Oh I know that Sanders supporters are anti-establishment.

But that wasn't really what I was talking about.

I was referring to the fact that Sanders himself hasn't taken the gloves off and instead tried a more "civilized" approach.
AND the DNC is practically anointing Hillary as their choice (Super Delegates anyone?)

My point was that she has had a comparably easy-breezy time with the campaign so far.
CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC...they all treat her with kid gloves. The only exception would be Fox News. And they don't go after her hard. They simply zero in on her problems while the other media sources ignore them.

Now Trump on the other hand....he has The Koch Brothers, the entire Republican establishment, the RNC, the DNC, and ALL of the media (including Fox News) attacking him and trying to ruin him on a daily basis.

That's what I was trying to point out.

If you think that Sanders supporters on Reddit are "tough" on Hillary (when most people don't even see that stuff)...just wait until the general election when Trump blasts her with both cannons and it's all over every news cycle 24 hours a day.

Trumps "vision"? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Fucking rainbows and unicorns about walls and bringing jobs bag to america? Coming from duche bag who makes his shirts in China? :1orglaugh

Not true.

you know damn well wtf i'm referring to. don't try and be a dick, it doesn't suit you kane.

Most recently was Reagan's 2 terms immediately followed by Bush Sr.'s one term

And of course there was FDR...all by himself he got elected to four terms and THEN his Vice President Truman won re-election in 1948

:)

It actually happened not too long. Bush lost to Clinton in 1992 so it wasn't all that long ago. We also nearly saw it happen again after Clinton. Had it not been for a strange looking ballot and some shenanigans in Florida Gore likely would have won in 2000.

Perhaps in the last 15 years the political landscape has changed enough that it may not happen again for a while, but to me it has happened recently enough that it isn't some kind of historical pattern.

Pet Rocks ? :Graucho

Trump is going to lose in every swing state. Mark my words.

Florida poll: Hillary Clinton easily beats Ted Cruz or Donald Trump

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-bu...-trump/2275571

New Minnesota Poll Shows Clinton Ahead Of Trump « WCCO | CBS Minnesota

it's happened 2x in ~100 years. once under war time/adverse conditions. that's a historically significant statistic.

Oddly enough Fox News still has Clinton in the lead by 7%.

One poll of one thousand people does not make an election.

i think the assumption that she wins swing votes is wildly off.

And we hear from the knucklehead - you didn't claim to be anything, and no ones cares what you do or don't claim!

I wasn't going to answer your earlier post, out of pity, but I guess I have to engage now.

1. Historic not "historical" and it is because she would be the first woman president. Regardless of your inability to comprehend that, it matters to a lot of people.

2. On this very board you've been repeatedly smacked down for your ridiculous claim that "neither party has ever held the WH for 3 consecutive terms." Where the fuck do you get that nonsense from? Roosevelt himself was four terms, three of which he served. Reagan had two terms and then Bush Sr. was one term, making three republican terms. You'll look like less of a dipshit if you don't come on here spouting ignorant nonsense like that.

Do us all a favor, post less, read more.

dear hillary cocksucker,

i am going to rub your shitstained nose in your own hillary bullshit in about 6 fucking months, after she loses the race. and i am going to do that day after motherfucking day and post after mother fucking post. buckle up shitstain.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

yeah. the swing voters been voting "status quo" all primary season long...

:1orglaugh

No I'll give you that, she was a "sure thing" and he was a "joke". But there is a very strong irrational resentment to her candidacy within the democrat party.

To a certain extent, though, the media has always been on the democrat's side. I don't think that is going to change. I think they'll be in the tank for her, fair or not.

Not the latest poll. You just don't read or else you are intentionally doing this all the time. :(

I am going to bookmark this one. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

fuck off you half ass troll pussy. I have a life, and I'll do fine whether she wins or not. Further, loser, I'll repost all your failed nomination prediction threads and show what a true, worthless dipshit you are, you methhead freak.

The only polls that will really matter are those in the swing states. In a general election the national poll is nice and it can tell you how things are trending, but if Trump can't win Pennsylvania and Ohio he isn't going to win the White House. What the polls in those two states look like after the conventions is what will really matter.

dear hillary cocksucker,

i've decided to move up the schedule on rubbing your fucking nose in your own shit.


