Pages

Monday, August 8, 2016

Predicted this...

There was never any question in my mind that Trump would and will continue to hit Clinton hard on the health issues. I even heard buzz after her speech from multiple sources regarding her clearing her throat during every "applause line".  Something that failed to catch on at the time (but could always be revisited). 

Does Clinton continue to wear the long tops to conceal adult diapers?

That being said, recent pictures of the Secretary being help up the stairs, along with the coughing fits, as well as her temporary disappearance from the Debate earlier (citing an extended bathroom break) will continue to feed the buzz. This is one of those long term "kill shot" forms of emotional persuasion that becomes more effective if things happen between now an November. Any sort of fall, loss of voice, coughing, or pretty much anything that could push this issue will add to the idea that she is not healthy. A clean bill of health from a doctor will simply not to anything to change this illusion if it "appears" true to any degree.

This comes on the heels of a similar form of persuasion from camp Hillary, attempting to get people talking about Trump's "mental health". Which again, doesn't require any real proof that Trump is mentally ill to be effective. (There is no evidence that a man who created a multibillion dollar industry and has a last name that has become a brand is anything but mentally superior). But just the mere talk of it will prompt questions in people's mind.

This is where the Democratic nominee will have a huge advantage. Trump for all practical purposes has a limited echo chamber to push these things. The media has always been very hesitant to report on or validate negative stories about Democratic nominees. But very quick to perpetuate the same types of stories regarding Republicans.

Look no further than the Kerry Bush election. Where the media went out of their way to first ignore, and then try to discredit the swift boat attacks on Kerry. They even managed to create the illusion that it was so unfair as to use "swift boat attack" as the very essence of an unfair attack. The fact that nearly every swift boat caption in the region (at that time) along with Kerry's immediate superior were part of the group criticizing him, was irrelevant to the media. On the flip side, the now famous Dan Rather reports on Bush were labeled by many in the media as metaphorically accurate and true, even if they were proven blatantly false. Similar, the media echo chamber had many people believing that Bush had gone AWAL while serving, with literally no proof what-so-ever. (Simply one guy with a website making the accusation).

To say Trump vs Clinton is an unconventional campaign is an understatement. Almost none of this election at this point is coming down to issues or platforms, other than those that server a larger purpose of pushing a particular narrative. Trump wants to build a wall (symbolism?) that would be almost impossible to build. Clinton wants to legalize immigrants though executive action (even though it's been struck down by the courts). But at the end of the day, is anyone "really" talking about the issues other than in the broader concept of what they represent?

Probably not. More to the point, maybe they shouldn't. I still believe that being President is more about the person than what that person promises. What we have here is one candidate who in many ways promises to blow up everything we know about the Presidency, vs someone who has a history of blowing up everything she touches. A possible disaster of a Presidency vs a intuitively likely disaster of a Presidency.

Good luck America!

80 comments:

James said...

We will be able better to assess both candidates' mental agility, stability, suitability (or lack thereof) to the office, when the first debate takes place
--assuming Trump is still in the running.

James said...

The Depends you are hoping Hillary is wearing on her hips, many of Trump's adherents wish he would wear on his mouth.

By the way, it is known that Hillary, like Angela Merkel, has large hips. That's why they both wear the kind of clothes they wear.

C.H. Truth said...

James - the rumor is that for longer appearances such as campaign stops, interviews, rallies, etc... she wears the over-sized coats or long heavy tops to conceal the adult diapers.

But for shorter controlled appearances (such as her acceptance speech) she wears a smaller pad so she can wear normal blouses or normal suit tops.

Just a rumor.

Indy Voter said...

Never mind that the Swift Boat claim that Kerry received a less than honorable discharge were ultimately proven false...

Indy Voter said...

You're right that this election is basically demonizing the other party's candidate. Trump is too unstable to be president!! Clinton should be in jail!! If you buy into either of these mantras it doesn't matter what your position is on the issues. However, if you buy into both mantras you're SOL because whoever wins, it's a loss.

James said...

Never mind that if Kerry had just had the good sense to actually make a long speech (as Obama did in Philadelphis) describing his career as a Swift Boat commander, he would have disarmed his critics.

I shall forever wonder why he did not.

James said...

Never mind too that after years of careful research, the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth found that John Kerry was entirely honest about his military accomplishments.

C.H. Truth said...

James - Kerry's problem was that his history was one of a military critic, and a critic of the Vietnam war. He testified that he witnessed atrocities by U.S. Soldiers, which many believed was blatantly false.

