I refuse to endorse either under any circumstances.TheCatt wrote:Gun to your testicles/other painful things that wont kill you: Hillary or Drumpf?
I will hang my hopes on it never the less as it's the only way back to personal liberty that doesn't involve warfare.Malcolm wrote:That's a long, long way to go.
Hillary already made it past menopause. Trump has all the mood swings of PMS without the vagina, and that will unfortunately not terminate due to a biological time clock outside of death.TPRJones wrote:That having been said, since we seem to have no other choice I'm hoping that Drumpf wins but only because he's far more likely to be assassinated in office and end the suffering early.
Can't discount Hillary handing out favors and organizing the party to line up with her faction, though. President Clinton II sets us up nicely for Candidate Wasserman-Schultz in 2024, which is another 4+ years of lobby-friendly cronyism.Vince wrote:I used to call them both "big government, crony capitalist progressives", but I've come to decide that Trump isn't forward thinking nor disciplined enough to be an actual progressive. So I'll leave him at simply a big government liberal. I think Hillary would probably be more damaging to the country for 4 years as opposed to 4 years of Trump, but not by much. I've been trying to look past this election. Four years from now we'd get another run at an awful President Hillary. After 4 years of Trump, the Democrats get another run at him. Bottom line for a Trump Presidency is that best case we're going to get 12 years of growing government and I think that kills us regardless. Either he's such a good big government President that he ends up with a lot of Democrat crossover in '20, or he's so awful and the Republican brand so damaged that we end up with 8 years of a big government Democrat.
So who is worse for 4 years? Hillary. Who's worse for the extended future? I think Trump.
Clinton was in his plane, got off (not in his usual way), walked across the tarmac, bordered her plane, and spoke to her for thirty fucking minutes. I wonder what it was about. Normally when Bill's having a private meeting with a woman who's not his wife, I assume he's fucking her. There's a far simpler explanation this time.Let’s assume that Lynch’s description of the meeting is wholly accurate — that this was a casual encounter between two people who have known each other for some time and who happened by circumstance to be on the same airport tarmac at the same time.
The former New Mexico governor was reacting to Trump's promise to "look into" replacing Transportation Security Administration employees who wear hijabs with military veterans after a woman asked him about in New Hampshire last week.
Just because Trump sucks at everything except filing for corporate bankruptcy.GORDON wrote:I'd submit Hillary is the most capable of rigging them, though.
I could go with that theory if the primary polls didn't accurately show the results of a Trump win. I think people are following a flawed chain of reasoning to think that the primary polls were fairly accurate, but suddenly the general polls are way off. Trump is going to lose unless something major shifts in his favor. His approval among independents is a 91% disapproval. Add that to more Republicans being unhappy with their candidate than Democrats and he's in trouble. Plus he's down in all the battleground states.Leisher wrote:More proof the polls are bullshit.
Clinton has a big lead.
Election too close to call.
I stand by my theory that the Dems' "shaming" tactics have created a country where folks won't answer questions honestly publicly. So if a pollster calls you and asks "Who are you voting for?", even though you don't know them, you will not say "Trump" even though you are voting for him.
Yes, they did. It just wasn't as loud because even Mitt wasn't stupid enough to suggest that people of certain ethnicities aren't capable of treating him fairly.Leisher wrote:People didn't call call you a racist scumbag who needs to be murdered and ostracized if you said you were voting Romney.
On the flip side, Trump supporters will call you a Zionist globalist if you aren't supporting Trump. I suspect we'll have a record low turnout this year. It'll just be a matter of which side is less disgusted with their own candidate.Leisher wrote:People didn't call call you a racist scumbag who needs to be murdered and ostracized if you said you were voting Romney.
Yes he did, he just referred to them as "47%" of voters.Malcolm wrote:Yes, they did. It just wasn't as loud because even Mitt wasn't stupid enough to suggest that people of certain ethnicities aren't capable of treating him fairly.Leisher wrote:People didn't call call you a racist scumbag who needs to be murdered and ostracized if you said you were voting Romney.