Can Trump Still Win?

If the sex tape had happened one week before the election Trump would be dead. It was released too soon. The news cycle and public attention has become so fast today that by the time of the election people will give no more weight to Trump's sex talk as they do Bill Clinton's impeachment and Monica Lewinsky's semen stained dress. If Trump lets loose another barrage of attacks on Hilary in the next debate like he did before she could sink. Trump is now playing to his base. The question is can this work? This was George W. Bush's strategy in 2004, and most pundits say if Bush had done that today he would lose because demographics have changed. But it's not as simple as that. Hilary has to get her supporters to turn out. No doubt she has a great grassroots machine like Obama had in 2012, but it may not work for her the way it worked for Obama. If Hilary wasn't such a weak candidate Trump wouldn't stand a chance. But Hilary is so weak that her supporters may not show up to vote. And others may assume in certain states that she's a win there and not show up to vote. A lot of things can go wrong with her turnout effort. Another problem she has is that her staff is not that good. Obama had stars like David Axelrod and others making sure every last detail was in order. Hilary doesn't have anything like that kind of professionalism anywhere in her staff. She always likes weak people around her, and Podesta is no star. Originally Posted by pussycat

One thing you said is very true: "Trump is now playing to his base." The problem is that he doesn't need to play to his base, he has to increase his base significantly in order to win -- women, Hispanics, African-Americans, college educated people, young people. In the last debate, no one was influenced enough to move from Clinton or undecided to Trump. Trump continues to alienate voters. Now he is complaining that the election process is fixed. Excuses even before he loses? When you say that if Hilary wasn't such a weak candidate Trump wouldn't stand a chance, the reverse is also true. If Trump wasn't such a weak candidate Clinton wouldn't stand a chance. As far as staff goes, Kellyanne Conway is the worst. Every time I hear her talk she makes no sense. I guarantee you that having Barack and Michelle Obama out campaigning for Clinton is more important than anyone out there campaigning for Trump. Which brings up the question -- who is campaigning for Trump?

It's like you've just gotten back from some other planet.
You probably think Obama's done a great job too.

"Eroding civil liberties" - as if that isn't a thing.

I love how you pin everything on Bush as if Obama and super neocon Sec State HRC haven't been in there for years wreaking their own havoc all over the world. If it wasn't ISIS, it would be another rebranded AlQueda - our national policies foreign and domestic depend on the never-ending war on terror so they can do whatever they want - and Obama has and Clinton will carry on with that. special ops in 147 countries - thanks bush! Obama couldn't have done that, he's too busy on the talk shows and looking cool for cameras - everyone eats that shit up...

There's so much more to talk about in your train wreck of an assessment, but the threads get too long if there's more than a couple things. Originally Posted by endurance

Yep I do believe Obama did a very good job that was one of the first things I said, of course you would know that if you actually had reading comprehension skills.Congress did their best to block every he did, and he will still be leaving the White House in a much better place then when he first took office, admit or not that's your own ignorance.

But that's the beauty of our country we are free to get our info from whatever news outlet we choose to. You sound a lot like an American Free Press reader to me...

So, you're saying they are dyed-in-the-wool Dems who value party allegiance above the integrity of America? Good point. Originally Posted by SecretE

Nope not my point at all. What I am saying is if what your saying is true that Hillary took money from one of our closest allies then she did what anyone else would do including yourself. Nice try though.

Trump on the other is nothing more than a hypocritical snake in the grass who flat out rips off the same middle class people he claims he is running for. But believe what you want. Come election night, I will be the one smiling NOT YOU!!

Just making sure you are defending the indefensible again. He did plenty, almost all for the worse - you can't even address the couple examples I've put right in your face.

The funny part is how condescending you are when you start off on the idiotic premise that it is fine that corruption is pervasive - because, golly gee that's a lot of money. That retarded school of thought is how we've got the worst 3 branches of government ever and a buffoon and crooked af insider running for exec. Nice job, too bad we all got the shit government you deserve.

