She is an extremely bright and talented intensive care nurse. Very smart.That doesn't sound very intelligent.
Another ICU nurse is debating between Trump and third party, but can't bring herself to vote Hillary.
She is an extremely bright and talented intensive care nurse. Very smart.That doesn't sound very intelligent.
Don't worry, it's coming.Cashing in your celebrity is great, good for you, Donald. But it's not helpful when it comes to running a government. This is why we don't have Senator Kardashian, or Congresswoman Hilton.
Technically what he might do is create an LLC when he buys a piece of property. That's common. That's not a business (no employees, doesn't make or do anything or have an office) that's a pass through tax shelter. I bet that's what's going on.Hey, don't worry about it buddy, you can do better on your sourcing next time.
CNN's not bad, tho.
As I said before, starting an LLC for every transaction technically constitutes a business. Doesn't mean he's out there starting up a lemonade stand every time he gets bored with his latest and greatest success.
If he had 500 businesses that were all cruising along successfully, that he had ANYTHING to do with, the three chimpanzees he has running his campaign would have made that info available.
So you're telling me that even though his campaign has "stacks of cash", he isn't running any TV ads?Reasons the election isn't over:
5.) Donald Trump has literally spent nothing on negative ads with a campaign sitting on stacks of cash. He raises 82-million last month and he's neck and neck with Hillary in many swing states. Let's not call the race until money has been spent to actually hurt Hilary.
Huh?The polls are getting closer and closer everyday.
No question.Technically what he might do is create an LLC when he buys a piece of property. That's common. That's not a business (no employees, doesn't make or do anything or have an office) that's a pass through tax shelter. I bet that's what's going on.
So these failures that you acknowledge didn't spur your curiosity to research a broader swath of his financial dealings to see if they were in fact an aberration on his dealings, or more like the norm? You just determined that those were his only failures, and his batting average on business is good? How did you determine this? Which documents did you use to conduct that financial audit? Which documents would you typically use, as a CPA, to conduct a financial analysis? Or is financial accounting not something you learned on your way to becoming a CPA?Trump has owned or controlled over 500 businesses, but everyone trots out the same few that failed. I guess if using the MSNBC playbook seems to work for you, then have at it. His batting average on businesses is actually quite good.
I'm not his biggest fan but this thread appears to actually be "Condescending liberals gather to make fun of Trump and anyone that is even considering voting for him over Saint Hillary"
Nah. Running a campaign is insanely difficult and complex. People who do this for decades are going to trip up, Trump has never done this and is way over his skis.This is yet another data point in support of the crazy conspiracy theory that he's deliberately trying to lose.
Don't get me wrong -- I don't really believe that Trump is losing on purpose. I just think it's fascinating that if he really was trying to lose on purpose, he'd be doing more or less the same as what he's doing right now.Nah. Running a campaign is insanely difficult and complex. People who do this for decades are going to trip up, Trump has never done this and is way over his skis.
Oh, and he's a complete moron.
This is probably why Trump "endorsed" McCain and Ryan the other day.Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told Donald Trump in a phone call last week that if he doesn’t turn his flailing campaign around, the national party may shift its focus from his candidacy to down-ballot races, according to two GOP officials briefed on the exchange.
The officials said Priebus described to Trump internal party polls that show his campaign headed in the wrong direction. Priebus told Trump that he would have been better off had he spent the days since the Republican convention at his Mar-a-Lago Club, officials said.
Trump denied the officials’ account of the exchange.
“Reince Priebus is a terrific guy,” Trump told TIME on Tuesday. “He never said that.” Trump also said that the Republican Party should be grateful for his recent fundraising. “Why would they state that when I am raising millions of dollars for them?” Trump asked, rhetorically.
Priebus could not be reached for comment.
Whatever the exact words spoken on the phone, there is no doubt that the possibility of Republicans effectively abandoning Trump by prioritizing voter outreach for down-ballot races now haunts his presidential campaign. In the last two weeks, Trump has suffered a deep dive in public polls amid a number of controversies caused by his own public statements .
Priebus and Trump talk frequently, with the party chair urging Trump for months to professionalize his operations and campaign. But the tenor of the calls turned more frank and frustrated last week as Trump’s campaign slide continued. The officials said Priebus reminded Trump that his title is RNC chairman, not chairman of the Trump campaign, adding that he would act in the best interests of the Republican Party.
ironyInsinuating a presidential candidate is a pedophile based on zero evidence other than a bot on Reddit?
Mods you know what to do.
Heck, I think if I believed that he was running a false flag campagin, I would be thinking it was a bit too obvious.Don't get me wrong -- I don't really believe that Trump is losing on purpose. I just think it's fascinating that if he really was trying to lose on purpose, he'd be doing more or less the same as what he's doing right now.
Yeah. He does seem to do things with purpose. The Mark Foley in the crowd thing was perfect example.Don't get me wrong -- I don't really believe that Trump is losing on purpose. I just think it's fascinating that if he really was trying to lose on purpose, he'd be doing more or less the same as what he's doing right now.