Historic re-election pattern doesn't favor Democrats in 2016

I don't think it's irrational. It wouldn't have mattered this year if it were Hillary or some other candidate.

The people are looking for someone not embedded in the Washington establishment.
Hillary is deeply, deeply ingrained in it. It's her whole life.

Sanders is seen (rightly or wrongly) as NOT being a part of that system.

People are looking for someone not a part of that system of corruption. Both Trump and Sanders fit that bill. They are seen as outsiders to Washington D.C.

Any other time in the past and both Trump and Sanders would have never made it past the first week.
But NOW...the people have much more information than at any time in history at their fingertips.

Combine that with almost 20 trillion in debt, endless wars, the govt. spying on everyone to a heightened degree, bailouts that saved the banks...while those same banks foreclosed on people's homes, etc. , etc. and you end up with a "perfect storm".

Robbie posts a poll that has changed. Response: doesn't matter, these polls say otherwise!

Not even the point. That sort of deflection and denial is what could very well lead Trump to the White House. Republicans played the same exact game and look how that turned out.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh You can barely read and yet your toothless methhead ass brings a news link in here? Read the fuckin article, you loser, where it says the republicans held the white house for three terms. Are you gonna edit that post right above where you show how stupid you are? Go ahead! Say what you said again, claim "no party has ever held the white house for 3 terms." I'm waiting for you to have some courage instead of being a worthless pussy troll: did you or did you not post that?

Hillary equals evil.

Here I quoted it for you, so even when you're tweaking it will still be there:

you pointless methhead, you never met a fact you couldn't screw up. Post an article about that, dumbass.

I agree. Where we differ is the assumption that Trump would be any different. Bill Clinton did not do any of the above. Middle class income rose, we didn't really have any perma-wars, there was a surplus rather than a deficit. They stopped selling the long bond because we didn't need to borrow. I've only seen a centrist democrat do those things. Hillary Clinton is the only one running. However, if Trump wins it will be waaaaay better than any other republican running.

I mean, Reagan was an establishment republican, but he was not politically correct and was a bit of a maverick. He was also the first big deficit president. Donald Trump is utterly unprecedented. Who can be sure what he'll do in the molasses of bureaucracy?

This is the big sticking point. The president can only do so much without the help of the congress which currently doesn't seem to have any interest in actually doing their job.

If Trump wins I won't be shocked to see the democrats return the filibustering favor and work to block anything he does out of spite. There is also fear that Trump might bring the party down with him and cost them the Senate and maybe even the House. If either of those occur there will likely be gridlock in Washington. Not to mention many republicans hate Trump and may not be very willing to work with him.

Until we start voting the people in congress out most presidents will have a pretty minimal effect on the country as a whole.

I loved Bill Clinton as President. BUT...I am not so blinded by his coolness that I don't realize that he had the gift of the Internet Bubble which created thousands of new industries out of thin air.

His gift and talent during his Presidency was to keep the greedy fucks in Govt. from fucking up the Internet. Basically by just staying out of the way.

And even though "just staying out of the way" sounds easy enough...not many politicians have EVER had the wisdom to do that in history. lol

As for Trump...I think he's going to burn the old system to the ground. It needs to be done. Plain and simple.

I may be wrong, I certainly can't predict the future. But I think people LIKE the fact that Trump won't do the "same old business as usual" that has fucked our people over for so long.

It is going to be interesting if Trump wins and he puts Lyin' Ted on the Supreme Court. I found his quote that he would consider it quite scary. I wonder if a deal was struck considering how fast Teddy dropped out after Indiana.

That concerns me a lot. I wonder if it concerns the Trump fan boys here. To me it is exactly what Trump would do. His ego is in charge and he wants to be president, he has no concern for his actual impact on people. He won't fuck with this industry purposely, however he is now an R and will reward people who would love to. But yeah, yay Trump right.

So far Trump has always tempered his ego. He has ways of conveying his displeasure, but he doesn't act like a megalomaniac.

This Mr. Smith goes to Washington vibe is nice. But Robbie, burn the whole thing down, seriously? What do you imagine the positive outcome will be? I see the attractiveness of it, maybe the NSA and IRS will be reigned in, perhaps rampant political correctness will lose its militancy, perhaps global wars will stop bleeding us dry at the point of a gun so the contractors (who all want Kasich) get rich.