Yep I do believe Obama did a very good job that was one of the first things I said, of course you would know that if you actually had reading comprehension skills.Congress did their best to block every he did, and he will still be leaving the White House in a much better place then when he first took office, admit or not that's your own ignorance.

But that's the beauty of our country we are free to get our info from whatever news outlet we choose to. You sound a lot like an American Free Press reader to me... Originally Posted by Little Monster

Really you put examples in my face where?? I went back and checked, I didn't any examples? And yes it is much easier to defend Obama & Clinton than it is to defend the other side. You talk about eroding civil liberties, can you please give an example of that other than some made up shit.

I googled Pew Research and found the following. Outside of the 16-19 age group, the unemployment rates are acceptable. And PEW points out that the number of people retiring and not looking for work skews the data.

Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-jobs-numbers/

"But the unemployment rate isn’t the only, or even necessarily the best, indicator to come out of the monthly jobs report. Simply being out of work isn’t enough for a person to be counted as unemployed; he or she has to have been available to work and actively looking for work, or on temporary layoff. (As the BLS itself noted once upon a time, “Being employed is an observable experience, while being unemployed often lacks that same concreteness.”) In any given month, the unemployment rate can rise or fall depending on the interplay between how many people find or lose jobs and how many join or leave the active labor force.


For much of the current recovery, the unemployment rate fell even when relatively few people were finding jobs, because even more people were retiring, going back to school, or simply giving up the job hunt. In the past six years, more than 12.6 million Americans 16 and over (seasonally adjusted) have joined the ranks of those not counted as part of the labor force."

Unemployment Rates by Age



Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Did you read what you just posted?

Only 59 percent of Americans are employed.

34 percent say they don't want a job anymore.

And you call that "acceptable?"

That's not the country I grew up in.

Apparently your reading comprehension skills suck. One of the key points in a pretty short post was that Obama's foreign policy is just as aggressive and out of control as anyone else, including Bush.

Since you are too obtuse to notice your civil liberties eroding, right off the top of my head:
- continuing asset forfeiture
- "freedom of speech zones"
- crushing treatment of whistleblowers
- suspension of constitution within a hundred miles of the border
- removal of posse comitatus
- fed law enforcement working directly with banks to kill the ows protests including entrapment
- fbi cultivating domestic terrorists to then "stop"
- continuation of "no fly lists" and other patriot act bs
- military tactics on peaceful protests like the keystone/indians

and related but also lame, much like yourself
- removal of the laws preventing domestic propaganda
- joke appointments as attorney generals
- extreme numbers of executive orders meant to side step legislative process
- regulatory capture in almost every sector by appointment
- support for the many opaque trade agreements like TPP
- conditioning military drills in urban settings

Seriously, your ignorance has gone off the deep end.

Really you put examples in my face where?? I went back and checked, I didn't any examples? And yes it is much easier to defend Obama & Clinton than it is to defend the other side. You talk about eroding civil liberties, can you please give an example of that other than some made up shit. Originally Posted by Little Monster

Did you read what you just posted?

Only 59 percent of Americans are employed.

34 percent say they don't want a job anymore.

And you call that "acceptable?"

That's not the country I grew up in. Originally Posted by pussycat

That 34% includes people who are RETIRED such as myself, and those who are 16+ and still in school and not looking for a job.

As stated in the article"

"One reason for the difference is that the share of Americans saying they don’t want a job has trended up since the Great Recession: from 31.9% of the working-age population in October 2008 to 34.6% last month (on a non-seasonally adjusted basis). Some of that increase, though, may be due to Baby Boomers reaching retirement age; as they leave the workforce over the next several years, labor economists expect the employment-to-population ratio to trend lower. Young adults staying in or returning to school also may be a factor."

Read what you quoted..."SOME of that increase, though, MAY be due to Baby Boomers reaching retirement age..."

Do you know what that means?

It means the factor of RETIREMENT among the 34 percent was a marginal factor. That being the case the larger factor was something else listed....namely...people who gave up looking for normal employment because none was available for so long.

