Interestingly enough, Trump has picked up 30 percent of the Latino vote in Vegas which formerly went overwhelmingly for Obama.Is that 30% of Latinxs, or 30% of GOP Latinxs? There's a big difference. :P
30 percent of total Latinos likely to vote. This includes the Latinos who voted for Obama.
Cuban-Americans have long had entirely different voting patterns from other Latinos.
True, which is why I tried to be very precise. Also, they (like myself) are also Floridian, which skews things even more.
Ah, I see. Yeah, LatinX voters have always been a somewhat weaker voting bloc than, say, African-Americans, who actually vote more than white people. Looks like Clinton still has a healthy lead, of course. 30% is not great.
|
Well, I can't speak for snorter, but there are a variety of things she did while Bill held various offices.Also, if he is exploiting a legal loophole, then he's not doing anything wrong in their eyes. The fault lies with the politicians who wrote the tax laws so incompetently, that they contain such loopholes.
And if he's done so by illegal means? I've been watching the Trump Foundation stories with some interest. He's both avoided income by directing money to the Foundation, and misused that "charitable" money by paying personal and business expenses with Foundation money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He bought two portraits of himself with his "nonprofit" charity organization. It's hard to top that.
Ah, I see. Yeah, LatinX voters have always been a somewhat weaker voting bloc than, say, African-Americans, who actually vote more than white people. Looks like Clinton still has a healthy lead, of course. 30% is not great.Even in that poll, he's only getting 19%. With a 79% unfavorable rating.
We all cite our favorite polls. I'm sure there's one out there where he's getting 30%.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He bought two portraits of himself with his "nonprofit" charity organization. It's hard to top that.
Personally, I think paying off money he personally owed (as part of settlements, I believe it was) with his foundation's money is even worse than buying portraits of himself. I think the term was "self dealing"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but the portraits are a better example of him being both crooked and egomaniacal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He bought two portraits of himself with his "nonprofit" charity organization. It's hard to top that.Personally, I think paying off money he personally owed (as part of settlements, I believe it was) with his foundation's money is even worse than buying portraits of himself. I think the term was "self dealing"?
If anyone isn't already, please read David Fahrenthold's (of the Washington Post) ongoing investigations into Trump's foundation and finances.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I have determined that Donald Trump is nothing more then a moldy Jack-o-Lantern on top of an expensive suit being manipulated using pulleys and speakers and such by small Don Bluth-ian mice bent on not only eradicating humans and cats, but to also get revenge on Disney for not bankrolling Fievel, An American Tale.
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.I was never a huge fan of Booker T. Washington (I think he made a lot of gains at the expense of stronger activists like Ida B. Wells), but it's worth considering that a policy can be racist without its supporters being racist.
Something else to remember is that Mr. Washington represented no one but himself. I don't think anyone ever elected him to represent them to or to make policy on their behalf.
The same cannot be said for those representatives who make up the CBC. It's in their very job titles....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Booker T. Washington was a pretty huge figure, and enjoyed widespread support among African-Americans, even if it wasn't universal or even majority*. So yeah, he wasn't "elected", but that's not the only way to measure whether his views were widely-held. By that logic, MLK didn't represent anyone, either.
*I'm pretty sure it was majority. That's the impression I get from his accomplishments, significance, and grudging mentions in A Sword Among Lions.
|
|
I just dont really think Trump not paying taxes holds a candle to, well any Clinton scandle, really. People keep bringing it up, but thats kind of how economics works. If its even true, its just not that much of an issue.
I just don't really think Clinton's conflicts of interest hold a candle to, well anything Trump does, really. People keep bringing it up, but that's kind of how politics works. If its even true, its just not that much of an issue.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just dont really think Trump not paying taxes holds a candle to, well any Clinton scandle, really. People keep bringing it up, but thats kind of how economics works. If its even true, its just not that much of an issue.
Trump was a wealthy person, Clinton a politician. If major tax evasion is just how economics work, aren't Clinton's scandals "Just how politics work"?
|
|
Id say its a pretty big difference when one's scandle is unrelated to and the other's are directly related to if not empowered by the office they both seek.
But then again, from some of the comments I've seen here, I'm actually beginning to wonder if there where there really where multiple versions of the debate released, or if blind fanaticism or hatred is really that powerful among some folks.
He said he manipulates the laws of the nation. Last time we found out our presidents thought they could do that, we drove the latest one to resign.
Nixon wasn't the first, just the first one to get caught. He wasn't even the most inept—he just had more trouble getting everyone to stay in line.
Trump's presidency would be interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Id say its a pretty big difference when one's scandle is unrelated to and the other's are directly related to if not empowered by the office they both seek.
