• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump’s massively epic meltdown shouldn’t really surprise anyone

MaggieD said:
And yet just how bad must HC be that she's outspent him three to one? And not even a press conference. It's frightening. The whole thing seems like a really bad joke.
Click to expand...

Watch her still lose. I'd probably laugh and cry simultaneously.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This is what I feel it will be like if Trump wins...

Click to expand...


I would not worry about Trump winning, he looses votes everytime he tweets. Guess the tweet ban from his campaign manager is over, and so isnt the election. Keep tweeting Donny, Hilldog is choosing her inauguration outfit as we speak.
 
yankintx said:
I would not worry about Trump winning, he looses votes everytime he tweets. Guess the tweet ban from his campaign manager is over, and so isnt the election. Keep tweeting Donny, Hilldog is choosing her inauguration outfit as we speak.
Click to expand...

Just more victory-dancing at the 50-yard line.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
This is comedic, right? Much ado about nothing as Shakespeare aptly put it. Parody at the very least.

I read the piece, watched the oh so incredible video " of Trump imitating Clinton's near-collapse at a Sept. 11 memorial service last month, has to be seen to be believed" which turns out to be quite simply the truth and a rather mild imitation... and something every voter should be totally aware of, a stumbling candidate who looks far too weak to possibly be leading the greatest and most powerful country on the earth.

He did have a "bum mic", Clinton IS either a liar flat out or she IS delusional [ crazy]. Its also quite true that were she anybody else, well except perhaps for her husband or the Obamas, she would at minimum be indicted awaiting or standing trial right now, prison a foregone conclusion after breaking so many national security and FOIA laws...

We know from the spiked prosecutions of guilty as charged New Black Panther election provocateurs by the Obama admin... and now with all the BLM terror and violence, people maybe DO need to be warned and then be wary at certain polling places.

So how is describing all that accurately a "melting down"? If this is the "epic" meltdown, I am confident his control is right where it should be. He, like the rest of us, should be even more outraged. By the all the ongoing shenanigans pulled by Hill and Bill et al, by Obama and all the radical Islam and BLM apologists/race baiters, the Reid and Pelosi tag team...yes, this whole bad gang that, either purposely or not, just cannot shoot straight and that is running our nation right into the ground by the minute.

Undeniable to objective observers. But then, the Washington comPost has proven itself here not to be objective.

In point of fact I would suggest it is more the Washington comPost that is having a meltdown.
Click to expand...

I'd call it a meltdown, when a supposedly mature 70 year old man indulges in petty and adolescent remarks about women, makes racist statements, incites people to violence, is so narcissistic that he eats cheeseburgers and BS's with his campaign chief instead of preparing for a debate with a crack lawyer and career politician, demonstrates his near complete ignorance of economics and geopolitics without blushing, and then goes on to get angry when fact checkers, journalists, and others call him out on his many shortcomings, prevarications, and straight lies, and starts screaming there is a conspiracy, the system is rigged, yadda, yadda.

What we are seeing here is a pathetic display of a man who has matured little despite having a long and favored existence to date; who has learned little of life's lessons, and is still behaving like the loudmouth grade 8 kid when the teacher has left the room. When he looses, I predict the behavior will hit new lows, with plenty of name calling, excuse making, blaming and shaming.
 
imyoda said:
Donald Trump’s massively epic meltdown shouldn’t really surprise anyone

……….Simply put: If you had questions before Saturday night about whether Trump had the proper temperament to hold the job he is seeking, it's hard to imagine that you don't have serious doubts today………

…………. True character tends to be revealed when times are tough. Anyone can be magnanimous, happy and generous after a win. It's a hell of a lot harder to maintain that dignity and charitableness after a defeat.

Trump has shown throughout this campaign that he runs well while ahead. His chiding of his opponents, his dismissiveness of the political press — it all plays great when he is on top of the political world………. But, last night in Manheim, he showed what we got glimpses of almost a year ago in Iowa: When he's down, Trump is like a cornered animal. He lashes out — at everyone. That is when he's at his most dangerous — to his own prospects and those of the party he is leading.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...meltdown-in-manheim-shouldnt-surprise-anyone/


He's getting worse…..Says all kind of crazy stuff ……..but now it seems he's losing control fast (as is being reports of interaction with his staff)……….

One wonder why clowns like Giuliani are spurring him on………..What did Trump promise him if elected (some rumor is a seat on SCOTUS)

…………… we are witnessing the beginning of a total mental breakdown in process……..

What I think is …….

........what we need here is a full-scale psychological work up him………

And an explanation/understanding of the mind of a Trump supporter………….

As to why, despite all the evidence that indicates that Trump is totally unfit to be president……yet still support him.

Trump has been a pig since day one……….but now he is……on steroids……..Proving he is not fit for the presidency, morally, emotionally, intellectually, or mentally
Click to expand...

Well, he doubled down on attacks on that beauty queen, which was a mistake, IMO. But that's his philosophy: When someone attacks him, he doubles down and shoots 'em with both barrels, taking no prisoners (even when they're ordinary people w/o power). Which is hardly diplomatic and the kind of behavior one wants in a President. Is that what he's going to do when a foreign leader disses him personally? Dangerous.
 
LowDown said:
Reading these posts is like listening to Baghdad Bob. Imyoda tells us one thing and we look in the news and see something completely different.

In the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton leads Trump by 2.5% as of this morning. Within the margin of error.