The fact was that his purple hearts were questioned by some (he received multiple purple hearts for relatively minor injuries). Some also questioned his Bronze Star.

Kerry was a person fairly famous for negative testimony and negative statements about our military, and the Vietnam war... and a politician with a strong history of voting against military spending and military action...

It was simply 'unwise' to attempt to portrait himself as a war hero who was going to be a big backer of the military (who was fighting two wars). He would have been much better off ignoring his time surrounding the Vietnam war... and hoping others would have been the same.

So your assertion that he didn't do enough to portrait himself as a military figure is simply a bad assertion. He's the only ex military candidate I have ever seen who accepted his Party's nomination by saluting and declaring himself "Reporting for duty".

It was a blunder of epic proportions... by both the Party and Kerry himself.

James said...

If Kerry had told in detail the entire story of his military career, including his decision to aim the bow of boats directly at incoming fire rather than continue to run parallel to it (a maneuver highly praised by his commanders)--and also including his later disillusionment with the war -- a disillusionment shared by almost everyone as the war ground on -- and why he came to it, he could have turned the swift boat attacks in his favor.

C.H. Truth said...

Indy - Like everything political, the SBFT cause was not 100% honest. Which is only part of the point. The larger point remained (and I believe it was what ultimately resonated with the general public). Which was that his immediate commander and many of his peers in the Swift Boat patrols did not respect him.

As a former person who worked in multi-level management, it was always interesting to see how the same questions were seen differently by your superiors, by your peers, and by your subordinates.

Those managers held in the highest regard by their supervisors and peers where held is lower regard by their subordinates. Those held in high regards by their subordinates, generally were held in lower standing by their peers and supervisors.

I'll let you speculate on what exactly that means.

Myballs said...

And don't dare talk about a anyone being qualified. You just spent right years supporting the most unqualified president in US history.

And btw, lotus is a CEO job. Trump has been one for decades.

Myballs said...

Damn autospell

Myballs said...

Hillary is far more sickly than they're letting on.

James said...

What we have here is one candidate who in many ways promises to blow up everything we know about the Presidency, vs someone who has a history of blowing up everything she touches. A possible disaster of a Presidency vs a intuitively likely disaster of a Presidency.
__________

If she is such a disaster, why does more recent polling (since the conventions) show that people now trust her more than Trump in financial as well as foreign policy matters?

James said...

2:51 Balls, I'd ask you for a link for that, but under the new rules such a link is not allowed.

Myballs said...

Polling?

These would be the same pollsters who dismissed both Trump and Sanders?

They're useless.

wphamilton said...

Either choice, probably a Presidential disaster. That's this election in a nutshell. Neither one honest enough to trust with the office, neither one qualified by achievements in the public sector, both having serious questions about the necessary temperament.

I was musing the other day, whoever wins I can and probably will say "Thank God that Hillary/Trump didn't win", whichever is appropriate. For me it feels like a karmic kick in the butt after I've preached that we should look at the individual's integrity first, and his or her's abilities and then the politics. So now there is no integrity between them and little or no evidence that either is capable, so what of your ethical rule now, WP?

I say now, anyone who votes for one of these candidates out of fear of the other is delusional. One of them is almost certain to win, and your vote isn't helping anything - at best it encourages them along their misguided paths. Too many people, voting with this soft thinking about who "can't win" against someone else, is what brought us to this mess in the first place. Just stop it. Vote for whoever you really want to be President, regardless of whomever else is running. It's the only way your vote really means anything.

James said...

Well, Wp, Hillary gets rated by the fact checkers far, far better than Trump does. Far, far better.

James said...

3:06 Polling is hardly "useless" when it is measuring what the public thinks of the two candidates.

Myballs said...

Like they measured Trump and Sanders?

I stand by my point.

C.H. Truth said...

James, recent polling suggests that 44% of Democrats believe we should allow immigration from the fictional country of Agrabah (from the Aladdin Cartoon).

You and I have a serious difference of opinion as to how important "other people's opinions" are as it pertains to formulating our own.

wphamilton said...

Even Politifact only rates Clinton as "True" 13.3% of her claims. Proclaiming that Trump is a bigger liar than Clinton doesn't make her truthful.

