This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
She loses if the polls come out this weekend and she's still behind in Florida, still tied in Pennsylvania and Michigan. What that will tell me is that the public is simply immune to logic this time around, and determined to elect Donald Trump. Hopefully that won't be the case.
Wikileaks drops an email dump that has some real meat to it or she goes Weekend at Bernie's again in a very public setting.
Ok that would be an example of something that could change things, yes, but that's what it will take.
Thing is, it's apparent that Mills ordered destruction of evidence and most probably it was on Hillary's orders. At this point, Wikileaks could leak video of it and any mainstream coverage or action by government would be pushed past the election.
The same as TPP doesn't include China (which you probably knew and was using a Socratic discourse to draw out The Commish )
If wikileaks had something they would have dropped it already. Not that they don't want to affect the election but that they struggle to remain relevant.
I'm not a huge fan of it. But there are lots of reasons to vote for Hillary. I'm not a one issue guy. The Supreme Court is very important to me. So is climate change. So is immigration. And beyond all this, I truly believe that Donald Trump represents an existential danger to our republic.
Following endorsements from traditionally Republican Dallas & Cincy papers, this is reminder no. 1,329 that Republicans and conservatives will be voting for Hillary in unprecedented numbers.
I don't want to argue with you, because I REALLY want you to be right.
They're important as an indicator of what people on the right are already thinking not because people will do what they are told.
Agree. I don't think any endorsement from dead tree media carries much weight these days.
That's clearly not why you (rightly) touted the Cincy paper's endorsement. It's because it reflects a trend already occurring.
I didn't tout it. Posted it as a curiosity and noted that the source was dead tree media.
I'm not saying it is likely, SID asked for scenarios on how Trump could win. The only two ways would be Wikileaks and her going dead fish again.
Wait...we're calling "weeks away" a lie when the timeline was estimated 3 months?cstu said:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
In fairness to Hillary, she never said it was the finest deal she'd ever seen.
Actually, in many cases, newspaper market penetration has grown over the last 20 years. They all publish a digital edition and are typically the best source of local news in a given area. I'd agree that the endorsements probably aren't a huge deal though.
Yeah it's curious all right, Goppers & conservatives will be voting for the Democrat in relatively large numbers while Hillary is maintaining the usual share of her own party's vote. That's what these conservative endorsements reflect. - How is Trump supposed to win, given that?
First of all she denied she said it. Also has Hillary specifically said what she does not like about it?
Knowing Donald would get hung up on some one thing like that knowing he would obsess over it and defend it was brilliant. I love that. This should last a week.
Her handling of the question left a lot to be desired, no doubt (again).
Their reaction is not well thought out either. One of the top Trump female supporters was on CNN attacking the character of the woman, yelling. Not a good look.
She didn't exactly deny it. She used the word "no" in the middle of his interrupting her. That's not the same as saying "I never said that." We don't know what the context of that "no" was, we never will. It might have been- "I was referring to the TPP as originally conceived, but not what was finally negotiated" etc.
Optmistic? Hillary was ready to claim it as an accomplishment if the electoral wins hadn't changed. This relates more to what Hillary will do on trade in office rather than a gotcha moment. I think that was the singular point and factcheck won by Trump, Hillary seemed to win the remaining 99% of the rest of the debate.
That's up to the candidates to do those things. What's the big sticking point or term that changed from Hillary's involvement considering she also pushed through trade deals with Panama, Colombia, Vietnam and maybe one other IIRC?
My guess is they will next time and it'll center around how she's learned from experience and how he sucks at negotiating (throw all the lawsuits in his face again).
That's funny and true, Hillary has a lot to work with there. Unlike Trump, Hillary won't leave material off the table.
That wasn't my point. You wrote that she lied by denying it. My only point is that the word "no" isn't necessarily a denial on the scale of "I never said that."
Ok granted, it was in crosstalk, if Hillary didn't explain herself, Trump also did not drive the point home like SF says above.
The truth of the matter is that NAFTA was a mixed bag and it is really difficult to determine whether the effect was a net good or bad verses what would have happened without it.
