Trump vs Clinton. Biggest debate in world history 2am tomorrow. Will you be there?

[claig]

The entire world's movers and shakers, swindlers and fakers, public money piss-takers will be watching in trepidation at what Trump will do to them. The entire world's great and the good, high and the mighty, shifty and flighty will be supporting Hillary. Will you be with the people supporting Trump?

Have you got the ice cream, the chocolate, the biscuits and the matchsticks to keep the eyelids open ready?

As a warm-up, here is Sky News's 30 minute documentary shown last night

"Trump. Could it really happen?"

Claig's probably a bit busy with UKIP shenanigans now that real life Winchester Woman Diane James has disappeared.

It's all going to pot! The Establishment are having the last laugh.

It's not the Establishment.
It's the idol's clay feet crumbling.

Having said that, Trump does have a good chance of winning, still.

I'm surprised Pence went for the Clinton Foundation on the VP debate.

Hillary would have a field day going for it too.

From odd donations to politicians, to settling personal lawsuits and purchasing things like helmets and personal portraits. Not to mention how much personal money he doesn't put it.

www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/us/politics/donald-trump-foundation-charity.html?_r=0

With a recent order to stop fundraising.

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN1231V5

"The Clinton Foundation, which has $354 million in assets and almost 500 staffers, is a radically different charitable vehicle from the small-scale Trump nonprofit. It has worked to reduce the cost of drugs for people with HIV in developing countries, eradicate childhood obesity in the United States and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." (which is mainly work rather than donating money, which also explains how most of the money goes on staffing it)

"There has been no evidence that foreign donors to the foundation obtained favors from the State Department while Clinton headed the agency."

Trump's:
"Trump established the charitable foundation in 1988, but it runs no programs of its own. Instead, it donates money to other nonprofit groups such as the Police Athletic League for youths." (apparently when it suits Trump, who claims to have the endorsement of several police organisations)

Sorry, it may not be clear. At the start of my post: Clinton would have a field day going for Trump's, obviously.

Police Athletic League for Youths - is anyone else reminded of Hitler Jugend?

Oh, dear

Nigel Farage declares himself interim Ukip leader

you are kidding me?!!

Oh what a surprise

Re Police Athletic League for Youths, there's also Twinks for Trump, and the Stump for Trump sisters ( I hope I'm remembering these names right) and others. It really pisses me off that people insist on ignoring support for the people they hate from the people they supposedly 'like' (i.e. argely, minority and special interest groups) This has an absolutely reverse effect. It happened with Brexit (which I thought was pretty good) but seriously t's happening in the US right now and frankly it's going to push Donald Trump over the finishing line into the Oval Office. I don't know about you but I think that would be a really, really stupid consequence of this kind of dismissive tone.

Don't be sad, Claig. I've got a feeling we'll be hearing lots of lovely things about Steven Woolfe from you on here before too long.

WinchesterWoman, what is it you think we should be saying about the (rather tiny) minority groups supporting Trump? How can we help?

What do you call a tiny minority within a minority?
A micrority?

Kaijah: if the vote was in the uk I suppose there is quite a lot you could do. I don't know if it's too late for Hillary clintons campaign but I wish she would stop assuming that every black vote, Hispanic vote, female vote, minority vote etc is in the bag, and the demographics can be taken for granted. It's so complacent. If trump gets in her campaign team will be half to blame.

What matters for Clinton, and Trump, are the swing states.

I don't thing they are being complacent there. Particularly regarding turnout. From what I understand, it's not so much who minority groups vote for, but whether they vote at all. It seems that many are, for example, discouraged, by long queues at polling stations.

Trump is already hinting there will be electoral fraud in some places. It's low and highly manipulative. The kind of thing far left and right groups have used in the past to get in at any cost in different countries. The kind of dangerous populist groups that nobody in their right mind wanted in power.

Fraudulent registrations are being found. Denial is failing as a tactic. Ohio is no longer said to be a key indicator be due to rising trumpism. And the long queues? People who hadn't voted before got off their sofas on June 23. Clinton supporters or the 'meh' demographic is far more likely to be affected by apathy. I wish they would come up with some kind of energizing alternative. As she put it herself - 'why aren't I 50 points ahead' when Trump should be such an easy target. The sneering tone just does not help and she doesn't get that, she's too detached, but she should have people around her who do.