This kind of reasoning - Clinton is not as (whatever) as Trump so she must be OK - is exactly the kind of soft thinking that I'm talking about. Just think about this with a little cold logic James, and whoever else is reading. When you set that bar so low, and then vote FOR that person, what exactly do you expect to come of that? Something better than you voted for? Obviously that's not going to happen, no matter how worse you think the other guy is. So stop voting for people who fail your standards. Stop supporting them.

James said...

Ch, you on the one hand and Roger and I on the other hand seem to have a serious difference of opinion regarding what should legitimately be allowed on a thread as part of the free of expression of opinions.

James said...

4:45 All politicians hedge on facts. Even Lincoln sometimes did. But the blatancy of Trump's lies is something new in politics.

James said...

*part of the free expression of opinions

C.H. Truth said...

Unfortunately WP, the way our system is set up, the choice is truly binary.

Oh, there is an illusion that you have multiple choices, but at the end of the day, only two people have a chance to win in every Presidential election. If you prefer Clinton to Trump or Trump to Clinton... and you vote for a third Party candidate for the sake of principle, I doubt the message will resonate.

If it becomes the new reality that you only need 46% (rather that around 49%) to win an election, that only means future candidates need to appeal to less people. Eventually we may be looking at 43% or 40% to win. Still without any real legitimate chance for a third Party to win (as history will suggest that that other 20-25% will be split mainly between Green and Libertarian candidates.

I would argue that this probably creates the opposite effect that you are looking for. The two major Parties would almost be forced to go off the deep end with playing to the base, and traits like "honesty" and "integrity" would become lost... because they would no longer have to appeal to many swing voters to win.

James said...

Lots of smoke blowing here to try to cover up one essential fact:
TRUMP IS A DISASTER.

C.H. Truth said...

Ch, you on the one hand and Roger and I on the other hand seem to have a serious difference of opinion regarding what should legitimately be allowed on a thread as part of the free of expression of opinions.

Not a problem. People are entitle to different rules and protocol.

Why is it such a problem for you to play by his rules on his page, and my rules on my page?

Why can you not allow "one" of the two pages to be without the constant spamming?

James said...

Make that AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER.

James said...

Well, Ch, so far I have played by your rules on this thread, so it looks as if your problem is with Roger.

wphamilton said...

If that's your criteria CH, then did you vote for Obama when he had the only realistic chance to win? When people wake up in California on the day and Hillary leads with say, 90% chance of winning, everyone should vote for her instead of Trump because "at the end of the day, only Clinton has a chance to win?"

No, what you're missing is that the vote has so much more impact than simply choosing one politician on one day. The vote helps set the public agenda for the policy makers, on either side of the fence, win or lose. It provides a pressure, that politicians cannot ignore if they want to retain power over policy. Voting with your arbitrary and illusory "binary choice" has the opposite effect - it means that YOUR leader, who YOU elected, can count on YOUR vote regardless of whether you approve of his or her policy. Don't do that. Make your vote count for something.

James said...

A lot of people made their vote count for something and voted for Ralph Nader, thus giving Geo. Bush/Chaney the victory and leading to the disastrous invasion of Iraq and the loss of thousands of American lives plus untold wealth.

Talk about making your vote count for something!

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

I wish my vote mattered more than just whether or not the Republican or Democrat will win. In Minnesota we actually had a third Party candidate (Jesse Ventura) be elected Governor. I have voted for third Party candidates in Minnesota (Tim Penny for Senate for instance) because they had a legitimate chance to win.

But we are simply not in a position nationally to see anyone third Party win. Certainly not in this year.

I would also reject the claim that anyone truly knows in any given election who will win. Polling is becoming less and less reliable, and unfortunately less and less objective. While it may make sense to you that voting for Romney was throwing away a vote on a sure loser, I am pretty sure there was a great deal of people who felt he could still win.

This year "especially" with how far Trump has both over-performed and under-performed polling in the primaries, should make anyone hesitant to write off his chances (regardless of where the polling lies).

Bottom line, we are probably due for one of those massive upsets that defies polls by large margins (as has happened across Europe over the past few years). There is no reason to believe our polling is any better than European polling (in fact it may actually be worse).

As far as your vote "counting for something"... if you prefer one major Party flawed candidate over the other major Party flawed candidate, I believe voting for that person sends your message.

I would assume, WP, that none of the Candidates on the list actually align with your exact set of personal issues. Nor do they for me. In some ways, my policy choices align with the Libertarian platform. In others they align with the Republican platform. In still others they align with the Democrat platform.