As for Trump's debate performance, I see most people don't think he did very well, but the term "meltdown" is over the top.
Click to expand...

RealClearPolitics and Fivethirtyeight.com both have Clinton with a good lead post-debate:

Here’s what we know: Hillary Clinton is leading in the race for president, and she’s made meaningful gains since last week’s presidential debate. Clinton is currently a 72 percent favorite in our polls-only forecast, up from 55 percent just before the debate. That corresponds to a roughly 4-percentage-point national lead for Clinton, about where the race was as of Labor Day — before a series of mishaps for her in mid-September. Our polls-plus model, which blends polls with an economic index and generally produces a more conservative forecast, has Clinton with a 69 percent chance instead.

But don’t take our model’s word for it: Take a look at the polls for yourself. In the chart below, I’ve shown every swing state poll taken from the start of Clinton’s “bad weekend” on Sept. 10, through Sept. 25, the day before the debate — a rough stretch of polling for her. I’ve also shown every swing state poll taken since the debate was completed.
(chart of swing state polls is in article)

This makes for a pretty darned clear difference. In the set of pre-debate polls, Clinton was barely ahead. Out of 67 polls, she led in 34, trailed in 29 and was tied with Trump in four. That’s why our model had Trump drawing the Electoral College almost — but not quite — to a tie before the debate. We had a lot of data, much of it from high-quality pollsters. Clinton’s leads in potentially must-win states, such as Pennsylvania and Colorado, were tenuous. And she wasn’t clearly ahead anywhere else, although Florida and North Carolina were tossups. It wasn’t quite enough to make Clinton an underdog, but it was getting close.

But Clinton’s advantage in the post-debate data is just as clear. Out of 20 post-debate polls in swing states, she’s led in 18, trailed in only one (today’s Quinnipiac poll of Ohio) and was tied in one other.2 Overall, the post-debate polls look a lot like the results that President Obama had against Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, although with Ohio and North Carolina flipping sides. (Iowa is a good candidate for Trump also, but it hasn’t been polled since the debate.) That isn’t a coincidence, since Obama beat Romney by 3.9 percentage points in 2012 — right about where our model has the Clinton-Trump gap now.
Click to expand...
Election Update: How Big Is Hillary Clinton’s Lead? | FiveThirtyEight


THE REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM poll averages are:

RCP Average 9/22 - 10/3 -- -- 48.1 44.3 Clinton +3.8

As you can see, the polls STILL include some pre-debate polls. But this shows a definite bump.

Clinton is ahead in ALL of the polls averaged in RCP, except one. She is outside the Margin of Error in ALL of those polls in which she leads. In the one poll where Trump is leading, it's WITHIN the margin of error.

But I believe it's most important to pay attention to the swing states. That's what is needed to get the electoral votes.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
 
Last edited:
JumpinJack said:
RealClearPolitics and Fivethirtyeight.com both have Clinton with a good lead post-debate:


Election Update: How Big Is Hillary Clinton’s Lead? | FiveThirtyEight


THE REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM poll averages are:

RCP Average 9/22 - 10/3 -- -- 48.1 44.3 Clinton +3.8

As you can see, the polls STILL include some pre-debate polls. But this shows a definite bump.

Clinton is ahead in ALL of the polls averaged in RCP, except one. She is outside the Margin of Error in ALL of those polls in which she leads. In the one poll where Trump is leading, it's WITHIN the margin of error.

But I believe it's most important to pay attention to the swing states. That's what is needed to get the electoral votes.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
Click to expand...

Bump? Not really. An increase in the spread of the average of polls of 1.3% is random variation. It's more correct to say that there was no significant effect.
 
JumpinJack said:
Well, he doubled down on attacks on that beauty queen, which was a mistake, IMO. But that's his philosophy: When someone attacks him, he doubles down and shoots 'em with both barrels, taking no prisoners (even when they're ordinary people w/o power). Which is hardly diplomatic and the kind of behavior one wants in a President. Is that what he's going to do when a foreign leader disses him personally? Dangerous.
Click to expand...

Or as point out it lacks the temperament and self-control to be a president
 
Ganesh said:
I'd call it a meltdown, when a supposedly mature 70 year old man indulges in petty and adolescent remarks about women, makes racist statements, incites people to violence, is so narcissistic that he eats cheeseburgers and BS's with his campaign chief instead of preparing for a debate with a crack lawyer and career politician, demonstrates his near complete ignorance of economics and geopolitics without blushing, and then goes on to get angry when fact checkers, journalists, and others call him out on his many shortcomings, prevarications, and straight lies, and starts screaming there is a conspiracy, the system is rigged, yadda, yadda.

What we are seeing here is a pathetic display of a man who has matured little despite having a long and favored existence to date; who has learned little of life's lessons, and is still behaving like the loudmouth grade 8 kid when the teacher has left the room. When he looses, I predict the behavior will hit new lows, with plenty of name calling, excuse making, blaming and shaming.
Click to expand...
Meltdown = a disastrous event; an accident in a nuclear reactor in which the fuel overheats and melts the reactor core

Trump's no different than he always was on the campaign trail, saying things that get notice, putting it not my way, not yours, not the lying Hillary way but more...the Trump way.

You mislabel it a meltdown as you simply, obviously, detest Trump.