I agree that she seems too detached, but it's not an easy choice. Those who have engaged directly with Trump and got emotional have been left on his trail.
He wants engagement, he wants the fight.

On the other hand, she has to appear presidential, as has he, and calm and collected. She should present herself as the opposite of an off the cuff, unprepared, dangerously emotional Trump.

Still, I agree, she should be engaging voters, more than seeming on a pedestal. She's not a natural good candidate, which is why she lost to Obama.
Trump is millions times worse, though.

As for fraudulent registrations, they ARE being found. I'm sure it's an issue in pretty much every election, and mostly a non-issue in general terms.
Even Al Gore didn't go calling fraud when he got the majority of country votes, but not electoral college, thanks to very dodgy voting in Florida (whose Governor was the newly elected President's brother).
The report of queues are not related to the UK:
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/heres-why-black-people-have-to-wait-twice-as-long-to-vote-as-whites/274791/
whereas the article explains most problems by polls in urban, highly populated areas, it doesn't dispute that the black population seems to have to wait longer.

And it's very difficult to come out with anything but sneering when people don't engage in any form of logical argument. When Trump and supporters sneer at the opposition. When they constantly use insulting monikers to refer to the opposition.
It's understandable that people want to see Trump as something different, breaking moulds, breaking with the status quo. But he is doing it in all the wrong ways. He is not someone who can be trusted, not with any truth, nor with any competency. At least W didn't have his arrogance.

Al Gore may not have called fraud but plenty did. The Republicans stole the election with the help of Jeb Bush. Are you saying that possible fraud shouldn't be mentioned by the candidate themselves?

No I'm sorry but sneering and scorn have been tried and failed in the last general election, the Brexit vote, and the primaries. . It. Does. Not. Work. It is counter productive. It pushes people towards the people and the ideologies, or whatever you can call Trump's offering, that you don't like.

It is beyond belief that Hillary Clinton's campaign is still relying on it. 'She hates me, she insults me, she doesn't understand me, why would I vote for her?' This is not a difficult train of thought to witness unfolding in millions of voters. It's just an excuse to say well if they don't come up with logical arguments what am I supposed to do except scorn and sneer. There ARE arguments there that appeal to people's needs and fears and they should be addressed and not sneered. What the heck is going to happen when you're sneered at and scorned? It's going to piss you right off. Not endear you.

The point was that the candidate himself didn't call it. And certainly not months ahead of the election.

The reality is that the Establishment have no argument against Trump just as they didn't have against Brexit and the Leavers. That is why all the Establishment could do in both cases is accuse Trump and Brexiteers of racism, bigotry etc and pretend that calamity will result if Trump is elected.

Trump is a bit stupid to keep taking the Establishment bait and fighting pointless battles about Alicia Machado or whatever else the best and the brightest of the Establishment can come up with, but on the real issues of jobs, trade, the economy and prevention of war, the Establishment cannot beat Trump which is why they are going to lose just as they lost Brexit.

Why is it so bad for the candidate to call it?

Pence did very well against Kaine in the VP debate because Pence came across as calm and refused to take the Establishment bait.

No one really wants Trump to be calm, because the people like the fact that he is the Establishment destroyer and is a brawler, but they would prefer him not to take the Establishment bat and fight the real battle against the insiders and cronies.

'Why is it so bad for the candidate to call it?'

Trump calls everything, that is why he has been so successful, he doesn't play by the Establishment coverup rules, that is why he called out the free trade deals, NAFTA, TPP, climate change, corruption, calls the politicians "puppets", calls out the donors and lobbyists, calls out the wars and 911 and of course Trump has lots of experienced election campaigners and therefore understands and knows all about vote rigging and therefore calls it because he thinks the Establishment might try rigging things because his crowds are huge and the Establishment's crowds aren't.

It's true: analysts said the VP debates don't matter. But it did matter this time, because Trump is an uncontrolled brawler and people needed to see that there was a calm person alongside him. Sadly Pence is a Grade A shit when it comes to women which seems to be flying way under the radar as far as I can see.

If the candidate calls election fraud before there is any evidence then it means that vigilante groups set themselves up around black and poor areas challenging each and every voter. It's intimidating, it slows things down enormously, creates racial tensions. Some States have frankly ridiculous laws over allowing random people to challenge others identities.