July 14 Rasmussen - Trump 44% Clinton 37%

[Anonymous]

^^ She is just awful when she gives a speech - it is bland as hell in part because she is reading from a teleprompter and her delivery is just horrendously bad. Listening to her would be the perfect remedy for someone suffering from insomnia.

BC was phenomenal and Obama at times could be pretty good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Trump's supporters will no doubt skyrocket,
as HRC has no plan to wage war on terrorism.

What is Trump's plan?

Well, at least part of his plan is control the number of taxpayer supported terrorists immigrating here vs. Hillary Clinton putting out the welcome mat for them.

Don't worry, she will change her position once she figures it is not a position that is tenable given the environment. After she changes her position she will insist that was her position all along - it is her MO.

Surprisingly Hillary phoned in to Bill Oreilly tonight. And she sounds a lot like Trump - calling reforming Nato, using the term radical Jihadist, etc.

[Anonymous]

YAHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary has a few big problems -

She is not a great candidate. She is not a great speaker. She is not exciting. People are bored with her. The Clintons have been in politics for decades now.

She has a lot of baggage - Filegate; servergate, etc. People don't trust her.

However, I think her primary problem is that she
doesn't have a compelling reason to run for President. She has no overarching theme for her candidacy. Bernie had a great theme that inspired followers.

Trump has a fabulous theme. Trump has tapped into something. He has a consistent viewpoint. Less immigration; strong borders; put America first, etc. etc.

Hillary has ....nothing much. Is she running as Clinton's third term or Obama's third term? Is she liberal or progressive? She is just so...nothing. Her views have changed depending on poll numbers. She can't really explain why she should be our president except that she "has experience" and "is a woman."

+1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Trump's supporters will no doubt skyrocket,
as HRC has no plan to wage war on terrorism.

What is Trump's plan?

He can't tell us because it has to be a surprise. But trust him, it's going to be Fantastic! Yuge!

It's gonna be grrrreat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a liberal, I just cannot believe that we ended up nominating such a seriously flawed candidate. She lies through her teeth all the time and totally lacks an ounce of integrity.

I can't stand the idea of Trump being elected president but if it happens the blame for it will be the dumbasses who foisted a disaster like Hillary as our nominee. The greatest favor that Comey could have done us was to have indicted her so that someone else would be nominated.

Trump has done just about everything wrong since he became the presumptive nominee but Hillary is so odious that there are people who would rather have a vulgarian like Trump.

As a conservative, I agree with you completely - just from the opposite side. I cannot believe that the idiots voting in the primary have foisted such a horrible candidate on us (Trump) that we might end up with a corrupt liar with a total lack of integrity (as you noted.) Had we nominated someone decent - I liked Kasich - HRC wouldn't have had a chance. As it stands now, we're going to end up with an ignorant blowhard or a conniving liar - and the country will be in serious trouble.

Yeah I agree, we get what we deserve I guess. I can't help but wonder how different this race would be if it were Biden vs. Kasich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I never said the GOP candidate was perfect, far from it, so no need for the snarky ending. Your nasty crap (i.e., my demigod Reagan, etc.) shows me you are just another rude liberal who can't have a respectful conversation with anyone who disagrees with you. Liberals....tolerant with everyone, as long as you agree with them.

I've wasted enough time.

I don't think you're using this word "tolerant" correctly.

Where did that talking point come from, exactly? You all use it in exactly the same way, usually when you have been soundly proven wrong.

1) You all use it exactly the same way: That's probably because liberals pride themselves on their open, welcoming attitude of diversity, calling themselves tolerant - and then (some) treat people who have different opinions with utter disrespect (to put it mildly). So they welcome diversity, as long as you agree with them.

2) Soundly proven wrong: Hah! That's almost funny. That superior attitude of "soundly proven wrong" once again reveals a liberal bias and an inability to recognize that decent people can have different opinions. We are not necessarily wrong....it's just that you think so.

Finally, I do not continue debates with people once they demonstrate contempt and disdain for those with differing views. if people want to debate someone, they should do so respectfully. I really can't imagine anyone with healthy self-esteem continuing to engage in a debate with a stranger on the Internet who is nasty to them.