For sure.This is probably why Trump "endorsed" McCain and Ryan the other day.
Yet Trump refuses to address this. Many people are saying this, I have read it in many places.Insinuating a presidential candidate is a pedophile based on zero evidence other than a bot on Reddit?
Mods you know what to do.
Agreed, looking at this recently I've become comfortable giving Clinton New Hampshire. RCP has her up +7, 538 has 75% Clinton. Latest two polls there have +9 and +15 for Clinton.My concern continues to be I can only get Clinton to 269 electoral college votes that I think would still be locks for her if you give Trump even a little bump from his current polling numbers: link.
I'm pretty comfortable with all of those states but that only gets her a tie ... maybe even not that if you take away that weird rural Maine one. But the rest of them I could envision going Trump's way. New Hampshire is probably the least likely, but voters there are famously weird and also super-white. Florida and Ohio are Florida and Ohio. Nevada has the Hispanic demographic but also a huge number of poorly educated voters, and Clinton doesn't poll as well there as you'd expect. So I can see a path to a Trump win even if he loses the popular vote by 3-4 points.
I have no idea where your concern is coming from. The battleground has become ridiculously small and easy for her.My concern continues to be I can only get Clinton to 269 electoral college votes that I think would still be locks for her if you give Trump even a little bump from his current polling numbers: link.
I'm pretty comfortable with all of those states but that only gets her a tie ... maybe even not that if you take away that weird rural Maine one. But the rest of them I could envision going Trump's way. New Hampshire is probably the least likely, but voters there are famously weird and also super-white. Florida and Ohio are Florida and Ohio. Nevada has the Hispanic demographic but also a huge number of poorly educated voters, and Clinton doesn't poll as well there as you'd expect. So I can see a path to a Trump win even if he loses the popular vote by 3-4 points.
Not criticizing you specifically, but we need to stop treating PA like it's a battleground. 538 has Clinton up by 7.7 and a Republican hasn't won it since 1988.If Hillary wins NC, NV, NM & VA, she can lose all the biggies like OH, PA & FL and still win, and my guess is she wins all 7 of those.
Em I just want to say this is a good post. However IMO no. 5 is very bad for him and it's a sign he's trying to sabotage himself. No. 4 may be true however almost everyone knows about Trump and Hillary, they are at maximum name recognition and familiarity with the voters. No. 3 is not really true anymore as Trump has done the undoable by allowing Hillary to be the voice of reason, ethics, patriotism (on issues like NATO, the Constitution), and her Fav/Unfav number has actually gone up. Trump did that. No. 1 is again bad for Trump, this isn't basketball, things need to be done in May to win in November. It's more like curling.Reasons the election isn't over:
1.) There's still 90 days until Election Day. Anything can happen, literally anything can happen. I'm sure you guys thought Golden State won the NBA Finals when they were up 3-1.
2.) There are still 3 debates. These debates will be the highest viewed program next to the Super Bowl this year. Lot of time for impressions to be made.
3.) Both candidates have extremely high unfavorable ratings. The polls are getting closer and closer everyday. Push come to shove, more people are probably going to stay home Election Day than the polls indicate.
4.) A high percentage of people haven't even been paying much attention to this election cycle. Most people will start paying attention the month before or literally make a decision on Election Day.
5.) Donald Trump has literally spent nothing on negative ads with a campaign sitting on stacks of cash. He raises 82-million last month and he's neck and neck with Hillary in many swing states. Let's not call the race until money has been spent to actually hurt Hilary.
6.) Wikileaks, Russia, somebody has a mound of dirt on Hilary, the DNC, and the Clinton Foundation. These e-mail leaks have been completely strategic and there is consistently rumors that there is a big surprise coming in October. Outside forces have their fingerprints all over this election.
That's ok that was my point. That analysis from NYT has moved the battleground to a handful of other states IMO.Not criticizing you specifically, but we need to stop treating PA like it's a battleground. 538 has Clinton up by 7.7 and a Republican hasn't won it since 1988.
My concern is based on the map I created/linked. Of the seven states you list I'm just not comfortable giving her NC, NV, OH or FL at the moment. I think they're all closer than the spread in the national polls, which means a shift of a couple points nationally could give them to Trump even if Clinton retains a 2-4 point national lead.I have no idea where your concern is coming from. The battleground has become ridiculously small and easy for her.
This is a really good summary by the NYT.
If Hillary wins NC, NV, NM & VA, she can lose all the biggies like OH, PA & FL and still win, and my guess is she wins all 7 of those.
That doesn't mean she gets 50+% though, that's a separate issue. I think the 3rd party vote could be quite large.