But then again, from some of the comments I've seen here, I'm actually beginning to wonder if there where there really where multiple versions of the debate released, or if blind fanaticism or hatred is really that powerful.
I'm really surprised at your interpretation of the debate, to be honest, to the extent that I actually wonder if you just went in with a lot of preconceived notions. Every outlet, even Fox, says Clinton won. The focus groups say she won. The post-debate polls say she won. She's getting a big post-debate bounce in the election polls. Trump himself has pretty much conceded defeat and started focusing on how it was the fault of the moderator/microphone/him being "too nice".
He said he had a good temperament. And the audience laughed.
I'm not saying your interpretation is invalid, but every other metric seems to disagree with it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Id say its a pretty big difference when one's scandle is unrelated to and the other's are directly related to if not empowered by the office they both seek.
But then again, from some of the comments I've seen here, I'm actually beginning to wonder if there where there really where multiple versions of the debate released, or if blind fanaticism or hatred is really that powerful.
Oh hello, I- hey, we've met before, haven't we? You seem awful familiar...
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Id say its a pretty big difference when one's scandle is unrelated to and the other's are directly related to if not empowered by the office they both seek.
But then again, from some of the comments I've seen here, I'm actually beginning to wonder if there where there really where multiple versions of the debate released, or if blind fanaticism or hatred is really that powerful.
I'm really surprised at your interpretation of the debate, to be honest, to the extent that I actually wonder if you just went in with a lot of preconceived notions. Every outlet, even Fox, says Clinton won. The focus groups say she won. The post-debate polls say she won. She's getting a big post-debate bounce in the election polls. Trump himself has pretty much conceded defeat and started focusing on how it was the fault of the moderator/microphone/him being "too nice".
He said he had a good temperament. And the audience laughed.
I'm not saying your interpretation is invalid, but every other metric seems to disagree with it.
it was in the same debate where he fully stood by his idea of destroying an Iranian ship that taunted a U.S in the Mediterranean, claiming it would not have caused a war. For me that was one of the most damning moments. If literal sailor taunts can aggravate a U.S president so much that he'll risk war to respond to them, what happens the next time Putin badmouths the U.S? Or North Korea acts up? How can a person like that be allowed anywhere near an influential position into such event?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gary Johnson has ‘Aleppo moment’ when asked to name favorite foreign leader
My brother and I both said "Dude. We get you like to appeal to younger audience, but you need to stop smoking weed BEFORE you answer questions."
Oh well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That really just solidifies my thoughts that Johnson has as much chance being elected president as I do this year. I at least can name a foreign leader.
I think Johnson is actually hurting the legalization movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gary Johnson has ‘Aleppo moment’ when asked to name favorite foreign leaderMy brother and I both said "Dude. We get you like to appeal to younger audience, but you need to stop smoking weed BEFORE you answer questions."
Oh well.
I'm sorry, but both Aleppo moments don't hold a candle to the answer Johnson gave out when asked about climate change. "And some day the Sun will explode!".
Drah,
I must have missed that...but yeah that's worse.
Well, the Detroit News thinks he's the best choice
Detroit News Endorses Johnson
Yeah, but the portraits are a better example of him being both crooked and egomaniacal.
To be fair, he's unlikely to profit from that transaction. Cuz, you know, who else would be willing to pay money for that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh hello, I- hey, we've met before, haven't we? You seem awful familiar...Id say its a pretty big difference when one's scandle is unrelated to and the other's are directly related to if not empowered by the office they both seek.
But then again, from some of the comments I've seen here, I'm actually beginning to wonder if there where there really where multiple versions of the debate released, or if blind fanaticism or hatred is really that powerful.
You're one to talk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh-oh, Pot, better get out of here before Gary sees you...
|
|
Id say its a pretty big difference when one's scandle is unrelated to and the other's are directly related to if not empowered by the office they both seek.
But then again, from some of the comments I've seen here, I'm actually beginning to wonder if there where there really where multiple versions of the debate released, or if blind fanaticism or hatred is really that powerful among some folks.
While I'd largely agree with that hatred really is that powerful among some folks, I'd just like to be clear that you're not actually referring to the folks that were chanting "Lock her up" at the convention or the folks cheering descriptions of Mexicans as rapists or those demanding we bar Muslim refugees from the US or the KKK and alt-right supporters of Mr. Trump, right? You're talking about the other side as the ones full of hate?
Maybe we saw different versions of the debate because we live in different realities.
Im not the one that perscribess other that disagrees with or has different experiences as lying, wrong, or insane as a backhanded way of making themselves look better, more intelligent, or wise. I don't actually hate anyone, or if you prefere, I hate everyone equally.