Now more wonderful sets of facts for you Polly Anna deluded people with your heads in the sand...

1.A Kellogg Research study released yesterday found that fully one half of children living in Texas are living in poverty.

2.In 2007 average household incomes were almost 57,000. per year. Two years into the recession by 2009 average household incomes had dropped to only 52,000 per year. Despite tiny inchy winchy and puny little small gains in incomes in the last three years AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME IS STILL ONLY 52,000 PER YEAR.

And the worst part of all this is that this aweful condition, as bad as it is, is only keep creeping along and would be much worse were it not for massive Federal borrowing and spending as a stimulus. Guess what Einstein? Federal tax receipts are way down because NO ONE IS MAKING AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY USED TO. To continue stimulative spending the balance has to be made up by borrowing. So even though there's only a fraction of military spending as there was for the first ten years of this century deficits are still as huge. The amount borrowed by the Federal government to sustain the economy IS FULLY TEN PERCENT OF GDP. The Federal government is 23 percent of GDP and forty percent of Federal spending is from debt because the tax base is now so small. Do the math.

Now as for the RIGGED ELECTION.

OF COURSE IT'S RIGGED. Duh, the media and press has nothing but negative things to say about Trump, and none of it criticisms are of his policies. It's all directed against his personality, smearing him in one way or another. But the bigger issue is election fraud. The media is denying that election fraud exists LOL. Does anyone remember the Presidential election of 2000? Did the loser just agree to come together for the "good of the country" as the media says Trump should do now and accept a rigged election? NO. That's not what happened. When it was evident that fraud was rampant in Jeb Bush's Florida the Democrats piled into the Courts and litigated the results. The whole matter had to be decided by a 5 to 4 partisan decision of the Supreme Court.

The 2000 election was STOLEN. And this year might be STOLEN TOO.
So please no more bullshit from Academics on the media falsely claiming that the American electoral system is a utopian paradise of integrity. It's always been corrupt and remains so today.

not to worry, after his kamikaze style nose dive last night.. it's all over but the bitching and whining...

Duh, the media and press has nothing but negative things to say about Trump, and none of it criticisms are of his policies. It's all directed against his personality, smearing him in one way or another.

The 2000 election was STOLEN. And this year might be STOLEN TOO.
So please no more bullshit from Academics on the media falsely claiming that the American electoral system is a utopian paradise of integrity. It's always been corrupt and remains so today. Originally Posted by pussycat

Reagan, and the Bushes won despite the liberal media bias. And with RR and GHWB that was before the right wing ownership of radio to provide some counterweight to this bias. So, why can't Donald? Especially given the huge amount of airtime he has had both in the primary as well as general election races?

The 2000 election was neither rigged nor stolen. It was a very close election that justified a recount and legal challenge. If the parties were reversed, it is highly likely the same thing would have been done. Just like has happened in many Congressional and state elections in the past. That doesn't mean it was stolen or rigged.

Of course, if you factored in the disenfranchised voters that were struck from the rolls due to the voter ID laws that were in place in 2000, Gore might have won FL with a decent margin.

One of the big problems today is "science."

Apparently your reading comprehension skills suck. One of the key points in a pretty short post was that Obama's foreign policy is just as aggressive and out of control as anyone else, including Bush.

Well sir apparently you have piss poor research skills as well as the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader. I asked to please provide examples and you still have yet to do that. Obama's foreign policy has been nowhere near as bad as Bush's not even close.


Since you are too obtuse to notice your civil liberties eroding, right off the top of my head:
- continuing asset forfeiture

If you had done your research before making this point you learn that the concept of asset forfeiture can be traced back to the colonial days. However the form of asset forfeiture you are referring to started in 1980's with Ronald Reagans so called "War on Drugs" which has done nothing but put non violent criminals in prison and wast tax payer money. Thank you for the help smart one.