Same with the hit piece from a very biased Washington comPost... the Meltdown is occurring on YOUR side. Opinionated “news” articles like this screeching to the high heavens about what? Nothing new, nothing of consequence, certainly nothing any different from what the norm has been in the Trump campaign.

Additional evidence of a Meltdown? The NY Slimes risking jail time to put out an unauthorized/illegal posting of Trump's 1995 taxes. Someone sorely needs go to jail for that stunt. Who you secretly vote for in the voting booth, just like your personal taxes, should only be known if you so desire to let it be known.

That is not racist, not misogynist or even, omg, a big old bad cheeseburger eater, so damned terrible eating a cheeseburger right at the moment when he should having been preparing for the debate. That is, well, obviously just so damned narcissistic....

Please give us, the sane out here, a break.

Sorry, but that is simply the American [ in the case of voting, originally the Australian ] way. Hope Trump had fries and a big old soda with that cheeseburger.

By the way, I don't think Hillary so much a crack lawyer, the need for cocaine lawyering to her half brother in law, Roger maybe. But, hell, he didn't really need a lawyer since his brother bill gave him that controversial pardon January 20, 2001 [the day he left office].

No, I rather think Hillary more a sexual molester lawyer type defending rapists against 12 year old girls.

But you are probably right, these Clintons are the good folk, especially when compared to a cheeseburger eater who knows little of when it is really time to be eating that cheeseburger.

BBBWwwwwwwha haahahahahahahaha. Too too funny, thanks.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Meltdown = a disastrous event; an accident in a nuclear reactor in which the fuel overheats and melts the reactor core

Trump's no different than he always was on the campaign trail, saying things that get notice, putting it not my way, not yours, not the lying Hillary way but more...the Trump way.

You mislabel it a meltdown as you simply, obviously, detest Trump.

Same with the hit piece from a very biased Washington comPost... the Meltdown is occurring on YOUR side. Opinionated “news” articles like this screeching to the high heavens about what? Nothing new, nothing of consequence, certainly nothing any different from what the norm has been in the Trump campaign.

Additional evidence of a Meltdown? The NY Slimes risking jail time to put out an unauthorized/illegal posting of Trump's 1995 taxes. Someone sorely needs go to jail for that stunt. Who you secretly vote for in the voting booth, just like your personal taxes, should only be known if you so desire to let it be known.

That is not racist, not misogynist or even, omg, a big old bad cheeseburger eater, so damned terrible eating a cheeseburger right at the moment when he should having been preparing for the debate. That is, well, obviously just so damned narcissistic....

Please give us, the sane out here, a break.

Sorry, but that is simply the American [ in the case of voting, originally the Australian ] way. Hope Trump had fries and a big old soda with that cheeseburger.

By the way, I don't think Hillary so much a crack lawyer, the need for cocaine lawyering to her half brother in law, Roger maybe. But, hell, he didn't really need a lawyer since his brother bill gave him that controversial pardon January 20, 2001 [the day he left office].

No, I rather think Hillary more a sexual molester lawyer type defending rapists against 12 year old girls.

But you are probably right, these Clintons are the good folk, especially when compared to a cheeseburger eater who knows little of when it is really time to be eating that cheeseburger.

BBBWwwwwwwha haahahahahahahaha. Too too funny, thanks.
Click to expand...

Considering the length of your ramble, it is surprisingly content free. Let's see if there is anything in there.

Merriam Webster gives these definitions of meltdown: a rapid or disastrous decline,or, a breakdown of self control. The first fits the current state of his campaign, quite clearly given the numbers, and the second is pretty easy to ascribe to the Donald.

Do you understand the difference between journalism, whether straight reporting or an op-ed piece, and personal commentary? I'm guessing not from your posts to date. Bubu-Boys internet post is not the same thing as an organization that at least attempts certain standards in reporting. That's why Bubu-Boy can scream about any sort of crazed notions, and a bona fide news organization cannot. The NYT and the WP have a political leaning. That is not the same as a license to lie. The difference is a little nuanced, but it is there. Think about it.

Trump is on record issuing racist and misogynist statements, and when one does this in a forum that is so clearly going to be covered by the media and scrutinized by millions, it says something about the man's leanings. In fact, it says a lot.

If you would think a little more deeply about it, and I invite you to do so, you would reach the conclusion that the cheeseburger item was not a culinary review, or a reflection on American eating habits. It was a criticism of Trump's time management skills, his ability to self-reflect, his ability to prioritize, his ability to analyze problems.........handy skills to have for the top job in the world, yes? Too bad Trump doesn't have them.

As for Clinton defending a rapist, I have news for you: that's the American system, and has been for a very long time. An accused is innocent until proven guilty, and in addition is entitled to a legal defense. This is a basic safeguard of the system, and is the same in most western democracies. As with many jobs, some of a lawyer's duties are not the most tasteful.

You may find this hard to believe, but I am not a Clinton supporter. It's simply that I am clear enough to recognize an ignoramus and megalomaniac when I see one, one that would be a disaster for the US and the world.
 
Ganesh said:
Considering the length of your ramble, it is surprisingly content free. Let's see if there is anything in there.

Merriam Webster gives these definitions of meltdown: a rapid or disastrous decline,or, a breakdown of self control. The first fits the current state of his campaign, quite clearly given the numbers, and the second is pretty easy to ascribe to the Donald.