I was mostly talking about folks here in general, regardless of side, with accusations that if one person wins, the world will end, or similar things. I was commenting on that being, in my opinion, extreme, as well as the underlying idea that any evidence that one person or the other is almost saintly or beyond reproach somehow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump congratulates himself for NOT bringing up Bill Clinton's affairs. Then literally tells everyone else to do it for him.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a Trump presidency will end the world. I do think he will potentially set our country back and put us back in a recession we are only now crawling out of. I also think he will leave behind even worse messes than those G.W. Bush left when he entered office. I'd rather break the recent cycle of a Republican president breaking things and the democrats having to clean it up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump congratulates himself for NOT bringing up Bill Clinton's affairs. Then literally tells everyone else to do it for him.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Trump and his advisor buddies Ailes, Gingrich, and Giuliani are all on their third marriage each, and have all cheated on their previous wives, sometimes with more than one mistress. Trump will make public displays at having some spirituality or religious connection to curry votes, but it's obvious to anyone paying attention how paper-thin his religious veneer is.
(Hillary) Clinton has remained married to the same first husband for 40+ years, stuck with it and worked through the problems, and has never committed adultery. While private about her spirituality, she has spoken eloquently and with great detail about how her Methodism shapes her thinking and life.
Out of all the points of attack Trump's Campaign could pick, this is perhaps the strategically dumbest, and that says a lot for a campaign filled with poorly-conceived, poorly-planned and poorly-executed ideas. This is the Custer's Last Stand of October Surprises, except that Trump is building the trap that will snare him. This is so tactically unsound, it alone should make any Trump supporter reconsider just how rashly-impulsive, thin-skinned, and totally unsuited Trump is to have control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and vast military.
But my black heart is eager to watch Trump do it. He's going to have to gnaw a leg off to escape this snare.
I don't think a Trump presidency will end the world. I do think he will potentially set our country back and put us back in a recession we are only now crawling out of. I also think he will leave behind even worse messes than those G.W. Bush left when he entered office. I'd rather break the recent cycle of a Republican president breaking things and the democrats having to clean it up.
My concern, MMC, is that his messes might end up with nuclear consequences for the world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's like an auto-immune disease. His campaign is fighting desperately to kill itself.
That would be their latent humanity attempting to re asasert itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was mostly talking about folks here in general, regardless of side, with accusations that if one person wins, the world will end, or similar things.
The problem, though, is that sometimes the world does change, to the point that the world-as-we-know-it had ended and been replaced by something entirely different. Or, as British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey remarked in 1914, "The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time." While it's true that the planet did not literally end, the political and social structure that had held for most of the 19th century disappeared, millions died, and the old order with it.
I can easily see a Trump presidency shattering the world as we now know it. The United States is engaged in three independent games of saber rattling with nuclear-armed countries (Russia, China, and North Korea); one diplomatic misstep could put the US into war. Trump himself has threatened no longer to defend NATO members that haven't paid (in his view) their fair share, which could easily be read as encouragement for Putin to snap up some of the Baltic states and start a European conflict, which the US may or may not be able to stay out of. And, of course, Trump has claimed that climate change is a hoax during a stretch of the 16 hottest months on record; climate change will not cause the planet to vanish, but it could easily destroy civilization as we know it when the food riots start.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump congratulates himself for NOT bringing up Bill Clinton's affairs. Then literally tells everyone else to do it for him.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Trump and his advisor buddies Ailes, Gingrich, and Giuliani are all on their third marriage each, and have all cheated on their previous wives, sometimes with more than one mistress. Trump will make public displays at having some spirituality or religious connection to curry votes, but it's obvious to anyone paying attention how paper-thin his religious veneer is.
(Hillary) Clinton has remained married to the same first husband for 40+ years, stuck with it and worked through the problems, and has never committed adultery. While private about her spirituality, she has spoken eloquently and with great detail about how her Methodism shapes her thinking and life.
Out of all the points of attack Trump's Campaign could pick, this is perhaps the strategically dumbest, and that says a lot for a campaign filled with poorly-conceived, poorly-planned and poorly-executed ideas. This is the Custer's Last Stand of October Surprises, except that Trump is building the trap that will snare him. This is so tactically unsound, it alone should make any Trump supporter reconsider just how rashly-impulsive, thin-skinned, and totally unsuited Trump is to have control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and vast military.
But my black heart is eager to watch Trump do it. He's going to have to gnaw a leg off to escape this snare.
Sadly, in our society is less acceptable for a woman to be cheated on than for a man to cheat on his wife.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta say, I love Trump's campaign surrogates saying the media needs to focus on the issues and things people care instead of what is being talked about, when they are talking about what Trump said the night before.