Ive seen the 2nd amendment comment a couple of times now and I'm now convinced he was alluding to at an attempt at humour.

Qwiss! wrote:

He only fell away in the polls after he was mean to a dead soldiers family. Military worship in the US is far more important than any policy issue. Its all about personality, politics really has fuck all to do with it.

He insulted John McCain's war heroism at the beginning of the campaign and it did nothing to stop his rise. I wouldn't read too closely into the movements of these polls. The bottom line is that he doesn't have his party behind him and hasn't put together the infrastructure he needs for his campaign, and now that it's getting closer to Election Day those things are starting to catch up to him. He hasn't made the transition to being a legitimate candidate.

Qwiss! wrote:

Claudius wrote:

Absolutely crazy when you think about. Some of the most talented politicians in the world. Men and women I really respect both at the top and in the grassroots. And it comes down to nonsensical soundbites. 
On Trump - I think both the 2nd Amendment comment and the statement about Blood coming out of her whatever were conveniently twisted by Democrats. Easy to do when they come out of a provocative misogynist's mouth.  

I think both comments are the same sort of crude, oafish humour he always uses. He was hinting at shooting her when he said about the second amendment thing but he is joking. Its in bad taste but I don't think he's actually trying to incite people to assassinate Clinton, which seems to be what most of media I've read are claiming. His comment about hacking her 30,000 emails was similar but more pointed and in line with standard politics IMO.

You say this, but the man said during his rallies that protesters should be assaulted and he would pay the legal fees. And when it happened, well he paid. You guys don't know the level of political tension in the nation right now, and any unnecessary spark could result in a conflagration. The man is a nuisance, and it's this oh he's just joking, ignore what he said attitude that helped him get this far. He has to be called out if and when he even hints at violence. "jokes" or not.

Yeah, I sympathise. I would be uneasy if a person like Trump was one election away from power in my country.

And it's not too much to do with him as a person, it's the sort of rhetoric that this will now justify for a few election cycles to come.

Exactly. And don't get me wrong, I absolutely detest Clinton. She is obviously extremely corrupt and not an ideal candidate. But Donald Trump, he's really truly dangerous.

Like I said a few days ago he needs to be defeated handily so that no other candidate will believe they can use these kind of base tactics and somehow find their way into the highest office in the nation/world.

You need to deal with the root causes, which are grounded in the enormous economic and social decline of non-metropolitan America. You're not going to teach the fascists a lesson with a defeat - they're going to be emboldened after the campaign no matter what.

Oh no doubt. If things remain the same they'll be even more aggravated. But hopefully their next messenger will not be a total nut case.

innervisionscm wrote:

You need to deal with the root causes, which are grounded in the enormous economic and social decline of non-metropolitan America. You're not going to teach the fascists a lesson with a defeat - they're going to be emboldened after the campaign no matter what.

And before you can deal with those causes you need a political praxis capable of doing so, because voting in a Presidential election will never do it.

Fully expect the consequence of Trump's successful engagement of a latent fascist-alike constituency will be more of those nationalist, violent ideas circulating into the political mainstream, starting with the GOP going on the hunt for a charismatic figure who's a bit like Trump but more under their control.

Mirth wrote:

Yeah, I sympathise. I would be uneasy if a person like Trump was one election away from power in my country.

And it's not too much to do with him as a person, it's the sort of rhetoric that this will now justify for a few election cycles to come.

Well, he's one election away from being the most powerful person in the world. You don't need to be an American citizen to feel uneasy.

Qwiss! wrote:

Claudius wrote:

Absolutely crazy when you think about. Some of the most talented politicians in the world. Men and women I really respect both at the top and in the grassroots. And it comes down to nonsensical soundbites. 
On Trump - I think both the 2nd Amendment comment and the statement about Blood coming out of her whatever were conveniently twisted by Democrats. Easy to do when they come out of a provocative misogynist's mouth.  

I think both comments are the same sort of crude, oafish humour he always uses. He was hinting at shooting her when he said about the second amendment thing but he is joking. Its in bad taste but I don't think he's actually trying to incite people to assassinate Clinton, which seems to be what most of media I've read are claiming. His comment about hacking her 30,000 emails was similar but more pointed and in line with standard politics IMO.

For me the point is that he doesn't even need to be intentional in his comments. The US has no shortage of nutters with guns and Trump's comments are further proof that he is completely unfit to be in any kind of public office, let alone POTUS. I'm no Hillary fan either, but this fuckwit (and all his fuckwit supporters) are on a completely different planet.

flobaba wrote:

Qwiss! wrote:

I think both comments are the same sort of crude, oafish humour he always uses. He was hinting at shooting her when he said about the second amendment thing but he is joking. Its in bad taste but I don't think he's actually trying to incite people to assassinate Clinton, which seems to be what most of media I've read are claiming. His comment about hacking her 30,000 emails was similar but more pointed and in line with standard politics IMO.

You say this, but the man said during his rallies that protesters should be assaulted and he would pay the legal fees. And when it happened, well he paid. You guys don't know the level of political tension in the nation right now, and any unnecessary spark could result in a conflagration. The man is a nuisance, and it's this oh he's just joking, ignore what he said attitude that helped him get this far. He has to be called out if and when he even hints at violence. "jokes" or not.