I will add that I have had some respectful debates with liberals, right on this site, and I continue with them to the conclusion. But the nasty ones, nope....why would I want to? I don't enjoy rude exchanges.

You weren't treated with utter disrespect. You were disagreed with. You're the one defaulting to the dismissive "humph, typically liberal - tolerant until someone disagrees" talking point. And it is a talking point because you all use it the same way.

And the pp smashed your argument. That's not smug; they had better answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I never said the GOP candidate was perfect, far from it, so no need for the snarky ending. Your nasty crap (i.e., my demigod Reagan, etc.) shows me you are just another rude liberal who can't have a respectful conversation with anyone who disagrees with you. Liberals....tolerant with everyone, as long as you agree with them.

I've wasted enough time.

I don't think you're using this word "tolerant" correctly.

Where did that talking point come from, exactly? You all use it in exactly the same way, usually when you have been soundly proven wrong.

1) You all use it exactly the same way: That's probably because liberals pride themselves on their open, welcoming attitude of diversity, calling themselves tolerant - and then (some) treat people who have different opinions with utter disrespect (to put it mildly). So they welcome diversity, as long as you agree with them.

2) Soundly proven wrong: Hah! That's almost funny. That superior attitude of "soundly proven wrong" once again reveals a liberal bias and an inability to recognize that decent people can have different opinions. We are not necessarily wrong....it's just that you think so.

Finally, I do not continue debates with people once they demonstrate contempt and disdain for those with differing views. if people want to debate someone, they should do so respectfully. I really can't imagine anyone with healthy self-esteem continuing to engage in a debate with a stranger on the Internet who is nasty to them.

I will add that I have had some respectful debates with liberals, right on this site, and I continue with them to the conclusion. But the nasty ones, nope....why would I want to? I don't enjoy rude exchanges.

You weren't treated with utter disrespect. You were disagreed with. You're the one defaulting to the dismissive "humph, typically liberal - tolerant until someone disagrees" talking point. And it is a talking point because you all use it the same way.

And the pp smashed your argument. That's not smug; they had better answers.

About the better answers? Let me explain how the thing played out.

I was agreeing with a previous poster about how bad our two candidates are and stated that although I felt Obama had poor policies, i would vote for him over either Trump or HRC. (Pretty open-minded person right there, a conservative who would vote Democrat.) That was my point - the two current choices are so awful that I'd vote (hypothetical of course) for Obama, with whom I disagreed on many things. A liberal, apparently looking to get into a put-down match with a conservative, asked me, seemingly politely, which policies of Obama's i didn't like. The problem was that I did not realize i was being sucked into an argument with a liberal itching for a fight, so I simply listed several of them, just to answer her question. (I almost didn't do that, but I figured....hey, she asked, and I didn't want to be rude and ignore her.)

Then....boom! The liberal, with put-downs about demigod Reagan and sarcastic remarks about the perfect GOP candidate, etc., etc., answered (with her liberal bias of course) each of the decisions that I didn't like. Now....think. I never had any interest in engaging in an argument in the first place, but given the haughty and superior tone, I for sure had no interest in further interaction with someone so hostile to Republicans.

Here's a suggestion....if liberals want to have a respectful discussion with conservatives about issues, (and vice versa), stop with all the holier than thou smugness. (Some liberals have been polite....I'm talking about the ones so contemptuous of Republicans that the hostility oozes from every pore.)

[Anonymous]

I note with interest the division between Republicans and Democrats and blame Obama's "divide and conquer" strategy. That might be an effective strategy for a community organizer but woefully misplaced in the leader of the free world. Much of what has happened isn't his direct fault, but he has set a tone ("the fish rots from the head") and liberals have followed. Republicans, in turn, have reacted. We see the results not only in the harsh discourse between Republicans and Democrats, but in actual events. The IRS is a good example. I doubt that Obama directed the commissioner to delay approval for conservative groups, and thereby suppress their voice, but he did set such a negative environment - even referring to Republicans as "enemies" - that the IRS leaders felt comfortable doing what they did.

