way of social criticism that by every means requires a wit, overview and intelligence.

But to promote in her "show" perhaps the most obviously corrupt, two-faced presidential candidate in the American history, with a proven track record of destructive decisions, backdoor dealings, covering up own incompetence and acting against the public interest? That's not entertaining.

An astute observation.

Besides that, the pseudo intellectual aggression in mass media, officially approved as a norm, is reaching massive proportions. And the cult of "political correctness" is in many cases misused merely as a convenient gadget to silence, ostracize and prosecute anybody with actual alternative views.

The fact is that the regular folk just couldn't care less about tranny bathrooms or somebody talking about "groping pussy". It's their own and their's family actual well being and security that's the primary need for them.

I think you can add to that list of shameful psychological levers the recent suggestions that if he does not win it is because the election was "rigged", and victory would be "stolen" from him. Shame of the like of Rudy Giuliani for repeating this toxic vile blackmail.

So if Hillary wins the process is flawed - if he wins its all good ?

All that is left is him to talk of "being stabbed in the back" and he will have pulled the full set.

Then there is a firebomb in one of his campaign offices.......ffs.

:(

That's partially true. Of course people vote based upon self interest.

However people decide what is in their best interests on a whole host of criteria. Being a decent trustworthy person is high on a lot of agendas. As Trump himself said - his people will vote for him whatever. However being a racist pussy grabbing tax dodger does not help your cause in the election battleground of the votes that matter. Women, minorities, and the undecided.

:2 cents:

Doesn't appear so considering it's Clinton running for president, I'm very curious how this plays out.

That's again the way somebody wants to paint him, and they use every single thing the "politically correct" narrative enables them to use for this determined witch hunt.

Now let's ask a simple question

Given the massive amount of evidence pointing to corruption, deception, incompetence, endangering national security, proven track record of disastrous foreign policy etc. etc.

Wouldn't it be a very easy job to expose Clinton as a candidate that simply can't ever be trusted as a presidential candidate, let alone as a president?

Based on actual facts and documented positions (these are actual facts and positions based on existing evidence, not on speculations or wild allegations).

So there you have it, a candidate admitting holding "a private and a public position", dreaming of open borders in front of the bankers, calling actual Americans "deplorables" in a Freudian slip etc.

It would be an extremely easy job to expose Clinton as somebody who is corrupt and completely untrustworthy. It would be the easiest job ever for the mass media, there's way too much evidence available for that. If they cared about actual journalism. Which they don't.

What's even more absurd we have now news outlets that are officially "endorsing" a candidate, so it's even official! If there was any single piece of journalist code left, MSM would be supposed to report about the election, not to influence the election.

Well summarized. That lists Trumps values/beliefs, as he's told us.

At the start of this year I despised both Hillary and Trump, I think both of them lack empathy and should be kept away from positions of power - for the nations safety.

Trump has made Hillary look like the sane option, and I really disliked her, still do - but if Trump cannot even successfully run a company, a government run by him would be nothing short of a disaster. It makes the status quo look pretty fucken' appealing if that's what's ahead.

They themselves don't have to be aware of it :2 cents: And while not exactly a 'Trumper', I see him as the better result, for reasons way too long-winded to go into here, and I struggle for the most part to write concisely - in a conversation I'd go through it, but here I don't have the time/inclination to try and put it into the written word. Suffice it to say I'm not a bigot, racist, misogynist, and all the other things 90% of the left assume Trump voters and/or supporters are. I voted for Brexit despite being none of those things, as I'm sure many millions of others did, but the hard left can't fathom there'd be a reason other than those - it's an alien concept to them that some don't like the utter control that mass bureaucracy brings, the hatred of cronyism, the hypocrisy, double-talk, PC jargon, failure to understand that it's about compromise instead of a utopian wet dream where everyone loves each other and can integrate seamlessly, and a hundred other things. The left ignore that, and look at 'institutionalised racism/sexism' as to why-oh-why do the intellectually inferior vote the 'wrong' way.

And this is why Brexit happened, and why it's so close now in the US. The issue is not that they don't see a certain amount of 'danger', the issue is that they are sick of being ignored, being lied to, being told to do as we say not as we do. People aren't idiots, it's folly to dismiss the so-called 'right' as such.

Not sure you were fully clued up on just what a shitfest Brexit was, and how the media spun the same kind of slant on Farage - portraying him as a stupid but hitler-esque character, taking things out of context (as did the other side, and as do both sides in the US in this campaign), and so on. And yet, people today are still looking at the intellectual facets (that don't exist) to 'explain' how such a 'wrong' decision was made by the 'idiot' public. Trump puts his foot in his mouth regularly (as did Farage actually), but people actually trust the blunders over the sheer calculated scheming of the establishment, as we saw with Brexit, as we are seeing in other Euro countries, and as we are seeing in the US, regardless of the outcomes, the numbers are there. That speaks volumes, and due to the nature of humans, half(ish) the population of each country is going to be left saying w t f, what the hell is wrong with the others.