Since none of them perfectly align with me, I am going to vote for the person (in this particular election) with the best chance of preventing the person (in my opinion) who will do the most damage from becoming President.

caliphate4vr said...

voted for third Party candidates in Minnesota (Tim Penny for Senate for instance) because they had a legitimate chance to win.

But we are simply not in a position nationally to see anyone third Party win. Certainly not in this year.



I agree with this sentiment which is why I stopped voting Libertarian during W's reelection and have voted R the last 3. I will hopefully be able vote Libertarian again but if it's within the MOE, to my dismay, I'll pull lever for Trump.

Because she is the most vile creature to exist and she smells of urine

wphamilton said...

Do you think, if Johnson gets 15% of the vote, that the Republicans won't go after that in the next election? They're going to find out why, and then they're going to work their platform for your vote. They're going to implement policy to attract you. That's most assuredly not going to happen if you vote the Party even though you disagree, and you don't even want that candidate. Why should they, when they've got your vote anyway? It literally means nothing.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Neither one of these clowns is going to sink the nation into the swamp, neither will trigger off WWIII, they're not going to take all of our guns or jobs away. But they are both reprehensible human beings, concerned only about themselves, with nothing objectively attractive about their respective histories. If you vote for one of them, you deserve what you get - but I promise you the same won't be said for me. I will have the courage to vote truthfully and honestly for the candidate that I truly prefer, and my conscience will be clear. Just make up your mind that you're not going to put up with it any more, and show these Parties what the truth is. Don't lie with your vote out of fear.

wphamilton said...

James said... 4:45 All politicians hedge on facts. Even Lincoln sometimes did.

And that makes all of the lies OK? The biggest lie of them all is that the transgressions are allowed, even virtuous, if only the stakes are high enough.

Who is the father of lies, James?

wphamilton said...

And BTW, Nader did not cost Gore the election. Nader took 1% from BOTH parties, and 4% from independents. And exit polls in Florida showed that Bush would have won by MORE in Florida (or would have really won Florida, depending on your viewpoint) had Nader not been in the race.

Had more people voted for Nader, perhaps Clinton would have paid more attention to financial reform instead of sowing the seeds for the financial meltdown.

Roger Amick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
caliphate4vr said...

WP, I like Johnson he's more in tune to my beliefs, hell all Libertarians are, I'm one of those LP'ers that cost Max 'the pervert' Cleland his senate seat. I voted LP from 88 to 00 was a dues paying member for that entire period and still vote for them in the down ballot seats and I think that is where a movement begins but it became an excersise in futility, in national elections.

Roger Amick said...

Today, fifty Republican defense and foreign experts, and a senior Republican senator, six others cannot support the Republican candidate, and our host is more concerned about a photograph.

James said...

"Who is the father of lies, James?"
_________

Satan.

Or, in current politics, Trump.

Roger Amick said...

"Polling is becoming less and less reliable, and unfortunately less and less objective."

You believe that because they show that your hero is on the path to an electoral college landslide. We are supposed to take your opinion is factual. Even the Fox news poll shows that Trump is going down.

Roger Amick said...

Florida, plus Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Arizona, and yes Utah, plus Wisconsin are going to Clinton. Over 320 electoral college votes will happen.

C.H. Truth said...

You believe that

It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. Election after election (Brexit, etc)... have been well off in Europe.

We had multiple states on both sides of the primary season off by 10-20 points.

Roger Amick said...

Senator Collins addresses his fundamentally personality means he's not qualified. I will paste a portion of her comments, and it probably will get deleted, because it's not good to attack the CHT Hero.

"I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.

With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president."

I can't include the link,but go to the Washington Post web site, it's on the front page. Trump is not qualified, but that doesn't matter to our host. I have no idea why a man who is that smart, can't see the reality of Trump. Six other Republican senators are not supporting or voting for Trump. They won't vote for Clinton, but they cannot vote for "You're Fired"

Indy Voter said...

Cali, it's good you have choices. Here in NM the Libertarians don't bother to run local candidates most elections - anywhere. And on the rare occasions they have a candidate step forward they do so more to challenge the state election rules than to actually be on the ballot in November.

Even with Johnson running for president, I'm not aware of any down ballot L's.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger?

This sounds a lot like someone else's opinion. I don't think you get the concept.

C.H. Truth said...

Apparently you also don't notice that nobody is responding to your office topic cut and pastes.

Indy Voter said...

WP, I'd be happy if the Republicans moved back towards libertarianism. Embracing the social conservatives over the libertarians was the first real split that occurred between the GOP and me. Bill Weld may have been the best governor I've ever had. Only Pete DuPont was comparable.

