Bollucks. If anyone thinks hillary moved an inch on her actual plans for TPP, I got a bridge to sell them
I said it before, Hillary gave Sanders nothing but lip service because he had no leverage over her by the end. The problem is that sanders was too pragmatic and too concerned with the democrats winning, so he couldn't make any believable threat to pull support from hillary. Since he was going to throw in with her either way, all he could do is delay, he knew it, she knew it, and so he couldn't extort her into any meaningful concessions. If sanders was a wildcard like trump who would burn down the DNC if he didn't get his way, she'd have to cowtow to his base. Instead, she took only superficial support for policies she has no plans on actually supporting in office, only the ones she can exploit as favorable campaign issues and then renege on easily like TPP and minimum wage.

He won the RNC debates with that procedure, but the biggest problem of the modern Republican party is having a feasible general election candidate make it out of their quite insane primary. As Jeb Bush said they are stuck in a position where they have to lose the primary to win the general and he is somewhat right with this dynamic. The two final contenders were Trump and Cruz, two people that well over half the country just won't vote for....Cruz was a leper just months prior to that because of how weird he is and his little stunts.

I don't think it is over either. I do love piling it on in some internet forums on the supporters of the Trump and the RNC such as yourself, just like I would dog out any fan of a team the Bengals are smashing the crap out of. It is halfway through the game and HRC has been running the score up, Trump has had a lot of turnovers, fumbles, and bad calls, like going for it on 4th and 10 with a lot of clock left with the Khan family for example.

Trump can go ahead and talk about all these non-policy things if he wants, but it isn't doing him any favors. He could bring up that HRC has ruthlessly hunted down and killed America's enemies if he wants, it is only going to appeal to a small audience of people who miss Mubarak, Qaddafi, Saddam, or even Zine El Abidine Ben Ali being in power. This is a small group of people. The bank bailouts won't stick to her. If they keep talking about Benghazi, even after it is widely known that the state department acted to the fullest extent of their power and there was no available military response....the Obama Administration got on television and said the wrong thing and the conspiracy theorists talking "cover up". Well I doubt the conspiracy theorists crowd makes up a huge percentage of the electorate. Politicians are wrong sometimes. Trump can claim to be infallible, but it just means he has no humility. Not sure what they can say about Syria and ISIS, that is primarily Russia and Assad's creation, along with the Gulf States. The only thing the US could have done was intervene more and risk outright hostility with Russia. Our Georgia war was close enough to a major disaster, even though many people don't realize this.

All Clinton has to do is stick to policy and keep pointing out that Donald Trump refuses to talk about being president of the United States, refuses to say what he is going to, that he has made offers to other people (Kasich) to basically be president for him (control all foreign and domestic policy), and when he does finally make some policy points about what he is going to do, it is going to be the exact same things Republicans say will solve every single problem, from race relations in Ferguson to the Transpacific Pipeline, cut taxes for rich people! If the wealthy just had more money things would change (puke). I don't think people are hearing that, or Romney wouldn't have lost in such a landslide, and McCain before him.

Also, Trump handled Rubio, who is pretty new on the scene and lacks confidence. Rubio is no Obama, despite all the GOP hopes and dreams. He is no HRC either. The son of relatively wealthy immigrants who primarily lives and works in Washington DC. Why did he lie about his parents fleeing Castro in Cuba anyway? They just moved here, before any of that stuff went down. Why make up this big story about being "the child of exiles" and talk about his parents "fleeing from that thug Castro" who was living in Mexico City. They fled Batista not Castro. Next he is going to say that his dad was a survivor of the Bay of Pigs invasion and swam back to Florida after dodging a bullet shot by Che himself Yes Trump emasculated little Marco on stage. It won't work so easily with HRC.

She is going to be able to hammer him on so many things though. She will attack his ability to run the country, and cite him hiding his tax information as evidence that he isn't who he says he is.



It is amazing how people with the most support win every time



Agreed about the new hires. That isn't even a real organization. They are widely known as liars.



It is crazy to support a candidate to will burn down the house if he doesn't get what he wants. Sounds like an epic temper tantrum. That is the GOP side of things, all passion and emotion. We're a bit cooler and more rational on the liberal side.

I guess I'm not ready to burn down the house yet.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 19 2016 05:47am

He wants less government & lower taxes. Hillary wants more government & higher taxes. What's the problem ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They're going to attack each other. Who has more to lose from the mudslinging?
Trump has no reason to keep harping on policy, and Hillary won't score many points by criticizing him on it, we already know that message falls flat. It didn't work against obama in 2008, it won't work against trump in 2016. Her campaign is laying traps for him and ramping up the mudslinging, and you can bet she'll have prescripted stinger moments in each debate with some witty line a staff writer whipped up just to skewer trump. But if she tries to engage him on the issues, not only is she evening up the playing field, she's weak in that arena anyway, she can't make statements about "Race relations, TPP, wealth inequality" etc when she's knee deep in baggage on every issue. If she tries to make the debate about trade, trump will call her out on her TPP flip flop. If she tries to make it about foreign policy, he'll call her out on benghazi, libya, syria, the iraq war, you name it. Doesn't matter where trump stood, he just has to call her a liar and hypocrite. If she tries to make it about the economy, he says the words 'goldman sachs' and where does she go from their.

Hillary had an opponent in the primaries who kept the kid gloves on and she still got cloistered by the campaign in hopes of damage control. With trump unloading on her, she needs to smear him more than he can her. And so far with the media, she's done exactly that.

But you have to see the parallels to Rubio: Hillary is a scripted carefully managed establishment candidate doing photo ops. She can smile and read a teleprompter, but her off-script moments have been unimpressive or disastrous like kosovo snipers. She's far better at the routine than rubio, and she won't crack as easily with a shitty script, she has a far more organized and well funded staff for that kind of breakdown. But in terms of optics, putting a WWE style showman in the ring with a robot and the crowd won't be on her side.



Its crazy to support a hawk who wants to start more wars and rattle sabres with china and the DPRK and russia. One of my biggest concerns in this election is which candidate is less likely to burn down the house and get us all killed, and thats the main reason I favor trump.
We've had this discussion before. Theres no real reason to think trump is some madman who will nuke france when he gets offended. Being an egotistical populist and being an unstable madman are not the same thing, nor mutually exclusive.
As trump has a long record of stability, no mental breakdowns, no violence on his record, theres nothing to your position but media mythologizing and labeling

I'm supposed to believe in some narrative of "Temper Tantrums"? I give that about as much weight as arguments about hillary being unfit for presidency because of 'that time of the month'
But we already know and have ample documented evidence that Hillary is a wanton militarist who is recklessly gungho about bombing other countries, even threatening nuclear powers.
She's at least as much a hawk as George W. Bush, probably more. We had 8 years of that, how did it turn out?

Two liberal judges though.



You're not wrong. It is going to be interesting. I suppose I'm supporting four more years of status quo because of how obnoxiously racist of a candidate Trump is. What he proposes is abandoning the first amendment and white only immigration. I wish there was an alternative, but the only choice in this election is between HRC and Trump.

That just shows you how uninformed people are... Bernie appeals to the low information voter with his bumper sticker lines. People tune Clinton out because she actually talks about policy.

Conway is too little way too late but she is so much more bearable than everyone else he hires

anddddddd manafort resigns

figured this would happen after conway and bannon came aboard