Make no mistake. I think he's an extremely dangerous individual, and should be nowhere near the presidential race. That he wasn't one of the first people eliminated is a reflection of how damaged the GOP is right now, and also a frightening window in to how fear has gripped working class conservative America. He rides on this fear, partnered with a hardman stance to deliver his message. And the media are culpable. In their eagerness to get the exciting story, they have elevated him to the point that he has barely needed to pay for advertising and marketing. Everything is working so perfectly for him in a sickening way. 

That said, we need to separate from the outright hateful and dangerous things he has done such as inciting violence, telling hackers to target the Democratic Party, insulting Muslims, calling Mexicans rapists, suggesting his daughter should leave a job if she were to be harassed, etc., from the things that we believe might be implied. Did he, for example, say blood was leaking from the Fox anchor's vagina? Or could we conveniently assume that given how misogynist he is in general?

I wonder how many Democrats would take Romeny, and Republicans would take Obama over the two candidates on offer this year

i don't know many democrats that would take romney over hillary. hillary might be this centrist leaning right shill, but romney is actually already on the right. so why would the democrats who don't like hillary's rightward lean suddenly want the real thing?

and obama is the anti-christ to a large % of the repug base. the obamacons among them are already with him and it's not enough of them to overcome the love they have for trump.

They each have 35% likability ratings.
As much as Obama is seen as the foreign-born anti-Christ by many, his favorability typically hovers above 50%, which implies that some Republicans and independents view him favorably. Additionally, Meg Whitman and other renown Republicans have voiced support for Hilary, showing that support across party lines is not inconceivable.

I think if Obama was going against Trump for a 2nd term, he'd have a lot of support; potentially from women and racial minorities amongst the Republican party. Certainly enough to push him to as much as 53%

I think it's more that Clinton is now following in Obama's footsteps because of how much more popular he is by comparison (and in all honestly will remain to be). There were more differences between the two back in 2008 but, fundamentally, that's because Clinton will happily tell you what you want to hear rather than what she thinks.

Also, Clinton's likely to be a lot tougher on foreign policy matters - particularly Russia - if her comments are taken at face value.

holy fucking shit

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

And perhaps someone will one day point out the tens of millions Clinton's taken from the Saudis ...

Burnwinter wrote:

And perhaps someone will one day point out the tens of millions Clinton's taken from the Saudis ...

much like your country and the rest of the so called west, we're besties with those vile fucks so it won't matter. now being besties with putin's ukrainian lackies?

trump is just about cooked. hes now spending most of his time talking about conspiracies against him, the "crooked media" and everything else except his actual policy platform and goals if he becomes president.

this election is really one for the books. i hope the democrats come out in full force and take the senate as well as putting a big dent in the republicans margin in the house

How much would Trump need to screw the GOP over for them to lose the house? What are the current standings - 240ish/170ish?

there is almost no chance of that. its 247/186 right now and the way the republicans have gerrymandered the district lines will make it incredibly difficult to turn a lot of those seats. 270towin right now predicts the dems to pick up only 7 seats.

http://www.270towin.com/2016-house-election/

electionprojection has the dems at 206. that is probably the most optimistic scenario

http://www.electionprojection.com/house-elections.php

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-state-campaigns-226966

the senate is so extremely important. dems will likely only get 2 years of control if they take it back this year, since republicans always outperform them in mid-term elections and democrats have tons of seats to defend in 2018. that said, in 2 years, they can line up the supreme court and ram through a bunch of stuff.

reminders:

• currently it is 54/44/2, but both independents caucus with the dems, so it is essentially 54/46
• the vice prez breaks the tie in a 50/50 vote, so if hillary wins the presidency, the dems just need to pick up a net of 4 seats

there are 21 seats that are considered extremely safe and probably wont flip. (12 rep/9 dem)
that leaves 13 seats truly in play, 12 of them are republican incumbents and 1 is a dem (nevada, where reid is retiring)

looking at this map, the dems need to hold nevada and clip 3 seats. grassley, vitter and mccain are probably strong bets to keep their seats. reid's seat is a tossup. but, i think dems will definitely win illinois, and i think right now they'll probably take PA and NH. i'll do my best to help defeat toomey. if they keep nevada and win IL, PA, NH and WI, they are home free. it certainly looks doable at this point.

Coombs wrote:

Burnwinter wrote:

And perhaps someone will one day point out the tens of millions Clinton's taken from the Saudis ...

I've got to hear that 5 times a day, tbf.

Yeah true, it's more that it's always "He did this! Well she did that!" instead of "They're all doing it!"

mdgoonah41 wrote:

holy fucking shit

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

How is that any different to the West's funding and public support of people like Poroshenko, Jazenjuk and Swoboda, Klitschko, fucking neo-Nazis and basically everybody who was against Yanukovych because the latter rejected the bullshit EU association agreement?

Also thanks for the reminder why I don't read the allegedly left leaning NYT anymore. No love for Manafort or Trump and I can easily see the former involved in some shady shit but citing "government investigators" from a pariah state such as the Ukraine and the talk of Euromaidan as a "popular uprising" - embarrassing

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-chances-of-holding-the-senate-are-following-trump-downhill/

this is breathtaking

It's bizarre. They could at least prepare their "it's all a numerical conspiracy" lines a bit.

Hey, I shout that at home.

@ppppolls 11m11 minutes ago
Dear random guy in Texas who called my cell at 7:30 PM, no I can't call you back to tell you if the poll with Trump up 60 in FL was real

reminder that the 538 number on the right is the polls-only forecast they do.