Do you understand the difference between journalism, whether straight reporting or an op-ed piece, and personal commentary? I'm guessing not from your posts to date. Bubu-Boys internet post is not the same thing as an organization that at least attempts certain standards in reporting. That's why Bubu-Boy can scream about any sort of crazed notions, and a bona fide news organization cannot. The NYT and the WP have a political leaning. That is not the same as a license to lie. The difference is a little nuanced, but it is there...

Trump is on record issuing racist and misogynist statements, and when one does this in a forum that is so clearly going to be covered by the media and scrutinized by millions, it says something about the man's leanings. In fact, it says a lot.

If you would think a little more deeply about it, and I invite you to do so, you would reach the conclusion that the cheeseburger item was not a culinary review, or a reflection on American eating habits. It was a criticism of Trump's time management skills, his ability to self-reflect, his ability to prioritize, his ability to analyze problems.........handy skills to have for the top job in the world, yes? Too bad Trump doesn't have them....

You may find this hard to believe, but I am not a Clinton supporter. It's simply that I am clear enough to recognize an ignoramus and megalomaniac when I see one, one that would be a disaster for the US and the world.
Click to expand...

Fact: you stated my long ramble was content free, you used a lot of it in your response, also not short I might add. So much for your first assessment.

Have no idea how old you are, but from what I can surmise from you posts, you have little life experience.

Merriam Webster definitions support a rapid change... and sorry, the Trump campaign is far from going anywhere different, much less rapidly, even further less, imploding... even with his eating a cheeseburger he basically came out even in the debate. His VP choice, most would agree, made the better appearance in that debate. Go where you want to find any numbers you want... if your side were confident you would not all be screaming in every venue you can that Trump is losing, going downhill, in meltdown.

Its hilarious that you think so, though. I don't believe you truly do.

Haven't a clue as to what you are on about with the BuBu-Boys. Undrstanding journalism you would know that bias can easily be inserted by what is chosen to be reported and not, who is chosen to be the journalist and who is not, and sorry, your boy at the fix is trying to put in the fix... wildly suggestive, not fact driven in the least, opposition opinion, all negative against Trump ... objective reporting would be balanced, and this Washington comPost news item was far from that.

... your dripping condescension as regards cheeseburgers did not make Trump's burger taste any better or worse, you seem too hung up on optics. Hill said nothing that would make that burger taste any less satisfying or enjoyable to Trump for his having taken the time to eat it. Hill threw her entire unsatisfying political tofu salad bowl at him and yet he is still standing, still a meat eater... a meat eater that will no doubt indulge in a feast next debate, as he is a quick read.

Remember, it ain't over until you hear the fat lady, Hilliary, start singing, or at least humming, taps to herself.

Trump doesn't have the abilities? Runs a worldwide set of businesses employing tens of thousands and your jaundiced assessment is only trite silliness. Again, thanks for the laugh.

Understand the American system just fine, taught American Government and many many years of US History along with other subjects.

Just so you know, one can purchase a ladder at Lowe's, Home Depot or Ace Hardware if you care to get down off your high horse. Hill was overestimated as wife and various forms of first lady, as a lawyer, a senator and as a secretary of state... if not for Bill we would never even heard of the shoddy lady except as an asterisk in the Nixon Watergate topic where she was on the committee investigating the president... and her possible unethical activities therein.

As to the last, I can only suggest perhaps purchasing a mirror along with that ladder. And while you may not explicitly be for that disaster in waiting, Hillary, you might as well be.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Fact: you stated my long ramble was content free, you used a lot of it in your response, also not short I might add. So much for your first assessment.

Have no idea how old you are, but from what I can surmise from you posts, you have little life experience.

Merriam Webster definitions support a rapid change... and sorry, the Trump campaign is far from going anywhere different, much less rapidly, even further less, imploding... even with his eating a cheeseburger he basically came out even in the debate. His VP choice, most would agree, made the better appearance in that debate. Go where you want to find any numbers you want... if your side were confident you would not all be screaming in every venue you can that Trump is losing, going downhill, in meltdown.
Click to expand...

Both Merriam Webster and current stats disagree with you. Trump's support is undergoing a rapid change, dropping a couple of percentage points since the debate, and most pundits increasing the odds of a Clinton win to about 75%, up substantially from just a short time ago.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Its hilarious that you think so, though. I don't believe you truly do.

Haven't a clue as to what you are on about with the BuBu-Boys. Undrstanding journalism you would know that bias can easily be inserted by what is chosen to be reported and not, who is chosen to be the journalist and who is not, and sorry, your boy at the fix is trying to put in the fix... wildly suggestive, not fact driven in the least, opposition opinion, all negative against Trump ... objective reporting would be balanced, and this Washington comPost news item was far from that.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are many ways journalism can be biased, and that is why there is no hope for organizations who either don't care or don't understand such issues. There is hope for those that do, and at least have some principles in place to monitor their bias. That's why, for example, the NYT admits its leaning for the Democrats, but also feel obligated to run stories on Clinton's email issues. It investigates Trump's misdoings, but also covers Clinton's "collapse" due to health issues.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
... your dripping condescension as regards cheeseburgers did not make Trump's burger taste any better or worse, you seem too hung up on optics. Hill said nothing that would make that burger taste any less satisfying or enjoyable to Trump for his having taken the time to eat it. Hill threw her entire unsatisfying political tofu salad bowl at him and yet he is still standing, still a meat eater... a meat eater that will no doubt indulge in a feast next debate, as he is a quick read.