But that assumes he can do something that NO president has been able to do. Is he the man of the millenium? The unique hero?

I know Bill Clinton is not a bad man. Does he like pussy? Sure. So do I. But I've seen him and Hillary with my own eyes, talked to them briefly. He could have done so much more to enrich the elite. Instead he disrupted and created middle class wealth, stopped the borrowers control of the US. Remember when Japan was going to own the US, etc etc. The said "Half the blocks in America are filled with empty buildings that we Japanese paid too much for, and the other half are burning". BC ended all that. The long boom may have been some luck, but having a great motorcycle doesn't mean you're a good rider. You have to have both.

sure is :2 cents:

exactly why no matter how 'bad' a trump win will be, it'll actually be the best thing to ever happen in politics for the last 100 years. I truly wish we had the same scenario over here in the UK. Not because I think someone like Trump is the best person for the job, but because there's the slimmest chance the establishment *may* just finally fucking understand just how pissed off the people they are supposed to be serving, are.

The truly 'big' things NEED a rock bottom to force an understanding, and action of change, so I'm hoping Trump goes all the way, purely for the much larger picture. It might also make people over here realise we don't have to put up with the standard 2 party system that does nothing but fuck people over, and interfere in more and more aspects of our lives, no matter what ideals, and promises they spout.

It's also weird looking in on the US from the outside during this whole thing. I don't pretend to know anything other than the very basics of politics - it disgusts me tbh, and I refuse to be played for a cunt and a mark - but seeing the media and their desperation tactics... it's mind-blowing.

This is the most even-handed and honest European post on Trump I think I've seen anywhere. Usually all you get is 90% "how awful that he hates muslims, mexicans, and women!" (none of which he has ever said) or the 10% "Yeah!! Destroy the world!!!! Trump ist der deathtöünge! Clinton is CIA Illuminati Trilateral anti-Christ!""

I would say ... he would be doing something that NO president has ever WANTED to do.
They have all been part of the establishment and the main goal has always been to keep the gravy train flowing.

Nobody in Washington D.C. has ever truly tried to stop it. They all PROMISE to, but they never do.

And then here comes Trump. Just an example of what Trump has said: He publicly has said to the Pharmaceutical Companies that they "Don't own" him and he doesn't "give a damn" what they want in regards to keeping pharmaceutical prices for Americans higher than anywhere else in the world.

Yeah...he needs to BURN DOWN the establishment.

I see nothing in the establishment of Washington D.C. that is GOOD for our country in any way.
Unless you are one of the companies that thrives off of wars, and makes a fortune off of bogus Federal Contracts while the debt continues to rise, or one of the companies that the govt. allows to price gouge.

If you are one of those companies...you are pro-Hillary all the way.

dear hillary cocksucker,

when i chat with adults, they can grasp the topic and the intent of what's being communicated.they try to understand, not try to misunderstand. the funny thing about you is i tried to chat with you like an adult. you claimed hillary has some sort of edge due to being "historic" and i respectfully asked you what that is and i respectfully counter-pointed your wild exclamation. your reaction to that was to call me a hillary hater/fake democrat and then get cunty over some sort of difference you think there is between historic and historical while claiming HIllary has an historic edge based on absolutely nothing.

you're a bloated joke of yourself.

Fuck off you idiot troll. You don't know the meaning of respect. No one has it for you, and you show it for no one. Don't respond to my posts, I won't respond to yours.

Dear hillarycock sucker,

It's all in this thread, dumbfuck. You're too fucking simple minded to even realize that.

For the Hillary cocksucker


You dumbfuckwad, you claimed Hillary has an historic edge because she's female.

That's the stupidest fucking thing you could have wrote. There is none. Dumbfuckwad.

Great, let's update to the latest polls which show.... The same exact thing.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Rasmussen Reports is the ONLY one showing Trump in the lead. Fox News has Clinton up by 7%.

One poll of a thousand people.... Is not the entire picture when ALL of other polls show the direct opposite.

Trying to apply all of that type of reasoning to this election is like trying to waste hours doing a conventional worth while fundamental analysis of a penny stock

This is uncharted territory