Beyond the animosity between Republicans and Democrats, we see it between rich and poor and black and white, too. Racial tensions have not been this bad since the 1960s. Class warfare is palatable. And unfortunately, I do not see that either Trump or Clinton will turn things around.

JMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I note with interest the division between Republicans and Democrats and blame Obama's "divide and conquer" strategy. That might be an effective strategy for a community organizer but woefully misplaced in the leader of the free world. Much of what has happened isn't his direct fault, but he has set a tone ("the fish rots from the head") and liberals have followed. Republicans, in turn, have reacted. We see the results not only in the harsh discourse between Republicans and Democrats, but in actual events. The IRS is a good example. I doubt that Obama directed the commissioner to delay approval for conservative groups, and thereby suppress their voice, but he did set such a negative environment - even referring to Republicans as "enemies" - that the IRS leaders felt comfortable doing what they did.

Beyond the animosity between Republicans and Democrats, we see it between rich and poor and black and white, too. Racial tensions have not been this bad since the 1960s. Class warfare is palatable. And unfortunately, I do not see that either Trump or Clinton will turn things around.

JMHO.

Racial tensions were bad in 1960s BECAUSE the whites cant digest the blacks will eat with them in restaurants, study with their kids in schools, and travel with them in buses,trains and flights. They just couldn't fathom that the previous slaves are now equals.

Racial tensions are bad since Obama took over as president, because the same whites who couldn't agree with civil rights couldn't digest a Black man(even though he was 50% white) and his black family gets to be in the "White" house. And some of the White senators and representatives worked so hard to ensure that the black man's legacy is tarnished by blocking everything against the interests of their own poor white voter. LBJ is so right about how to get to make the poor white guy to vote against his own interests.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon Johnson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I note with interest the division between Republicans and Democrats and blame Obama's "divide and conquer" strategy. That might be an effective strategy for a community organizer but woefully misplaced in the leader of the free world. Much of what has happened isn't his direct fault, but he has set a tone ("the fish rots from the head") and liberals have followed. Republicans, in turn, have reacted. We see the results not only in the harsh discourse between Republicans and Democrats, but in actual events. The IRS is a good example. I doubt that Obama directed the commissioner to delay approval for conservative groups, and thereby suppress their voice, but he did set such a negative environment - even referring to Republicans as "enemies" - that the IRS leaders felt comfortable doing what they did.

Beyond the animosity between Republicans and Democrats, we see it between rich and poor and black and white, too. Racial tensions have not been this bad since the 1960s. Class warfare is palatable. And unfortunately, I do not see that either Trump or Clinton will turn things around.

JMHO.

Racial tensions were bad in 1960s BECAUSE the whites cant digest the blacks will eat with them in restaurants, study with their kids in schools, and travel with them in buses,trains and flights. They just couldn't fathom that the previous slaves are now equals.

Racial tensions are bad since Obama took over as president, because the same whites who couldn't agree with civil rights couldn't digest a Black man(even though he was 50% white) and his black family gets to be in the "White" house. And some of the White senators and representatives worked so hard to ensure that the black man's legacy is tarnished by blocking everything against the interests of their own poor white voter. LBJ is so right about how to get to make the poor white guy to vote against his own interests.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon Johnson.

Oh, please. It is precisely this type of thinking that has caused a deterioration of our society.
I couldn’t care less WHAT color Obama is. But, I do care about his policies and his promises.
I didn’t like where he planned to take this country. I didn’t like his concept of “fundamental transformation.”
I haven’t agreed with most of what he has done. But, it isn’t because of his color. It is all about his policies.
Get off the “race horse.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I note with interest the division between Republicans and Democrats and blame Obama's "divide and conquer" strategy. That might be an effective strategy for a community organizer but woefully misplaced in the leader of the free world. Much of what has happened isn't his direct fault, but he has set a tone ("the fish rots from the head") and liberals have followed. Republicans, in turn, have reacted. We see the results not only in the harsh discourse between Republicans and Democrats, but in actual events. The IRS is a good example. I doubt that Obama directed the commissioner to delay approval for conservative groups, and thereby suppress their voice, but he did set such a negative environment - even referring to Republicans as "enemies" - that the IRS leaders felt comfortable doing what they did.

Beyond the animosity between Republicans and Democrats, we see it between rich and poor and black and white, too. Racial tensions have not been this bad since the 1960s. Class warfare is palatable. And unfortunately, I do not see that either Trump or Clinton will turn things around.

JMHO.

Racial tensions were bad in 1960s BECAUSE the whites cant digest the blacks will eat with them in restaurants, study with their kids in schools, and travel with them in buses,trains and flights. They just couldn't fathom that the previous slaves are now equals.

Racial tensions are bad since Obama took over as president, because the same whites who couldn't agree with civil rights couldn't digest a Black man(even though he was 50% white) and his black family gets to be in the "White" house. And some of the White senators and representatives worked so hard to ensure that the black man's legacy is tarnished by blocking everything against the interests of their own poor white voter. LBJ is so right about how to get to make the poor white guy to vote against his own interests.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon Johnson.

Oh, please. It is precisely this type of thinking that has caused a deterioration of our society.
I couldn’t care less WHAT color Obama is. But, I do care about his policies and his promises.
I didn’t like where he planned to take this country. I didn’t like his concept of “fundamental transformation.”
I haven’t agreed with most of what he has done. But, it isn’t because of his color. It is all about his policies.
Get off the “race horse.”

It is not about you, if you are not a racist. But there is a big group of racists who didn't like a black man as president. You can't honestly deny there is no such group. Why do you think there was racial resentment in the 1960s. It was not the blacks who caused it, can they? The blacks were fighting for their civil rights denied to them for centuries. Why should there be any racial tension at all, BUT FOR WHITE RACISTS not accepting them as equals. Please tell me your version.

Same way as then, Obama HASN'T done any more liberal than what Sanders is proposing. But I dont see the same level of resentment thrown at Sanders, even though his policies are far more left than any Obama has proposed. Why not? Think about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I note with interest the division between Republicans and Democrats and blame Obama's "divide and conquer" strategy. That might be an effective strategy for a community organizer but woefully misplaced in the leader of the free world. Much of what has happened isn't his direct fault, but he has set a tone ("the fish rots from the head") and liberals have followed. Republicans, in turn, have reacted. We see the results not only in the harsh discourse between Republicans and Democrats, but in actual events. The IRS is a good example. I doubt that Obama directed the commissioner to delay approval for conservative groups, and thereby suppress their voice, but he did set such a negative environment - even referring to Republicans as "enemies" - that the IRS leaders felt comfortable doing what they did.

Beyond the animosity between Republicans and Democrats, we see it between rich and poor and black and white, too. Racial tensions have not been this bad since the 1960s. Class warfare is palatable. And unfortunately, I do not see that either Trump or Clinton will turn things around.

JMHO.

Racial tensions were bad in 1960s BECAUSE the whites cant digest the blacks will eat with them in restaurants, study with their kids in schools, and travel with them in buses,trains and flights. They just couldn't fathom that the previous slaves are now equals.

Racial tensions are bad since Obama took over as president, because the same whites who couldn't agree with civil rights couldn't digest a Black man(even though he was 50% white) and his black family gets to be in the "White" house. And some of the White senators and representatives worked so hard to ensure that the black man's legacy is tarnished by blocking everything against the interests of their own poor white voter. LBJ is so right about how to get to make the poor white guy to vote against his own interests.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon Johnson.

Oh, please. It is precisely this type of thinking that has caused a deterioration of our society.
I couldn’t care less WHAT color Obama is. But, I do care about his policies and his promises.
I didn’t like where he planned to take this country. I didn’t like his concept of “fundamental transformation.”
I haven’t agreed with most of what he has done. But, it isn’t because of his color. It is all about his policies.
Get off the “race horse.”

Agree. I would be all over having a black conservative President. Does the PP think only black votes got Ben Carson that far in the primary season?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I note with interest the division between Republicans and Democrats and blame Obama's "divide and conquer" strategy. That might be an effective strategy for a community organizer but woefully misplaced in the leader of the free world. Much of what has happened isn't his direct fault, but he has set a tone ("the fish rots from the head") and liberals have followed. Republicans, in turn, have reacted. We see the results not only in the harsh discourse between Republicans and Democrats, but in actual events. The IRS is a good example. I doubt that Obama directed the commissioner to delay approval for conservative groups, and thereby suppress their voice, but he did set such a negative environment - even referring to Republicans as "enemies" - that the IRS leaders felt comfortable doing what they did.

Beyond the animosity between Republicans and Democrats, we see it between rich and poor and black and white, too. Racial tensions have not been this bad since the 1960s. Class warfare is palatable. And unfortunately, I do not see that either Trump or Clinton will turn things around.

JMHO.

Racial tensions were bad in 1960s BECAUSE the whites cant digest the blacks will eat with them in restaurants, study with their kids in schools, and travel with them in buses,trains and flights. They just couldn't fathom that the previous slaves are now equals.

Racial tensions are bad since Obama took over as president, because the same whites who couldn't agree with civil rights couldn't digest a Black man(even though he was 50% white) and his black family gets to be in the "White" house. And some of the White senators and representatives worked so hard to ensure that the black man's legacy is tarnished by blocking everything against the interests of their own poor white voter. LBJ is so right about how to get to make the poor white guy to vote against his own interests.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon Johnson.

Oh, please. It is precisely this type of thinking that has caused a deterioration of our society.
I couldn’t care less WHAT color Obama is. But, I do care about his policies and his promises.
I didn’t like where he planned to take this country. I didn’t like his concept of “fundamental transformation.”
I haven’t agreed with most of what he has done. But, it isn’t because of his color. It is all about his policies.
Get off the “race horse.”

Agree. I would be all over having a black conservative President. Does the PP think only black votes got Ben Carson that far in the primary season?

How far? He didn't win any state or was even second in any state. The racist voters wont even vote for hispanic guys cruz/rubio even though each one of them were functionally white. Guess what happened, no one could race bait the white voters like Drumpf. That is the voter base of the republican party. Nobody said(even though Drumpf never meant it) they would build a wall to keep out the brown people. Nobody but Drumpf said they will ban the entry of muslims or ban trade with china. So we know which party is the base for racists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I note with interest the division between Republicans and Democrats and blame Obama's "divide and conquer" strategy. That might be an effective strategy for a community organizer but woefully misplaced in the leader of the free world. Much of what has happened isn't his direct fault, but he has set a tone ("the fish rots from the head") and liberals have followed. Republicans, in turn, have reacted. We see the results not only in the harsh discourse between Republicans and Democrats, but in actual events. The IRS is a good example. I doubt that Obama directed the commissioner to delay approval for conservative groups, and thereby suppress their voice, but he did set such a negative environment - even referring to Republicans as "enemies" - that the IRS leaders felt comfortable doing what they did.

Beyond the animosity between Republicans and Democrats, we see it between rich and poor and black and white, too. Racial tensions have not been this bad since the 1960s. Class warfare is palatable. And unfortunately, I do not see that either Trump or Clinton will turn things around.

JMHO.

Racial tensions were bad in 1960s BECAUSE the whites cant digest the blacks will eat with them in restaurants, study with their kids in schools, and travel with them in buses,trains and flights. They just couldn't fathom that the previous slaves are now equals.

Racial tensions are bad since Obama took over as president, because the same whites who couldn't agree with civil rights couldn't digest a Black man(even though he was 50% white) and his black family gets to be in the "White" house. And some of the White senators and representatives worked so hard to ensure that the black man's legacy is tarnished by blocking everything against the interests of their own poor white voter. LBJ is so right about how to get to make the poor white guy to vote against his own interests.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon Johnson.

So racial tensions are completely the fault of white racists? Nothing the blacks have done is a factor at all? Attitudes like yours simply fan the flames.