Remember, it ain't over until you hear the fat lady, Hilliary, start singing, or at least humming, taps to herself.
Click to expand...

If by that curious mish mash of food metaphors you mean you think Trump won the debate, or even came close, then again you are in disagreement with just about anybody except the usual suspects, Fox News and similar, and Billy-Buds ultra-right ravings on his blog post. Clinton listed some mainstream policy; Trump raged about building walls and changing trade relationships which, upon further probing, it was found he knew nothing about. Clinton talked tax policy; Trump crowed about being smart enough to dodge paying taxes. In fact, the Donald fell into every trap set by your "not so smart lawyer", made a fool of himself, and indeed looked a little dismayed at the end of it all, the truth probably starting to dawn on him.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Trump doesn't have the abilities? Runs a worldwide set of businesses employing tens of thousands and your jaundiced assessment is only trite silliness. Again, thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...

Your statement here merely reiterates the ultra-right's highly simplistic view of the world. All good boys deserve favors. Those in the right win in the end. The best rise to the top. In fact in the real world a lot of bad boys enjoy a lot of undeserved favors, something you might be aware of with greater life experience.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Understand the American system just fine, taught American Government and many many years of US History along with other subjects.
Click to expand...

And so you do not understand the difference between outlets like the NYT and Fox News, do not understand those charged are innocent until proven guilty, and have a right to a lawyer (even if the lawyer thinks them guilty), think that anyone who makes some money must have excellent leadership and judgement skills, willy nilly, and seem to be a bit hazy on statistics, but- you taught school for years. If you say so Mr G, I have some doubts about the fact, or at least the quality of the experience if it is true, but don't let me deter you.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Just so you know, one can purchase a ladder at Lowe's, Home Depot or Ace Hardware if you care to get down off your high horse. Hill was overestimated as wife and various forms of first lady, as a lawyer, a senator and as a secretary of state... if not for Bill we would never even heard of the shoddy lady except as an asterisk in the Nixon Watergate topic where she was on the committee investigating the president... and her possible unethical activities therein.

As to the last, I can only suggest perhaps purchasing a mirror along with that ladder. And while you may not explicitly be for that disaster in waiting, Hillary, you might as well be.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your shopping advice, but I don't need a ladder for my horse. It comes from the social democracy herd, and is pretty much equal in size to all other creatures around it. That makes things much more functional.
 
Ganesh said:
Both Merriam Webster and current stats disagree with you. Trump's support is undergoing a rapid change, dropping a couple of percentage points since the debate, and most pundits increasing the odds of a Clinton win to about 75%, up substantially from just a short time ago.



Yes, there are many ways journalism can be biased, and that is why there is no hope for organizations who either don't care or don't understand such issues. There is hope for those that do, and at least have some principles in place to monitor their bias. That's why, for example, the NYT admits its leaning for the Democrats, but also feel obligated to run stories on Clinton's email issues. It investigates Trump's misdoings, but also covers Clinton's "collapse" due to health issues.
Click to expand...
I am quite content to leave you to your biased polls and await election day to see how we, Americans, really feel. It will be almost overwhelmingly depressing, though, if the majority of us are so suicidally stupid as to choose an established incompetent criminal to lead the free world into even more chaos than she and the Obomb have inflicted upon us and the rest of the world.

MW agrees with me, btw.

Give me a break, those biased news fronts only do the minimum as its in their best interests if they want to survive even a few more years... they are all dying fossils already, hopefully someday we can use those fossils for fuel. You use them and it fuels my laughter, so I guess they have already proved indirectly useful.
 
Ganesh said:
If by that curious mish mash of food metaphors you mean you think Trump won the debate, or even came close, then again you are in disagreement with just about anybody except the usual suspects, Fox News and similar, and Billy-Buds ultra-right ravings on his blog post. Clinton listed some mainstream policy; Trump raged about building walls and changing trade relationships which, upon further probing, it was found he knew nothing about. Clinton talked tax policy; Trump crowed about being smart enough to dodge paying taxes. In fact, the Donald fell into every trap set by your "not so smart lawyer", made a fool of himself, and indeed looked a little dismayed at the end of it all, the truth probably starting to dawn on him.



Your statement here merely reiterates the ultra-right's highly simplistic view of the world. All good boys deserve favors. Those in the right win in the end. The best rise to the top. In fact in the real world a lot of bad boys enjoy a lot of undeserved favors, something you might be aware of with greater life experience.



And so you do not understand the difference between outlets like the NYT and Fox News, do not understand those charged are innocent until proven guilty, and have a right to a lawyer (even if the lawyer thinks them guilty), think that anyone who makes some money must have excellent leadership and judgement skills, willy nilly, and seem to be a bit hazy on statistics, but- you taught school for years. If you say so Mr G, I have some doubts about the fact, or at least the quality of the experience if it is true, but don't let me deter you.



Thanks for your shopping advice, but I don't need a ladder for my horse. It comes from the social democracy herd, and is pretty much equal in size to all other creatures around it. That makes things much more functional.
Click to expand...
First off your idiotic ideas, overlaced with your attempts at condescension, add nothing to the grey matter of anyone reading the silliness.

Truth meets the reality. Tofu Hill of bean curds gave it all she's got in that first debate. She is old news stale, past her sale date and not a recommended part of a regular daily allotment for anyone's good health. She is boring, she is a liar, she is incompetent and she is a criminal. What more could you ask from a Democrat candidate, eh?