- "freedom of speech zones"

I agree those are a violation of our free speech and "Free Speech Zones were first started by the conservatives at the 1988 Democratic Convention in Atlanta, GA. Mr. Bush commonly used them after 9/11 and at the 2004 DNC in Boston. Thanx again for the help smart one


- crushing treatment of whistleblowers

can you please give me an example of Obama or Clinton mistreating whistleblowers like I asked you to.

- suspension of constitution within a hundred miles of the border

That was a policy started by the US Dept of Justice in 1953!! Was Obama even alive then???


- removal of posse comitatus

OK so we removed a policy that was passed in 1879. I still don't see how that is eroding our civil liberties, but that's just me


- fed law enforcement working directly with banks to kill the ows protests including entrapment

Holy shit we agree!!! That was some major bullshit. But I still haven't read anywhere that Obama or Clinton were behind that. Can you please pull me up a link (and I'm being serious I would like to read it)


- fbi cultivating domestic terrorists to then "stop"

Please provide an example like I asked...

- continuation of "no fly lists" and other patriot act bs

Um surely you know that the Patriot is a Bush policy!! Are you seriously trying to help me

- military tactics on peaceful protests like the keystone/indians

Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I really do mean that. I do have to look that one up.

and related but also lame, much like yourself
- removal of the laws preventing domestic propaganda

Who gives a shit. If the government wants to talk about how wonderful they are then let them. if you don't like what they have to say then change the fucken channel, radio station, or move to a different website. how hard is that???

- joke appointments as attorney generals

That's an opinion not a fact sir.

- extreme numbers of executive orders meant to side step legislative process

FYI almost every president has issued executive orders. Mr. Obama hasn't issued nearly as many as Reagan did or even Bush.

- regulatory capture in almost every sector by appointment

Please provide me an example like I asked...


- support for the many opaque trade agreements like TPP

I do not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership myself either. Once again we agree!!



- conditioning military drills in urban settings

Where has a lot of the fighting in the Middle East been taking place??? URBAN AREAS!! So the military is simulating those situations are they not?? I haven't read anything about them kicking in civilian doors and sending them off yet.

Seriously, your ignorance has gone off the deep end. Originally Posted by endurance

I'm not gonna call you any names sir, I honestly did enjoy this post you got me to think and look stuff up and I do respect that. It's obvious we get our news from entirely different sources and as I have said before that's the beauty of freedom. I do think you might want to consider doing a little research before posting some of the points you try to make, cause then you will just be like Trump and help your opponent out every time you open your mouth.

Once again thank you for this post!!

One of todays biggest problems is "science." Today was cooler than yesterday, so how could there be global warming? And don't tell me its not obvious the earth is only around 6000 years old. I am sick and tired of "science" telling me otherwise.

Why does the liberal media insists the world is round? I'm looking outside, and its pretty flat to me. Liberal media always tries to shove facts down my throat. What if facts are contrary to my belief systems? I have feelings about how things are. That's good enough for me. If I ever do want facts, I prefer websites that will make up the facts I want to hear.

Trump is going to win the election in a landslide. I will be there on November 28th to cast my vote.

Reagan, and the Bushes won despite the liberal media bias. And with RR and GHWB that was before the right wing ownership of radio to provide some counterweight to this bias. So, why can't Donald? Especially given the huge amount of airtime he has had both in the primary as well as general election races?

The 2000 election was neither rigged nor stolen. It was a very close election that justified a recount and legal challenge. If the parties were reversed, it is highly likely the same thing would have been done. Just like has happened in many Congressional and state elections in the past. That doesn't mean it was stolen or rigged.

Of course, if you factored in the disenfranchised voters that were struck from the rolls due to the voter ID laws that were in place in 2000, Gore might have won FL with a decent margin. Originally Posted by EagleEye

If the election in Florida wasn't tainted then why did the Supreme Court Justices vote only only ideological lines? Why was it a 5 to 4 split? Why would the Florida Secretary of State intervene improperly.

There have been several studies of what actually happened. The most public investigation was reported by Greg Palast in the Guardian, and he's also produced a film about what happened you can find on Youtube.

It is undeniable that many people were illegally purged from the voting rolls because it was known they would vote for Gore.