Trump vs Clinton Round 2. Bigger debate than the last one.

[claig]

Round 2, Monday morning 2 am UK time.

Will "the real Trump" show up?

Slippery animal the global elite, clearly.

Am I late to the party? Has the psuedofeminist been defended? Those who don't like her been attacked and called all sort of name?

So I've missed little then

Yes quite a lot of that, and a lot of talk about the "Establishment"

(Which in case you were wondering does NOT include the wealthiest segment of the population - Trump's on their side and giving them big tax cuts to show his appreciation.)

Trump's on their side and giving them big tax cuts to show his appreciation

So he's behaving like the rest of the world's politicans? Good stuff.

Ah but drumpf isn't a "politician". He is a bizniz man. One who has had countless ch11 bankruptcies and made a $900m loss in one year.

He'll fix the world alright.

One thing I really hope is that the secret service guys whose job it is to protect Drumpf are aware that he thinks paying taxes is for losers. The same taxes that go to pay their wages.

*One thing I really hope is that the secret service guys whose job it is to protect Drumpf are aware that he thinks paying taxes is for losers. The

I'm sure they are. They can read and write you know so I'm sure they're informed on who their next boss could be.

They know Hillary well though

That article is hilarious.

No response to the facts I mention, just the amusing aside.

That's Drumpf supporters all over.

Sorry, you lost me at "Breitbart"

Boosiehs

That article is hilarious

I'm glad you find it amusing. May I ask which one seeing as there are two links in my comment.

That's Drumpf supporters all over.

🙄
Please point out where I said I supported trump.

that's clinton supporters all over. Attacking wilynily, not answering the questions, bemoaning the supposed lack of free speech while sitting permanently with their finger on the report button to "eliminate" those who dare voice an opinion where HRC is not the best all and end all

It's a good thing you crossed that bit out. It was nuts

Amalfi Didn't you read the second part of the second article you linked where other secret service agents said the whole book was a clearly a load of made-up bollocks.

I thought the crossed out bit was a lovely bit of prose. I'm super impressed at such a long bit of successful crossing out. I bet amal uses preview.

And totally look down on the SJW silencing tactic - vv silly.

I don't know why people still believe pollsters. Perhaps the same reason they back Clinton: an inability to learn from even quite recent events.

I don't know why people still believe pollsters.

People have to have some measure to estimate how well a candidate is doing.
Trump himself keeps and has kept mentioning polls when he's ahead, but dismissing them when he's not.

Perhaps the same reason they back Clinton: an inability to learn from even quite recent events.
I really don't know what you mean by this.
Surely that's more apt for people who still back Trump.
It still baffles me how, and really ALL things considered and weighted up, some people still think that Trump
a) really is for anyone but himself
b) is any better than Hillary on, well, pretty much any aspect that any decent person would be for (thus excluding bullying, threatening, and hate speech)
c) intends to pursuit any of the policies listed on his site.

And that's from past actions and recent events.

Sorry, forgot to add to the poll bit, that it's because polls can be wrong that some serious sites average the polls out.

It is clear at this point that nationally, both are very close and within the margin of error of most polls.
It was also apparent that Trump had gained some ground, which was lost post debate.
Swing states are the most important. The national results can be misleading.

Polls, for the most part are, and have been correct, with some exceptions in some elections. Take with a pinch of salt, but don't dismiss all.
There are very few polls on swing states post or just before the debates. It will be very interesting to see how they go.

More is coming out now

Reports: Four women accuse Trump of inappropriately touching them years apart

www.aol.com/article/2016/10/12/four-women-accuse-trump-of-inappropriately-touching-them-years-a/21581448/

The reason it's surprising is that most mainstream media spend the entire time seeking to induce a feeling of shame in voters leaning towards Trump. They then are frightfully shocked at the election when it becomes apparent that they did indeed induce enough shame for people to lie to pollsters, on the phone, online and to the face. For example: after the tape shaming, it's surprising Trump's poll numbers didn't dip further. What would be even more surprising would be if most of those who said they would no longer vote, weren't actually lying out of induced shame.

Hillary Clinton is incapable of learning. She is as much a narcissist as Donald Trump and is in addition wholly self-righteous. She does not think she WAS wrong about Benghazi, Libya, Syria, the emails, the women she has traduced, and she does not think she IS wrong about the 'deplorables', health care, open borders, Islamist extremism or migration. She is a person without conscience.

I'm Asian, a woman, and a proud Trump supporter

This might help you understand some of the motivations behind people who back him. I really think this is such a problem with Clinton supporters, and the reason they aren't making more headway. Once upon a time it was enough to embarrass or poke fun at a political opponent you didn't understand, and so embarrass and shame their supporters. Clinton supporters are disgruntled that it's not happening that way any more, and not only do they not understand why, they don't try to understand why. They double down on their shaming - 'ignorant' becomes 'stupid and racist' - 'irresponsible' becomes 'selfish and dangerous'. They think that must work. And it doesn't - and they still don't understand why intelligent, educated people reject the Establishment/Clinton offering. They never bother to find out.