The reason the good often do not get whats right by them is because of the boring incompetent lying criminals that take advantage of the nice and often too meek... and the ones not truly paying attention. That is why a Trump is now required, needs to stick it to those that got us in this situation.

As to life experience, shoot me your life CV in a private message, see if you match up or not. I am betting not... 'cause you sure sound like you don't, maybe the type that just cannot seem to ever ... [insert just about anything HERE ]______.

Please, you embarrass yourself trying to figure out my metrics. Suffice to say, you have not a clue. Maybe work on improving your own would be the optimal suggestion. The fact that you cannot fathom a pun and have problems with analogies is just a symptom. And your doubts about facts seem to be your downfall, you doubt facts or go out and find ones that confirm your bias.

Yeah? Your very scary one size fits all system will only serve to keep you stuck up on that high horse that keeps getting higher it seems. Might ask humpty dumpty about how all that is likely to work out for you before you get too much further. Yano?
 
LowDown said:
Bump? Not really. An increase in the spread of the average of polls of 1.3% is random variation. It's more correct to say that there was no significant effect.
Click to expand...

Yes, Virginia. There's a bump. It's not a variation. This is all scientific, now. The bumps are measurable for all the candidates and can be traced to specific events. Not sure where you're pulling your variance number from. If it's from the 2% number from a prior post, that number included some post-debate data, so is not a "pre-debate" average. Just as the 4% STILL includes some pre-debate data.

You need to read up on this subject Read Fivethirtyeight.com, the most scientific of the poll-summation sites, and the one that came the closest to knowing that Romney would lose and by how much.

Pay attention to the swing states, also. That's the name of the game. The other states are more or less predictable, with or without bumps.

Clinton leads in all but one of the 26 swing states, post-debate. Although I'm sure one or two will go back down, as time passes.

October numbers are very telling. There's not much time to make up anything....one state is already voting by absentee ballot. By this time in the Obama-Romney run, the pattern was set, and the election results were very close to the October data (even though Romney supporters focused instead in isolated polls and certain other things, rather than the important data, so were caught surprised by the result; the result was no surprise to many...the data predicted it closely).
 
Last edited:
JumpinJack said:
Yes, Virginia. There's a bump. It's not a variation. This is all scientific, now. The bumps are measurable for all the candidates and can be traced to specific events. Not sure where you're pulling your variance number from. If it's from the 2% number from a prior post, that number included some post-debate data, so is not a "pre-debate" average. Just as the 4% STILL includes some pre-debate data.

You need to read up on this subject Read Fivethirtyeight.com, the most scientific of the poll-summation sites, and the one that came the closest to knowing that Romney would lose and by how much.

Pay attention to the swing states, also. That's the name of the game. The other states are more or less predictable, with or without bumps.

Clinton leads in all but one of the 26 swing states, post-debate. Although I'm sure one or two will go back down, as time passes.

October numbers are very telling. There's not much time to make up anything....one state is already voting by absentee ballot. By this time in the Obama-Romney run, the pattern was set, and the election results were very close to the October data (even though Romney supporters focused instead in isolated polls and certain other things, rather than the important data, so were caught surprised by the result; the result was no surprise to many...the data predicted it closely).
Click to expand...

Ohio has flipped blue. It was solid red right before the debate and meltdown.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

So, in the past week and a half, Trump lost a fair-sized lead in Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio. That, friends, is an epic meltdown.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I am quite content to leave you to your biased polls and await election day to see how we, Americans, really feel. It will be almost overwhelmingly depressing, though, if the majority of us are so suicidally stupid as to choose an established incompetent criminal to lead the free world into even more chaos than she and the Obomb have inflicted upon us and the rest of the world.

MW agrees with me, btw.

Give me a break, those biased news fronts only do the minimum as its in their best interests if they want to survive even a few more years... they are all dying fossils already, hopefully someday we can use those fossils for fuel. You use them and it fuels my laughter, so I guess they have already proved indirectly useful.
Click to expand...

OK, so the polls are biased.....or are they? The polls I am quoting come from recognized sites like Real Clear Politics, and Five Thirty Eight. They explain their methodology on the site. The only polls I am aware of that supported Trump after the debate were quoted on Fox News, and were clearly unscientific and irrelevant online fluff. If you can explain how the real situation is the reverse of what it most clearly seems to be, go ahead.

I'd also be interested to hear where the NYT has lied or distorted the truth re the Trump campaign.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
First off your idiotic ideas, overlaced with your attempts at condescension, add nothing to the grey matter of anyone reading the silliness.

Truth meets the reality. Tofu Hill of bean curds gave it all she's got in that first debate. She is old news stale, past her sale date and not a recommended part of a regular daily allotment for anyone's good health. She is boring, she is a liar, she is incompetent and she is a criminal. What more could you ask from a Democrat candidate, eh?
Click to expand...

I'm hearing some strongly held views here, but no factual information or logical argument.

Gaugingcatenate said:
The reason the good often do not get whats right by them is because of the boring incompetent lying criminals that take advantage of the nice and often too meek... and the ones not truly paying attention. That is why a Trump is now required, needs to stick it to those that got us in this situation.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear you admit that not all that rise to the top necessarily have excellent leadership skills. If I could just get you to see the irony in your second sentence, we would be well underway.