Roger Amick said...

They aren't off topic. Unless you think that everything should be about her picture. The discussions have long been off topic.

Polls are fine if you agree. Otherwise they are faulty.

Indy Voter said...

C.H., Johnson is a credible choice to be president. I suspect he's far closer to your political views than either of the major party candidates. Electing him would do far more to shake up the political status quo than electing Trump or Sanders would. And I would love to see who he comes up with for Supreme Court vacancies.

I suspect there are far too many who jump to the same conclusion you have and dismiss him - more from fear that your greater of two evils will win than because you don't think he's a credible choice. But this may be your only chance in a generation to step outside the binary red/blue world and have it matter.

Indy Voter said...

C.H., there haven't been many presidential elections in my adult life that were really in doubt going into the election. 2000, certainly. 2004 and 1980, if you discounted the late polls. Beyond those elections, you had to seriously ignore reality to believe 2012 or 1992 was in play, let alone 2008, 1996, 1988, or 1984.

That's not a reason to simply vote for the winner, if you truly believe the other major party candidate is the best (not just better) choice. I've voted third party twice in presidential elections when I could not endorse either major party candidate, and I may do so again this year.

Roger Amick said...

CH, this is your blog. You say that it's punditry and opinions. But you say that you have the ability to look at the facts, and don't see them through partisan lenses. But, I have to say that you aren't looking at the election this year without partisan lenses.

You have never addressed the fact that a lot of respected Republicans have said Trump isn't qualified to be President. George Will, Charles Krauthammer, six Republican senators and many congressmen, let alone the FIFTY Republicans who worked for Presidents, from Reagan through George W Bush in national security and intelligence said that he's not qualified, for many reasons.

I would like to see why you support Trump. Not just because he's not Clinton. But why this impulsive behavior, and attacks on a Gold Star family, and a dozen other reasons should be President.

Roger Amick said...

Fivethirtyeight predictions 87.5% Clinton, 12.4% Trump

Faulty, right?

Loretta Russo said...

"CH, this is your blog"

Exactly.

His blog, HIS rules.

Roger Amick said...

Sean Trende is on Morning Joe. He says that Donald Trump will not rebound in the polls.

A new poll released today by Monmouth University poll of likely voters shows Clinton 50%, Donald Trump at 37%. The RCP average will approach double digits today. Trende says that this is not going to change. Trump is losing, white, suburban women in double digits. The Republican candidate cannot win unless this is reversed, and it is almost impossible. Clinton is going to take North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia, and Utah is not out of reach.

CH will be devastated in November.

By the way, I didn't copy paste anything. So we will see if it's not deleted.

Roger Amick said...

By the way, a truthful post is on the legendary blog.

KD, Cough, cough said...

Anonymous Myballs said...
Hillary is far more sickly than they're letting on."

Have to hide her in every way.

KD, Cough , Cough said...

Roger Amick said...
A lot of Republicans say your hero is unfit. It's deleted. Gutless and childish. "


HB, to be clear you delete post all of the time, so by your standards, low as they have always been, that makes you gutless and childish, your own words used to hang you.


"Booming Economy" HB

LOL, really , with 93 million able aged Americans Unemployed, more on food stamps then ever, more living off of the toil of others and more living pay check to pay check.


Hillary said those things I just cited and more, about this not at all booming economy.


James said...

According to Ch's version of freedom of speech on his portion of this blog, I cannot tell you the following:

"yet another national poll puts Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump. This time it is a Monmouth University poll with Clinton at 50%, Trump at 37%, Libertarian Gary Johnson at 7%, and Green Jill Stein at 2%. Clinton has solidified her support among Democrats, with 92% of them in her camp. The very small support for Jill Stein (2%) indicates that the supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are apparently past bargaining and moving into depression and acceptance, possibly both at the same time. Also noteworthy is that Clinton has an 8-point lead in the 10 swing states that were decided by fewer than 7 points in 2012. In terms of favorable/unfavorable, Clinton is at 37%/49% whereas Trump is deeply under water at 26%/61%.