Both parties do this, you could keep that word for word about Clinton and the democrats and the observation would still be correct. Which is actually part of the reason I alluded to earlier, in my feeling that a Trump victory would be better in the long run, even if it does equate to a shitty short term. Tbh, I think he may have shaken it up enough already, for sure the republicans need to change a lot to remain a viable opposition, and regardless of anyone's political stance, a good opposition is crucial. To remove at least a meaningful amount of the cronyism, disregard for the actual people, and so on from both parties would be a godsend - it's whether that can be achieved without a Trump victory or not that remains to be seen.

Sorry to ramble haha, my writing has never been a strong suit of mine, which is why I hardly ever bother having real discussions online. Off to revert back to flippant one-liners on here, and exagerrated rants on facebook :winkwink:

and honestly, no dig at you or any other of what I'd call my left-leaning buddies.. I do get your views/concerns :thumbsup

Paying to go see her was the first sign these people were stupid!

Millionaire celebs like Trump ?

The guy says you should vote for him because he is rich for fucks sake.

That is it. That's his whole agenda.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Firstly "News" outlets have always endorsed a candidate / party / ideology.

In the UK the Murdoch press (Sun, Times, News of the World) dictated the election results for 30 years. The first thing Tony Blair did when he became leader of a dysfunctional Labour party was to court Rupert Murdoch. He new that Murdoch made Prime Ministers and without the Murdoch press he would never win a general election.

Secondly it is interesting that you call Hillary's transgressions facts, yet Mr Trumps merely speculations or wild allegations. I think you need a reality check Sir. The Trump transgressions come entirely from his own mouth.

:2 cents:

200 out of 9000 walked out. Yep, Trump is winning in Florida :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I get a real kick out of reading these threads. "The intelligent" can not understand how anyone can favor trump. I would love to hear "the intelligent" give me reasons to vote for Clinton. I think she has had a chance to lead, in the senate, in the cabinet and her only success is raising money. Her failures are numerous. Her judgement is highly suspect. Her motives should be questioned. How can you attack trump so viciously and give Clinton a pass on all her fuck-ups.

Yep - that's what I'm talking about, "journalism" is basically dead.

You call it yourself - one is a case of well documented corruption - misuse of her life long position in government in order to benefit herself and her cronies, acting against the public interest including endangering the national security.

The second is pretty much mostly what someone says, be it DJT himself or whoever else. Mostly a gossip material that would otherwise never hit the first page if it wasn't in someone's interest to do so.

Says / not does or did - note the difference.

Ok vote for the guy that calls Mexicans rapists, never pays tax because he is smart, rapes his wife, a guy who thinks Mr Putin should be admired, and of course "grabs em by the pussy".

Some people have weak minds. They see mainstream media as an authority, and their brain soaks up everything without questioning anything. When they say this man is bad, the man is bad. When they say this woman is good, the woman is good. When they say that country is bad, the country is bad.

Due to this complete lack of healthy skepticism and their scary naivety into believing anything complete biased sources are saying, these sources have a monopoly on the minds of these poor saps and can make them believe anything: Brainwashing.

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/upl...ukovychegg.gif
Same pattern as Yanukovitch was doing in Ukraine.

I couldn't have asked for a more perfect live example of my previous post than this. Thanks :)

I get it - the media made it all up.

You don't get it.

He has a lot more than that. Read his policies about stopping globalization.

Again I believe this is the only reason Trump is running for President. If the Republicans threw up someone sane and electable as a candidate would anyone vote for Hillary? But put up a whackadoodle like Trump and suddenly Hillary looks like the best choice.

Simple really.

Stopping globalisation ???

Its a shame you dont understand the world Paul.

No one is going to role back automation. Let me let you into a secret - machines and computers now do the work - the working man is very last millennia.

The industrial output of the USA has quadrupled since the 60s, but it employs a third of the people.

You really are the most frightful hypocrite. Tell me where you live again ? And why ?

The global movement of goods and services means that the market dictates where goods are produced.

So you get to live where the girls are cheap and plentiful, and your earnings go a long way. It also means that even the poorest citizens of the USA have cheap food, cars, consumer goods etc.

FFS stopping globalisation. That really is the most backward and idiotic idea. Trump is the arch capitalist - the idea of him restricting US companies from making profits really is quite laughable. So US companies are going to see their costs rocket, investors in US companies are going to see their portfolios destroyed, US consumers are going to pay more for food, consumer goods, clothes, cars, actually just about everything.

Tell me Paul do you think Mr Trump will be a popular president when he sets about "stopping globalisation" ?

Dont you see the parallels Paul ? Populist leader with a bag of bogeymen to blame. The Chinese take the jobs, the Mexicans do the raping, the media rig the election, the Washington elite are corrupt etc. He pulls the levers and you leap up and down in a frenzy of righteous indignation from your cosy home in Eastern Europe. Its fucking pathetic.

I think that even if the Republicans had ran someone different they would've ended up with virtually the same result. There still would've been a largely one-sided attack against their candidate from the largest of media outlets. When so many Americans form their opinions based on what they see on television and radio and those media outlets are completely infested with partisan wonks, it would be hard to imagine the end result would be any different.

I knew he'd win Florida.. the presidency comes as a surprise though.

If Democrats ever want to be in power again, I would suggest you understand this post. It was your virulent and hateful attacks that lost this for yourselves.