Gaugingcatenate said:
As to life experience, shoot me your life CV in a private message, see if you match up or not. I am betting not... 'cause you sure sound like you don't, maybe the type that just cannot seem to ever ... [insert just about anything HERE ]______.
Click to expand...

So you are an academic of many years, a learned person, but your first instinct is defensive angst, and a game of whose dick is bigger. Hmmm. Sounds more like boys in the locker room to me.

You're the one with the claims here, and I can set your mind at ease that my member in question is of ordinary size. I claim no great body of knowledge in any field, other than that come across in a relatively long life.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Please, you embarrass yourself trying to figure out my metrics. Suffice to say, you have not a clue. Maybe work on improving your own would be the optimal suggestion. The fact that you cannot fathom a pun and have problems with analogies is just a symptom. And your doubts about facts seem to be your downfall, you doubt facts or go out and find ones that confirm your bias.
Click to expand...

Which pun, which analogy, and which fact? You are raging but not enumerating. Are you referring to your suggestion that Clinton was reprehensible for representing a criminal at a trial? That's neither pun nor analogy, but a misunderstanding of the legal system.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Yeah? Your very scary one size fits all system will only serve to keep you stuck up on that high horse that keeps getting higher it seems. Might ask humpty dumpty about how all that is likely to work out for you before you get too much further. Yano?
Click to expand...

What does one size fits all mean? Or do you know.....or is it just another bit of muck to throw up into the virtual air, because you are feeling put off?
 
Ganesh said:
OK, so the polls are biased.....or are they? The polls I am quoting come from recognized sites like Real Clear Politics, and Five Thirty Eight. They explain their methodology on the site. The only polls I am aware of that supported Trump after the debate were quoted on Fox News, and were clearly unscientific and irrelevant online fluff. If you can explain how the real situation is the reverse of what it most clearly seems to be, go ahead.

I'd also be interested to hear where the NYT has lied or distorted the truth re the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
Ganesh said:
OK, so the polls are biased.....or are they? The polls I am quoting come from recognized sites like Real Clear Politics, and Five Thirty Eight. They explain their methodology on the site. The only polls I am aware of that supported Trump after the debate were quoted on Fox News, and were clearly unscientific and irrelevant on
line fluff. If you can explain how the real situation is the reverse of what it most clearly seems to be, go ahead.

I'd also be interested to hear where the NYT has lied or distorted the truth re the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
You've linked no polls, have only given me your version of them. So tell me, what was the methodologies? Did they also supply all the questions asked? What was unscientific about the Fox polls, what makes it online fluff?

What you apparently do not get is that the ONLY relevant poll is the one on election day, when all sorts of slant cannot be put on it, its Roman Colosseum gladitorial, either thumbs up or down. No room whatsoever for biased questions. I've worked in marketing, have supervised callers making-taking cold call surveys, so yes, I would have to see everything first.

I will let you do and worry with all that, as its just a snapshot in an already stale, already past moment in history. Personally, I do not want what a bunch of other people used to think, or even currently think, influence my own opinion. Exploring events and factors here, where one can question, like I am you on your version of events where someone may actually say something of cogent worth to influence me is one thing, polls are something completely different.

But you remain unpersuasive. There is no meltdown going on, the WacomPo article proves that its getting shrill on YOUR side. NYSlimes distortion? How about the illegal posting of an American's taxes unauthorized? Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found - The New York Times So they risk jail time for this... and the title says it all, Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found.

Could have? Think those might be words describing speculation? That is not reporting the straight news, that is saying something, suggesting something that the Slimes have not locked down as a fact, a true fact, one they know many, if not the majority of their readers will immediately associate with fact. That is an influencing bias, that is a distortion without basis. But, I am sure you will disagree, you feel it distorts nothing no doubt.

Myself, I just hope someone goes to jail for putting another American's taxes out there without authorization... its illegal. Even had they posted Obomb's Occidental and Colombia college records, or had they posted transcripts of over- the- Hillary's Wall Street speeches, or her most secret emails to show what she was really doing in addition to Yoga etc... they do not have the right to supply unauthorized and illegal information about an individual American citizen.

But yano, somehow they have never gotten around to that, didn't even up on those scores, did not make sure they got the down and dirty, somehow, on their folks of choice. Wonder why.
 
Ganesh said:
I'd call it a meltdown, when a supposedly mature 70 year old man indulges in petty and adolescent remarks about women, makes racist statements, incites people to violence, is so narcissistic that he eats cheeseburgers and BS's with his campaign chief instead of preparing for a debate with a crack lawyer and career politician, demonstrates his near complete ignorance of economics and geopolitics without blushing, and then goes on to get angry when fact checkers, journalists, and others call him out on his many shortcomings, prevarications, and straight lies, and starts screaming there is a conspiracy, the system is rigged, yadda, yadda.

What we are seeing here is a pathetic display of a man who has matured little despite having a long and favored existence to date; who has learned little of life's lessons, and is still behaving like the loudmouth grade 8 kid when the teacher has left the room. When he looses, I predict the behavior will hit new lows, with plenty of name calling, excuse making, blaming and shaming.
Click to expand...

Well damn
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You've linked no polls, have only given me your version of them. So tell me, what was the methodologies? Did they also supply all the questions asked? What was unscientific about the Fox polls, what makes it online fluff?

What you apparently do not get is that the ONLY relevant poll is the one on election day, when all sorts of slant cannot be put on it, its Roman Colosseum gladitorial, either thumbs up or down. No room whatsoever for biased questions. I've worked in marketing, have supervised callers making-taking cold call surveys, so yes, I would have to see everything first.