Re your last post: exactly that, doubling down on the shaming efforts. Do you think people who were not turned off by the evidence of the tape, will be turned off by this?

Of course part of it is something more sinister: an establishment effort to redefine the democratic process, not just influence voters. The absolute scandal that the Rebublican Speaker is not supporting the voters' choice for Republican candidate, and the absolute scandal the President Obama is urging the party to renounce the voters' choice, are testament to this outrageous undermining and ignoring of the voice of the people, which should be paramount. They are hoping to pressurise the Republican authorities (who they know have a strong instinct to self-preservation, whatever the people want) to disengage entirely from what Republican voters have asked for, and thus delegitimise Donald Trump - just in case the shaming doesn't work.

It's actually rather horrific.

How is women complaining about lewd actions by Trump shaming?

The tapes were dismissed (mostly by him) as locker talk. Women come forward as saying he actually did those things.

I was looking up earlier at a list of articles about this on Christian sites. Many people were appalled by Trump and the general feeling was that a 3rd party candidate was preferable.

Regarding open borders, while Trump claims to want to take jobs back to the US and companies back, his actions show he'd rather get cheaper products elsewhere. I don't see how he'll make many of those products cheaper in the US without raising taxes to imports (but that will mean other countries will impose taxes on US exports too) or lowering salaries for US workers...

"who dare voice an opinion where HRC is not the best all and end all"

No, Clinton will receive votes from many people who would much rather vote for somebody else.

However, given a choice between Clinton and Trump, she becomes the only choice.

It comes down to Obama's comments after Trump couldn't resist tweeting abusive comments about the family of a Gold Star soldier. (Note - not a disagreement about policy, but disgust at a man who can't resist social media trolling even when he is standing for president).

there have been Republican Presidents with whom I disagreed with, but I didn’t have a doubt that they could function as President. I think I was right, and Mitt Romney and John McCain were wrong on certain policy issues, but I never thought that they couldn’t do the job. And had they won, I would have been disappointed, but I would have said to all Americans they are -- this is our President, and I know they’re going to abide by certain norms and rules and common sense, will observe basic decency, will have enough knowledge about economic policy and foreign policy and our constitutional traditions and rule of law that our government will work, and then we’ll compete four years from now to try to win an election.

But that’s not the situation here.

The US needs a president who is ideally competent, but if even that isn't possible, somebody who will listen to advice and act like a president. The Republicans are dropping support for Trump because they know that even if they can control Senate and Congress, they can't control a man who can't control himself.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Clinton, we have somehow reached a point where she is the only viable person standing. At the moment the Republican party don't have a candidate.

Agree with merry

And claig, claig, claig i am honestly dissappointed by this

'47% of cuts in Trump's tax plan are for the richest 1%.That's OK, incentive to invest and work hard and take risks. Incentive to earn and prosper and not have it taken away by a corrupt 'political class'

I am not quoting the rest because its the trump helping his mates out and you thinking that its ok is the important bit to me.

I need to find this mythical preview button that winchester says makes amal such a posting expert

(I do know where it is really, it just never occurs to me to use it)

there's a preview button? shuffles off to find it

No, Clinton will receive votes from many people who would much rather vote for somebody else.
Just like trump will receive many votes from people who'd rather have a complete and utter eejit running the country
However, given a choice between Clinton and Trump, she becomes the only choice

Seriously? There are plenty of third party options and if I were given a choice of only clump, I'd void my voting ballot.

There are those who attack, viciously at times, by lying, implying illegal behaviour and using defamatory comments if they come across a poster who dares speak out against clinton. They decry free speech and then report the comments and poster they disagree with too.

-viva la rivoluzione--

This might help you understand some of the motivations behind people who back him. Not really, no. From the article:

I recognize in Trump the key ingredients that have made success possible in my own life. As a child of the ghetto, I succeeded in extracting myself—and my family—from urban dysfunction and decay not just because I worked hard but because I dreamt big, took risks no one I knew would take, and kept faith in America’s promise.

Trump’s story is wildly more successful and dramatic, but it resonates with me nonetheless.

Trump received millions and millions of dollars from his father.

He is a very successful reality TV star, but as far as business is concerned, there is no evidence that he has generated a better return than your average UK 70 year old buying a house in the London suburbs 30 years ago.

He can certainly talk the talk, and he has managed to persuade a lot of people to lend him money:

"I do it all the time in business. It’s called other people’s money. There’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money because it takes the risk — you get a good chunk out of it and it takes the risk."

Whether he has done anything more worthwhile with the money than create his own personal brand is another question. He has certainly lost a lot of other people's money.

I'm sure Ying Ma has reasons for both writing the article and supporting Trump. What she hasn't done is made an evidence based argument for anybody else to support Trump.