Trump's speech was filled with yet more bluster based nonsense. Saying you're going to do something doesn't mean it will happen or make it any easier. All that said the inevitability of his winning is gradually sinking in.

Him winning is not an inevitability at all! As a huge Trump fan and having just ordered some Trump 2016 T-shirts, I still think he'll lose to Clinton which will be a huge shame for America. As he said in his speech, she's a puppet like all the others, with rich faceless people and the Establishment pulling her strings. At least he's his own man and can't be bought.

Edited July 24, 20168 yr by Common Sense

Can't be bought??

 

He most certainly CAN and is asking for fundraising

He just sucks at it.

http://i68.tinypic.com/33cniq0.gif

 

waking up from my coma on november 8 to fulfill my civic duty

 

As a huge Trump fan and having just ordered some Trump 2016 T-shirts

lol

If by that you mean "has persuaded people that I disagree with politically to vote for him", then yes, he has done that.

I think he's probably referring to the Trump University case.

 

EDIT: OH WAIT, no. But he has still hoodwinked the intellectually vulnerable with the Trump Uni scam.

If by many, you mean 4, which for a man who's been involved in over 100 businesses in his lifetime, and keeping in mind that most businesses fail after a year, is a pretty good record.

 

Turning tens of millions into billions within 30 years, which is pretty good going. His brothers & sisters also inherited money, but as far as I am aware none of them are billionaires.

 

If by that you mean "has persuaded people that I disagree with politically to vote for him", then yes, he has done that.

 

Being a ruthless steamrolling scheming lying self-obsessed narcisist is pretty much the job description for a billionaire.

 

It's much easier to make your first billion when youve had a leg up of millions gifted, and you do it by shafting and bullying small businesses on the way to make yourself richer.

 

4 business failures is many many people shafted with a Get Out Of Jail Free card where you don't pay off your creditors. In a caring world, the other businesses would remain financially responsible. We would then see how many of the rest of his companies would have remained profitable.

 

His political fanbase is comprised of disgruntled low-paid white people with little understanding of the wider consequences of what he is promising (very little of what he claims is deliverable any more than the Brexit leavers claims are) and it will backfire on the very people who are voting for it. The Michael Moore analysis is pretty fair, sums it up quite nicely, and also explains why he will win.

 

The history of people suffering a decline in living standards is to believe the first bullshitter who comes along promising them the earth, and blaming foreigners who aren't to blame. The current malaise was caused by rich bankers and politicians. Turning to rich billionaires to help poor people, or listening to anything they have to say, be they Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Boris Johnson or whoever, is just like trusting a convicted paedophile with your kids because he says he's going to be tough on paedophiles and save all children forever more from harm. He will say anything to get hold of the kids (or your money/power for himself)..

 

Good read and echoes some of my thoughts/fears:

 

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

The Brexit comparison which he hangs it on is moot though. In a presidential election between Cameron and Farage, Cameron would've stormed it. There's a difference between voting for a nebulous idea which had several different dimensions that brought people to it (so you don't mind immigrants? How about the EU's problems with democracy!) and voting for a person who is tremendously well defined as being a dreadful fit for the presidency for a lot of different reasons.

 

Are there a lot of really dissatisfied people out there? Sure. Does the number who want to damn it all to hell and watch the world burn by electing a temperamentally broken man to the presidency add up to 50 percent? I'm not convinced.

 

(For the record, Michael Moore also thought Romney would beat Obama in 2012, for much the same reasons.)

It doesn't need to add up to more than 50% though (and I don't really think Trump winning the popular vote is on the cards at all). There are, however, a number of ways he can win, albeit narrowly, with small victories in vote terms in a number of Rust Belt states and that's what I feel will happen. Partly due to polling not accurately accounting/being able to account for ''shy'' Trump voters but also due to turnout and an enthusiasm gap. Tim Kaine is a solid Veep choice, but he's not going to do anything to secure a much higher turnout in the minority groups Clinton is going to need in the battleground states.

 

For what little its worth I think Trump is going to get about 280EC votes. I will be ecstatic to be wrong and I really hope I am, but the signs are all there.

During his campaign, Trump has repeatedly called for blocking entry into the US for Syrians. He has now gone a step further by calling for blocking entry into the US for the French, saying that France and Germany are "infected with terrorism" and that immigration from those countries to the US should be suspended until mecanisms of control were put in place.

