I was going to write a response insulting you in four or five different ways, but the reality is that anyone that uses the word “triggered” in this context should just be ignored.
1 Like
Wikileaks release showing an attempt by the DNC to fake Trump Putin narrative
Please, this is different than the jokes about lawyers in a bus going over a cliff?
The media set Trump up as the easiest to defeat GOP nominee. This and pages of the like ( Google) came out in June and July, months shy of the total onslaught by an industry that shows it is in ill repute itself. Harvard study.
Study: The Media Loved Trump. Then He Won The Nomination. | The Daily Wire
1 Like
Not triggered: willing to call the guy wearing it what he is: a piece of shit.
Incidentally, everyone here assumes – given your MRA-PUA obsession with sex politics/female rejection and your pathetic, unmannish susceptibility to self-improvement psychobabblers, hucksters, and histrionic buffoons – that you suffer from low T (among many, many other things).
For some of the reasons Smh noter, it’s apples and oranges, but in any event the author overstates the scienter “requirement” of the court, in that the Court really recognized a bad faith standard.
Thus, if you wanted to use Gorin as the framework, ask yourself if there is bad faith. Unpack it: the nation’s top diplomat, in possession of and communicating about the most sensitive national security topics we have, decides to house this information on an insecure platform, against the advice of some of her top advisors, all to sidestep FOIA responsibilities (everyone knows this is why she did it).
Bad faith? Easily.
(This assumes Gorin is even still good law - much water has gone over the dam since 1941.)
This is what is really scary - your house getting shot up for posting Trump signs
I’m not talking about the media liking or disliking Trump - I’m talking about them providing Trump with non-stop coverage in lieu of him having an actual campaign. Which they did.
2 Likes
Personally, I think that hurt him more than helped him too. At least after the primary was won. Had the media stopped giving him so much free attention he might have actually put the necessary pieces in place to make a real run for the White House.
I don’t think he ever had a legit shot anyway, but that’s neither here nor there.
Completely agreed. It hurt him in the long run. But the only reason he has a long run at all was the media doing his work.
Although, I just can’t imagine Trump even organizing a campaign at any point, regardless.
1 Like
And you see this different than Clinton not doing a press conference this year or speaking at a total of less rallies than Trump speaks at in one week, or having to have her vp, husband, the pres and his wife fill in for her?
She is a lightweight in every respect, except for thirst for power.
Yes, it is different. The point earlier is that Trumpkins are attacking the media as enemies, but without the media, there would be no Trump up for election tomorrow.
What Hillary did or didn’t do doesn’t change that fact.
If you are interested in his policies go watch his Gettysburg PA speech, it’s plenty full of policy.
That is if you’re genuinely interested
Candidates are supposed to have surrogates, preferably enough of them to close the election out with ~one in each competitive state per day. Trump can’t manage this because there aren’t enough prominent political figures willing to damage their credibility by aligning themselves with him.
As for which of these two is a lightweight, one has built and run a fundamentally sound and strong campaign, including, in the only really pure contest of their relative strengths and weaknesses, three decisive debate wins.
The other is almost certainly going to lose the election tomorrow to a person about whom everyone was still wondering whether she would face federal indictment three days before election day. Note that this is going to happen in part because he was too stupid and lazy to mount an actual campaign with an actual GOTV operation.
The disparity in strength could not be more obvious.
I disagree that Hillary ran a sound campaign. She has changed her position on so many issues (gay marriage, going to war, the rich paying their fair share, immigration, criminal justice), she doesn’t have a solid foundation to stand on. She kind of just follows the direction of wherever the political wind blows. The machinery of the Democratic Party is running her, not the other way around. Her surrogates are the star of the show, she is being propped up by everyone around her. Someone with her level of experience should not be making the mistakes she is making, she is either corrupt, incompetent, or (most likely) both.
You’re talking about something different, though - you’re talking about candidate substance. Running a good campaign is separate from that. A lousy candidate can run a good campaign - in fact, they have to to make it for their shortcomings as a candidate.
1 Like
[quote=“MaximusB, post:4570, topic:218984, full:true”]
I disagree that Hillary ran a sound campaign. She has changed her position on so many issues (gay marriage, going to war, the rich paying their fair share, immigration, criminal justice), she doesn’t have a solid foundation to stand on.[/quote]
Whatever the merits of this argument, these are policy problems. The argument for the strength of her campaign is bolstered by the fact of the flawed material with which it was forced to work.
Both candidates had exactly three opportunities to test themselves in pure form, against each other, with nobody to prop them up. She crushed him (it was the most decisive set of debate wins since CNN began scientifically polling the debates).
You’re missing the point. For all her corruption and mistakes, she has found a way to be on the verge of becoming President of the United States. She did this by mounting an imeasurably better bid for the White House than her bumbling buffoon of a competitor. Admittedly this is not a high bar, but the original post I was commenting on was about the campaigns’ strengths relative to each other. From hiring decisions (Clinton filled her camp with sharks and pros, Trump surrounded himself with Putinites and loons) to debate prep to field offices, she wins. Everything.
You guys are tireless Trump bashers.
Unwilling to acknowledge that HRC is likely at the top of the list in US history for being a corrupt, immoral, and unaccomplished politician. If you happen to believe there is someone of her equal in these respects that has held office (particularly the Presidency) please tell.
You are acting like you are totally blind to her, Bill’s, their foundation, and virtually every surrogate’s never ending miscreant and reprobate actions.
Why?
PS I am ready for this to be over, so I can go back to enjoying the knowledge that you guys put up in areas other than this election. 
1 Like
Actually laughing.
not even mad neither
1 Like
I thought pretty much everyone here was in agreement that she should be put on trial for gross negligence?
3 Likes
Every scientific poll conducted by every firm that asked about the debates found that she won them. There is really no question about this. One of the reasons that the race began tightening even before the first Comey letter is that the forgetful electorate had gone a week or two without seeing Trump and Clinton on stage together, which contrast benefitted her 100 percent of the time (because he’s so unprecedentedly stupid).