Why would I have to do all that for you? The premise here in this thread is anyone not voting for Hillary is an idiot. Trump had some failed businesses for various reasons over 40 years. Hillary has many failures as well. It's up to each individual to figure out which flawed candidate they can live with. Questioning intelligence of someone not voting for Hillary is condescending to say the least.So these failures that you acknowledge didn't spur your curiosity to research a broader swath of his financial dealings to see if they were in fact an aberration on his dealings, or more like the norm? You just determined that those were his only failures, and his batting average on business is good? How did you determine this? Which documents did you use to conduct that financial audit? Which documents would you typically use, as a CPA, to conduct a financial analysis? Or is financial accounting not something you learned on your way to becoming a CPA?
Don't accuse people of trotting out the MSNBC playbook when all you've done is trot out Fox News talking points in here and say "I'm a CPA". Then when people take the time to show you that he's not a good businessman, which you should have figured out on your own if you're a little curious, you respond with "MSNBC"? Why don't you go get some knowledge before thinking you can drop any knowledge, at least in here.
Actually, Trump is the only one fibbing here.
CNN: the Secret Service spoke to the Trump campaign (TRUE!)
Reuters: there were no formal discussions (TRUE!)
Trump: Reuters announced that the SS never spoke to my campaign (FALSE -- Reuters only said there were no formal discussions!)
CNNI am quite ready to be convinced that he actually is a tireless entrepeneur, with 500 businesses I am unaware of, that are all humming along on profitability. If you have any proof or links to these 500 businesses, please share.
Hint: You need to do all that for you.Not for me.Why would I have to do all that for you? The premise here in this thread is anyone not voting for Hillary is an idiot. Trump had some failed businesses for various reasons over 40 years. Hillary has many failures as well. It's up to each individual to figure out which flawed candidate they can live with. Questioning intelligence of someone not voting for Hillary is condescending to say the least.
Yeah, I don't much like apologizing for it either. If you can listen to that guy blurt out stupid things day after day and still want him to be the nation's chief executive, then you deserve what's coming from me.Condescending? So be it. Sorry to hurt anyone's delicate feelings.
You've decided that.The premise here in this thread is anyone not voting for Hillary is an idiot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/
Small percentage? You have people here admitting they like to make fun of people voting for Trump and a lot of condescending terms are used to describe his supporters. All of that is fine but don't state that it's a small percentage of posts or posters.You've decided that.
In fact, people (many people) have asked Trump backers to provide solid reasons why he would make a decent president. Anytime they have voiced reasons for him, those reasons have not stood up to scrutiny.
The premise of this thread is that Trump is the most unqualified nominee ever, and is in fact running the silliest campaign in US political history.
There are people calling Trump voters idiots. That is a small percentage of the posts here, the majority of posts are dealing with the very real idea that Trump himself is an idiot.
Right, I forgot about that.Or by a 2/3rds vote in Congress followed by ratification by 3/4ths of state legislatures.
The fact that you are trying to suggest that they are in any way equivalent is utterly absurd. Hillary is on the scummier end of the normal range of distribution for politicians. Trump is miles outside that range; he's an open bigot, a clueless moron, and his entire business career is based on ####### people over to enrich himself. Blindly partisan lemmings like you are what is wrong with this country.
I'd say the folk admitting they're voting for Trump are doing a fine job of making fun of themselves. No need for everyone else to pile on.Small percentage? You have people here admitting they like to make fun of people voting for Trump and a lot of condescending terms are used to describe his supporters. All of that is fine but don't state that it's a small percentage of posts or posters.
Yeah, there is a lot of that. You right, you right.Small percentage? You have people here admitting they like to make fun of people voting for Trump and a lot of condescending terms are used to describe his supporters. All of that is fine but don't state that it's a small percentage of posts or posters.
So, in their effort to put a "diverse looking group" back there and selecting from, I would guess, a sea of old white people Foley was picked randomly? Seems statistically improbable.They have no idea who these people are they are putting behind them I'm pretty sure. They just want a diverse looking group and hope for the best.
That he had Foley in there the day after they were crapping their pants about the shooter's dad is funny as hell though and just the perfect microcosm of the trainwreck that is donald right now.
You shouldn't do it for him, you should do it for yourself.Why would I have to do all that for you? The premise here in this thread is anyone not voting for Hillary is an idiot. Trump had some failed businesses for various reasons over 40 years. Hillary has many failures as well. It's up to each individual to figure out which flawed candidate they can live with. Questioning intelligence of someone not voting for Hillary is condescending to say the least.
Is there a similar list of prominent Dems who are refusing to support Hillary?
Hey, here's a running, updated list of Trump's Twitter insults:
Well, she did "rig the DNC".Is there a similar list of prominent Dems who are refusing to support Hillary?
No???
Weird!
It sounds like you are the lazy one. You do realize the FBI wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation but was told to back off by the Obama DOJ?"Many people" keep repeating the Clinton corruption and ethics mantra, like it was drilled into their heads somewhere (looking at you Fox News). It comes through in the particular word phrasing, which is oddly similar everywhere and typically unnatural. Backed up with "facts" like emails, and Benghazi. It's old already, and worse it's plain lazy.