I will let you do and worry with all that, as its just a snapshot in an already stale, already past moment in history. Personally, I do not want what a bunch of other people used to think, or even currently think, influence my own opinion. Exploring events and factors here, where one can question, like I am you on your version of events where someone may actually say something of cogent worth to influence me is one thing, polls are something completely different.

But you remain unpersuasive. There is no meltdown going on, the WacomPo article proves that its getting shrill on YOUR side. NYSlimes distortion? How about the illegal posting of an American's taxes unauthorized? Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found - The New York Times So they risk jail time for this... and the title says it all, Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found.

Could have? Think those might be words describing speculation? That is not reporting the straight news, that is saying something, suggesting something that the Slimes have not locked down as a fact, a true fact, one they know many, if not the majority of their readers will immediately associate with fact. That is an influencing bias, that is a distortion without basis. But, I am sure you will disagree, you feel it distorts nothing no doubt.

Myself, I just hope someone goes to jail for putting another American's taxes out there without authorization... its illegal. Even had they posted Obomb's Occidental and Colombia college records, or had they posted transcripts of over- the- Hillary's Wall Street speeches, or her most secret emails to show what she was really doing in addition to Yoga etc... they do not have the right to supply unauthorized and illegal information about an individual American citizen.

But yano, somehow they have never gotten around to that, didn't even up on those scores, did not make sure they got the down and dirty, somehow, on their folks of choice. Wonder why.
Click to expand...

Its most likely not illegal. I suppose we will see in the looming court case. The illegal act was done by whoever did the leaking to the press in the first place, but there isn't any law that would provide punishment for the press printing them. Donald Trump asked for this scrutiny when he refused to release his tax returns. As far as the NY times article goes, its a very literal headline. He *could* claim that deduction for up to 18 years. Thats what the law says. Since it was nearly a billion dollars and based on all the info we have his income probably didn't exceed that in the last 18 years, he probably didn't pay any federal income tax. Its a true statement. He can refute it if he wants to by doing what every other presidential candidate in the last 40 years has done and release his tax returns.
 
Ganesh said:
I'm hearing some strongly held views here, but no factual information or logical argument.



I'm glad to hear you admit that not all that rise to the top necessarily have excellent leadership skills. If I could just get you to see the irony in your second sentence, we would be well underway.



So you are an academic of many years, a learned person, but your first instinct is defensive angst, and a game of whose dick is bigger. Hmmm. Sounds more like boys in the locker room to me.

You're the one with the claims here, and I can set your mind at ease that my member in question is of ordinary size. I claim no great body of knowledge in any field, other than that come across in a relatively long life.



Which pun, which analogy, and which fact? You are raging but not enumerating. Are you referring to your suggestion that Clinton was reprehensible for representing a criminal at a trial? That's neither pun nor analogy, but a misunderstanding of the legal system.



What does one size fits all mean? Or do you know.....or is it just another bit of muck to throw up into the virtual air, because you are feeling put off?
Click to expand...
Listen, as I said, nothing you are giving me is doing anything to increase the grey matter value of anyone reading it. We are wasting time.

You need proof of how boring Hillary is? Watch the Democrat debates.

How incompetent and/or criminal she is? Well, there are only two possible outcomes on the email server debacle, she either broke national security and FOIA law willingly with intent or, as she claims she just didn't know or didn't recall didn't recall didn't recall and more didn't recall many of the pertinent issues associated which emails, which were of a highly sensitive and classified nature = evidence of her incompetency. So she is either incompetent or a liar, which means she is criminal. Or, of course, both, which would be my read.

But, listen to this clip, without bias as its just basically Comey statements v Hillary's on the exact same topic... see for yourself if she is a liar... all that are objective about it know that she lied and she broke the law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvTJYkTq8BI

And another confirming her lying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isy0sBml4rg

Irony in my second sentence? So now, go ahead, point out the irony, I would be interested to see your "factual" delineation of any such irony.

Listen Ganie, can I call you Ganie? Defensive angst? You are the comedian. But again, get real. See, you keep talking that I need more life experience, then when called on to give proof of your own life experiences, suddenly you flip out your "bigger dick" deflection? You got nothing in the life experience area and while I could not truly care much less about that, or any other area, except for the fact that you wanted to try to make an issue of it.

I simply called your bluff, Ganie. That is how its done when folks start such boorish foolishness.

It does little good, after the fact, to point out puns or analogies... however, you said Hillary was a "crack lawyer", so I quipped then was able to bring in the illegal coke aspect with Bill's controversial pardoning of his brother AND also bringing to bear her getting a lighter sentence for her defendant in the rape of a 12 year old, that she admitted she knew was guilty.

And before you go off again on understanding the system, I understand the system. I understand her predicament. But I think had it been me, after getting the guy a lighter sentence, especially if I promoted being for women,and hopefully young girls as well, I would have been doubly determined to figure out a better way to defend,to improve protections for young girls that the system allows to be raped then allow her guilty rapist off with a light sentence.

That would have been an effort for which I could fully appreciate had she embarked on that. Did she?

As to one size fits all regarding your social democracy remarks? If you are truly unable to figure out that easy message, sorry. They say ignorance is bliss. While I do not wish you eternal blissfulness, it does seem the path you have chosen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom