Trump is going to get trounced in the debates

He was interfering with a Police investigation, he should have backed off and let the cops do their job. He made his choice and got a bullet in the leg. He's lucky it wasn't in the head.

 

Well I disagree. I think he acted very appropriately. He tried to explain the situation to the police officers while cooperating, and then he got shot. It probably happened because he is black.

 

Common sense should tell you that if you interfere with a Police investigation you're likely top get arrested or worse. When the cops told him to back off and move away he should have. He purposely put himself in the middle and got a dandy scar on his leg to show for it.

 

I'm trying to figure out what this conversation has to do with Monday's debate. My guess is you two are Trump admirers and would rather not talk about the debate your candidate lost.

 

"Sandy, you seem to be a bit too personally invested in this race." Take that to the bank. I am a 73-year old Marine (Ret.) and I have seen it all. I served during the Vietnam War. I lived through the turbulent sixties, during which three prominent Americans were assassinated and that is only the beginning of the sad story of the sixties. Since Vietnam, we have been in one war or another for over 45 years. Currently we are engaged in the Mideast, and we are about to add 600 more troops to that rat hole. We have been fighting and dying there for fifteen years. That's after the First Gulf War, 1990 to 1991. And for what? What has been accomplished. Truth be told, all that fighting has been counter-productive.

Why the diatribe? I am scared to death of Trump. Imagine Trump as President during Mideast turmoil. What the freak will he do? This is a guy that wants to sink Iranian fast boats for coming close to American ships. This is a man who said in December, "I would bomb the s--- out of them," referring to ISIS. Worse, his fans love that kind of talk because they are too damn stupid to understand the inevitable unintended consequences of such an egregious error in judgment.

This undisciplined, arrogant, narcissistic con man should never get his hands on the nuclear codes. If he does, we will all pay, including his blind sycophants.

BTW, the Charlotte Observer is a bit biased toward a law and order candidate right now for obvious reasons. Their opinion can be taken with a grain of salt. Far less biased scientific polls have given the nod to Hillary. I have proven that.

 

You have a distorted picture of the Mideast and ISIS. You take the actual history from Wiki, then twist it to suit your needs.

There are all kinds of weird views out there from less than responsible authorities. Rand Paul is one of them. People don't really care what Paul says.

 

"While it is true that ISIS has long existed in Iraq." I said that ISIS was formed in 2014 in Syria.

 

You should be far more afraid of the kinds of Presidents who have gotten us into all of these wars - professional politicians - every one of them.

Ever read the Sheehan book on Vietnam?

 

It's simply reality. Insult or not. Reality inherently has its place.

 

I was responding to another posters posts to me.

Clinton got a minuscule bump and Trump lost nothing. Hillary was simply parroting talking points, Trump was less polished than he should be but folks are voting for him because he's NOT a career politician parroting talking points. Hillary's got a tough road ahead. She said little to nothing to sway Sanders voters to vote for her. Without all of them she's all done.

 

Your reality or mine?

 

The reality. It doesnt change based on perspective. Real is real, regardless of perception.

 

Your perception of the incident is vastly different from mine.

 

And yet there is only one reality, regardless of perceptions.

 

I agree with that statement in general. That the modern incarnation of ISIS was conceived and nurtured in Syria was the point of my initial post.

 

I see, now back to the topic on hand. There is more bad news for Trump followers. Every one of these conservative newspapers have rejected Trump.

Paper: New Hampshire Union Leader
History: Backed Every Republican presidential candidate since 1916

Paper: Arizona Republic
History: Backed every Republican presidential candidate since its founding in 1890

Paper: The Dallas Morning News
History: Backed every Republican presidential candidate since 1940

Paper: Cincinnati Enquirer
History: Backed every Republican presidential candidate since 1916

Paper: Detroit News
History: Has only endorsed Republican presidential candidates since its founding in 1873

The Dallas Morning News had a typical comment. “Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.”

 

No. I don't care to read much on Vietnam. I consider myself an amateur historian on America's wars and the Presidents who reigned during those wars.

Back to the subject of this discussion. There were more developments today. There is still more bad news for Trump. “In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now. This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency. From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.” Source: USA TODAY.

There is more. “A member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has urged Americans to vote for Hillary Clinton to avoid a potentially disastrous Donald Trump presidency. "Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House," Dorothy Rabinowitz, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the newspaper, wrote in an opinion piece.
Under the headline "Hillary-Hatred Derangement Syndrome," the article mounts a blistering attack on Trump and the "Never Hillary forces" who are willing to support the Republican nominee in order to prevent his Democratic opponent taking office. "They are aware of his casual disregard for truth, his self-obsession, his ignorance, his ingrained vindictiveness," Rabinowitz writes.” Source: CNN Money.

THE WSJ BASHING TRUMP!!! NOW THAT IS MAN BEATS DOG NEWS.

 

The WSJ has been bashing Trump from the start, hardly a surprise. After all, Clinton is the Wall Street candidate.
The entire political establishment, including the MSM, is openly attacking Trump. Of course that helps Trump.
I know - it's such a "puzzlement".

 

Yeah, it's a puzzle, alright. When an abundance of true conservative publications come out against Trump, shouldn't that provide a moment of pause to conservatives? To the Trump admirer it is an everyone is wrong and I am right syndrome. Or, what am I doing?"

BTW, I don't think it helps Trump one bit. Recent polls all reflect a Hillary bump.

 

I agree that it is not looking optimistic for Trump. Oddsmakers have him at 2-1.

He had a few checkmates during the last debate but he is too uninformed (and presumably his staff is as well) to make the right move.

Arming Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and Islamic Front leading to the modern incarnation of ISIS was a show stopper.

Having no clue how to nail her on the "profiting from the housing bubble" was another. The retort to this easily anticipated question was simple Simon. He just had to say "has Hillary never heard the term buy low sell high" ?

Followed by "how does someone who does not know the most basic principles of investing be expected to run the economy".

Followed by "It was not people buying low that caused the housing crisis. In fact when buyers step in it stabilizes the market and brings it back raising housing prices to the benefit of the people that lost. It was not these people that cased the harm. The people that caused the financial collapse were Hillary's wall street buddies. When is Hillary going to release transcripts of her speeches to these wall street insiders ? The fine to JP Morgan was a slap on the wrist and no one was put in jail for this largest ponzi scheme in history .... and so on.

 

What is a "true conservative"?

Trump received a significant bump after the debate according to the LA Times daily tracking poll.

 

Odds makers have Trump at 2 to 1??? Where can I place that bet? Since the debate Trump is losing ground rapidly. Conservative Fox News had Hillary winning the debate 60% to 22%.

I agree with you. Hillary is vulnerable, but Trump doesn't have the savvy, intelligence, or experience to take advantage of the situation. If he can't do that, he certainly can't become President.

I think he is really pissed because he lost to a woman. Aware of his male chauvinistic, narcissistic persona, that has to bother him to no end.

 

The term, "true conservative," is meant to differentiate from pseudo conservative. The likes of Trump and his admirers come to mind.

Fox News was heavily critical of the L.A. Times poll.

Also, "I’m tired of hearing about the poll from Donald Trump fans such as Reince Priebus, Matt Drudge and Donald Trump himself.1 They frequently cherry-pick that poll because it consistently shows much better results for Trump than the other surveys. As of Tuesday morning, for example, the poll showed the race as virtually tied — Hillary Clinton 44.2 percent, Trump 44.0 percent — even when the national poll average has Clinton up by about 6 percentage points instead. Long story short: The poll’s results are weighted based on how people said they voted in 2012. That’s probably a mistake, because people often misstate or misremember their vote from previous elections." Source: fivethirtyeight.com.

Betcha you already knew that about the L.A. Times poll. You just wanted to rile me.

 

I'm glad you two are taking this matter so seriously.

 

I betcha you have looked at the LA Times poll line graph and noticed that it has often shown Clinton far ahead of Trump. The lines go up and down and cross - amazing - isn't it Partisans like polls when they reflect their own bias.

Now tell me what is a "true conservative"?