 

Because of course, since we let people onto our territory it is our fault terrorists go round shooting/driving trucks into people, and people such as myself should not be allowed on American soil. :P

It doesn't need to add up to more than 50% though (and I don't really think Trump winning the popular vote is on the cards at all). There are, however, a number of ways he can win, albeit narrowly, with small victories in vote terms in a number of Rust Belt states and that's what I feel will happen. Partly due to polling not accurately accounting/being able to account for ''shy'' Trump voters but also due to turnout and an enthusiasm gap.

He's not looking likely to win Wisconsin though - not only has he not led in a single poll there all year, his best poll has had Hillary five points ahead. That's including the post-primary period where Bernie fans sat on their hands and said they were Don't Knows and the recent increase in Trump's vote. It's not looking likely to be a swing state at all, but for the Rust Belt scenario to work, it has to be.

 

Tim Kaine is a solid Veep choice, but he's not going to do anything to secure a much higher turnout in the minority groups Clinton is going to need in the battleground states.

Did he need to? Are there many minority voters out there who weren't motivated by a burning fear to stop Trump who were waiting on who Hillary Clinton was going to have as a backup option for impetus to vote Democratic?

 

On the contrary, I think - and it's a little depressing - that great as it would've been for Tom Perez or another woman to be on the ticket for Hillary, there are far too many identity-sensitive white men out there who may be open to voting Democrat but who would've seen it as a slight to not be represented and part of the broader culture war going on in America at the moment.

That's quite probably true and (again, as bad as it is) I hope that is the case because anything that can stop a Trump presidency is welcome, but I still feel the cult of personality he has built up is mighty hard to beat with the Clinton/Kaine style of doing things.

 

 

 

I'd say this is the most important bit that Michael Moore wrote if you don't want to read it all.

 

"And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64. All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states. He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will happen in November."

Edited July 24, 20168 yr by Common Sense

I'd say this is the most important bit that Michael Moore wrote if you don't want to read it all.

 

"And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64. All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states. He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will happen in November."

 

The only flaw to that argument, is there is a real chance that Texas could not actually vote for Trump, which would be a real blow to his chances.

And that he needs Wisconsin.

The only flaw to that argument, is there is a real chance that Texas could not actually vote for Trump, which would be a real blow to his chances.

 

Texas will be closer than it has been in quite a few elections, but he is not going to lose it. Maybe in a few elections time the Democrats might have a reasonable shot, but it won't be this time

For anyone who thinks Trump is a great person read this summary of all his statements. If that doesn't convince you he is a dangerous psychopath wannabe fascist, then clearly you don't care about other people's welfare and freedoms. Or your own.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/co...amp;sh=4b7cf77d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a presidential election between Cameron and Farage, Cameron would've stormed it.

 

Frankly, I'm not totally convinced that's true. In any case, Boris was probably the main face of the Leave campaign rather than Farage, and Boris would have been very likely to win a presidential contest against Cameron IMO.

 

Are there a lot of really dissatisfied people out there? Sure. Does the number who want to damn it all to hell and watch the world burn by electing a temperamentally broken man to the presidency add up to 50 percent? I'm not convinced.

 

The problem with this argument is, it rests on the assumption that people don't think the world is already on course to burn and damned to hell if the status quo is stuck with.

 

One of the mistakes when analysing things like Brexit and Trump is to think that, just because they're Marmite figures, that everyone who doesn't love them must really hate them and must be in the bag for the opposition. But that just isn't true right now - people are so desperate that, when some anti-establishment figures come along, people are willing to overlook a whole load of drawbacks as long as it offers atleast a vague chance of things changing for the better. There were many Leave voters who thought there were a lot of unanswered questions on the economy, and who worried that they would be aligning themselves with the more frothy-mouthed people who want to "send them all home", but who in spite of that felt it was a risk worth taking to try and finally improve things - likewise, there will quite possibly be many Americans who think "Trump is a sexist dick and he'd be a bit of an embarrassment to have him representing America to the world, but his opponent is a corrupt out-of-touch liar anyway, and things are so terrible for me and my family right now that we may as well give it a go".

That blindly ignores the fact that Trump is also a corrupt liar, by any real definition of the term. People want change at any cost, and fool themselves into thinking that they can't be any worse off, and don't give a shit about anyone else who may be worse off as a consequence.

 

It's called selfishness, assuming that verybody who's not suffering as much as they are is in some way to blame and therefore deserving of the same misery.

 

People, history shows us again and again, are SO gullible. They will believe anything, quite literally, that the world is flat, that aliens run off with mentally ill people, and that Trump will be good for the world. One of those is less unlikely than the other two (Hint: it's the aliens).

 

:P

I refuse to both for either main party candidates.

 

#garyjohnson2016

 

Only reason I'll vote for Clinton is if Johnson's numbers don't continue to grow at a very high rate.