"Another poll, from Susquehanna Polling and Research (SPR), arguably gave even worse news for The Donald. The pollsters asked Pennsylvanians about their presidential preference, and Clinton came out ahead 46% to 37%. This was bad news for two reasons. First, Pennsylvania is essential to Trump's electoral hopes—without the Keystone State, he has few viable paths to victory. Second, SPR is a Republican polling firm. We don't put partisan pollsters (including SPR) into our database, because they tend to be heavily skewed in favor of whichever party is paying the bills. For a Republican house to give the Democratic candidate a 9-point lead is very unsettling for the Republican, indeed."
_____

Read this quick for it will soon be deleted. It's by Tannenbaum and Bates, both.

If it were by conservative pundits claiming Trump to be far ahead, it would not be deleted.

Loretta Russo said...

Unfrigginbelievable.

James said...

True. Unbelievable that Ch thinks he can or should operate in this way.

Roger Amick said...

Representative Scott Rigell, (Republican) of Virginia cannot support Donald Trump, and will vote for the Libertarian party candidate.


James said...

By the way, a truthful post is on the legendary blog.
___________
And by the way, I will put 6:39 there if it gets deleted here.

KD, look at Progressive run from Topic of this Tread said...

James does not know the US Constitution .

KD, VP Choice of Hillary get ready if she wins said...

She said her brain "short-circuits",,, then there has been video after video of her coughing uncontrollably, then we see how unsteady she is walking up a few stairs, she is so feeble.

The thing is, the video of her, spacing out that was released today shows her eyes rolling up and her wobbly, it looks like she nearly passed out, stroking maybe.

KD, Bad Judgement by Hillary said...

Do WE know IF there is a Link between Hillary's unsecured sever, her emails and the Execution of the Iranian Nuke Guy that was mentioned in some of her emails to staff and her staff to her?


He was working with the USA to get us Nuke secrets on the Iranian Nuke plans and factories.

James said...

Stuart Rothenberg is saying that everyone knows the race is already over and Clinton's victory will be larger than Obama's over Romney, but since I cannot quote him here, you must go to Roger's portion of the thread to see what he says.

James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KD, Topic Hillary Brain Injury said...

James, are you so dense as to see your still spamming this topic.


I know it is so hard for you far extreme Progressive to ever utter a single word against the Queen of Kankles, but dear lordy, can you stay on issue once, the issue her is her health, her falling, her "short-circuit" brain, she needed help just to climb up a very short and not at all steep stairs,,, and then their is her video of her losing her small train of thought, even with the assistants of the tele-prompter.

KD said...

I have to conclude that HB and Jane are just incapable of staying on topic.

Tell us why did Hillary need help getting up those stairs?

Roger Amick said...

To say that this is an abnormal year is a bit of an understatement, but Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead, and Donald Trump needs a bombshell that will reverse the odds. But that's highly unlikely.

Some people believe that the debates will turn things around. If Trump stays tries to use the same methodology, that got him the Republican nomination, the always well prepared Clinton, will demolish him. The same thing if he tries to appear Presidential, he won't be able to pull that off.

The truthers, once again, will be devastated.

KD, Hillary just WON, look at hb said...

today there are so many dependent on the check from State and Federal Governments that Progressives are sure to win the US Presidency, less those interlopers have to be cut off and work.

Food stamps and Section 8 housing have done so much harm to the black community.


When white, Hispanics and blacks all have the exact same yearly income do you know who saves more, invest more and in the end is wealthier?

KD, Terrorist Parent pic with Hillary said...

bombshell +

Hillary emails show she exposed the just Executed Iranian Nuke Scientist,,, is that enuff?

Roger Amick said...

Clinton is already getting 11 percent of Republicans, a larger percentage than any Democrat has received over the last four elections.

Roger Amick said...

Her email doesn't change anything.

Roger Amick said...

Trump is going to skip the debates. He knows that Hillary would kick his ass.

KD, Where is BlackliesMatter Mob? said...

Question to HB and Jane.


Well HB did answer, oddly, cold and callous.

Q, Hillary emails show she exposed the just Executed Iranian Nuke Scientist,,, is that enuff?


A, Her email doesn't change anything." HB


Yep, nothing ever to see if it is the Elitist Hillary,, complete blank check has been written by the Progressives, they have to have her win, less their money stop.

So the spy Nuke Scientist , well, he is a big nothing, see how the progressive don't care for the lives of those who's story might hurt hillbilly, stumble, fall, need assistance up a little tiny run of stairs, what is next, wheel chair for granny?

KD, Blacks with same income as Whites poorer, wtf said...

When is the next scheduled presser by Hillary? I was hoping today, seeing she is out doing so much "listening", LOL.

Or is she still working on that cough, stumble, brain freeze, " "short-circuits",,,