Did Hilary encourage Donald Trump to run for president?

['Butterflies']

and most media outlets are heavily left leaning and all reporting is done deliberately through this bias.

Certainly not the case in Britain. Our populist tabloids are frothing at the mouth right wingers

[Al Swearegen]

and most media outlets are heavily left leaning and all reporting is done deliberately through this bias.

Certainly not the case in Britain. Our populist tabloids are frothing at the mouth right wingers

That is just as bad for same reasons. Are they considered news or viewed as a cut above gossip. (Not that it really matters. Just curious).

Here, pretty much all outlets promote a Liberal bias at best and "progressive"  values at worst.

It's like with the whole media dogpiling Trump.  Trump's an Arsehole.  In principle I don't have an issue with this SO LONG as they equally as negative with Hilary because she has equal amounts of crap on her
But they don't. The same is for each issue.

['andersom']

and most media outlets are heavily left leaning and all reporting is done deliberately through this bias.

Certainly not the case in Britain. Our populist tabloids are frothing at the mouth right wingers

That is just as bad for same reasons. Are they considered news or viewed as a cut above gossip. (Not that it really matters. Just curious).

Here, pretty much all outlets promote a Liberal bias at best and "progressive"  values at worst.

It's like with the whole media dogpiling Trump.  Trump's an Arsehole.  In principle I don't have an issue with this SO LONG as they equally as negative with Hilary because she has equal amounts of crap on her
But they don't. The same is for each issue.

Tells more about the media than about the candidates.

Newspapers and programs here are more or less biased, but in all directions. So reading from a few sources gives different perspectives. That does help.

[Al Swearegen]

and most media outlets are heavily left leaning and all reporting is done deliberately through this bias.

Certainly not the case in Britain. Our populist tabloids are frothing at the mouth right wingers

That is just as bad for same reasons. Are they considered news or viewed as a cut above gossip. (Not that it really matters. Just curious).

Here, pretty much all outlets promote a Liberal bias at best and "progressive"  values at worst.

It's like with the whole media dogpiling Trump.  Trump's an Arsehole.  In principle I don't have an issue with this SO LONG as they equally as negative with Hilary because she has equal amounts of crap on her
But they don't. The same is for each issue.

Tells more about the media than about the candidates.

Newspapers and programs here are more or less biased, but in all directions. So reading from a few sources gives different perspectives. That does help.

Exactly. I have the internet which I do the same with

['Butterflies']

and most media outlets are heavily left leaning and all reporting is done deliberately through this bias.

Certainly not the case in Britain. Our populist tabloids are frothing at the mouth right wingers

That is just as bad for same reasons. Are they considered news or viewed as a cut above gossip. (Not that it really matters. Just curious).

Here, pretty much all outlets promote a Liberal bias at best and "progressive"  values at worst.

It's like with the whole media dogpiling Trump.  Trump's an Arsehole.  In principle I don't have an issue with this SO LONG as they equally as negative with Hilary because she has equal amounts of crap on her
But they don't. The same is for each issue.

Are they considered news or viewed as a cut above gossip.

Depends who you ask. If you ask a liberal (ie me ) they're little more than celebrity gossip mags, with some right wing propaganda thrown into the mix.
If you ask the geezer down the pub, who only deals in "common sense," then they're basically his only source of news.

It's like with the whole media dogpiling Trump.  Trump's an Arsehole.  In principle I don't have an issue with this SO LONG as they equally as negative with Hilary because she has equal amounts of crap on her

I think this is a different issue. I think we all know what we'll get if Hilary becomes President. A crooked politician, with vaguely centrist policies, and a cupboard full of skeletons waiting to come out. She will put personal ambition above all else. Maybe she might do averagely, or maybe worse, but worst case scenario, she will just be a shit Prez. She won't set the world on fire, she won't nuke Mexico, and she certainly won't take a dump in the middle of the National People's Congress on a state visit to China.

The Donald is being vilified because he shows many of the signs of being a fascist. He is also openly bigoted against a large percentage of his own people.

There is simply no way to give equally negative coverage to Hilary and Trump.


I haven't come across many people who like Hilary, and I don't think many people will vote for her out of affection. The problem is, the only alternative should be completely unelectable in normal circumstances.

[odeon]

And Britain certainly isn't immune. I'm very disappointed in the direction Britain is taking. I worry that it's becoming a rather racist place

It's no worse than Sweden. Different, maybe, but I can only compare what I see in London and in Gothenburg.

That's my point. I've always seen Sweden as a safe, sane country. What hope do countries like Hungary have, when countries like Sweden, Britain, and The Netherlands are lurching into xenophobia.

I'm ashamed of my country these days.

Me too

And I'm worried, democracy and freedom of speech are not as secure as they once seemed to be.

In the Netherlands Geert Wilders wants prominent people sacked if they say something negative about his party. (Like a philosopher of politics, who made some remarks not the way Wilders liked them.) That's a "small" thing. The Polish government wants to shut up the constitutional court.

Scary developments.

Jimmie Åkesson, Wilders' Swedish equivalent, has aired similar thoughts.

But I still think we all live in more humane countries than Denmark where the authorities can now legally seize the assets of refugees. Can you imagine that? You take your family and whatever you can carry, flee the bombs and seek shelter in a foreign country... and upon arrival, they go through everything you have left and take grandma's jewelry and the inherited watch and the last bit of cash you brought.

[Al Swearegen]

Are they considered news or viewed as a cut above gossip.

Depends who you ask. If you ask a liberal (ie me ) they're little more than celebrity gossip mags, with some right wing propaganda thrown into the mix.
If you ask the geezer down the pub, who only deals in "common sense," then they're basically his only source of news.

Fair enough. I mentally pictured them (purely by your description) to be like the lowbrow Woman's Day or Woman's Weekly or Cosmopolitan or whatever ladies read here, in terms of newsworthiness. I actually don't have any idea either way.

It's like with the whole media dogpiling Trump.  Trump's an Arsehole.  In principle I don't have an issue with this SO LONG as they equally as negative with Hilary because she has equal amounts of crap on her

I think this is a different issue. I think we all know what we'll get if Hilary becomes President. A crooked politician, with vaguely centrist policies, and a cupboard full of skeletons waiting to come out. She will put personal ambition above all else. Maybe she might do averagely, or maybe worse, but worst case scenario, she will just be a shit Prez. She won't set the world on fire, she won't nuke Mexico, and she certainly won't take a dump in the middle of the National People's Congress on a state visit to China.

The Donald is being vilified because he shows many of the signs of being a fascist. He is also openly bigoted against a large percentage of his own people.

There is simply no way to give equally negative coverage to Hilary and Trump.


I haven't come across many people who like Hilary, and I don't think many people will vote for her out of affection. The problem is, the only alternative should be completely unelectable in normal circumstances.

I think you are reading Donald Trump entirely wrong. I will explain my rationale.

Let's say the situation is that you see the problems of large swaths of possibly criminal fundamentalist Muslims streaming into US. You are concerned for the National security this would pose to the US and wish to avoid this. You feel that there are not good enough checked in place to counter this threat at present.

(This is obviously a hypothetical).Now if you are diplomatic you may say something like:

"There is a very real and pronounced problem within the greater Muslim immigrant community. Whilst many victims of horrible devastation are fleeing war torn lands and are wishing to start a fresh life elsewhere. There is an element who may flee with them. An element that is a risk to Americans and a danger to society. A small percentage of rotten apples and truly wolves in sheep's clothing. Rather than victims, these are the perpetrators of violence and crime and would use their countrymen as a shield to hide them from being detected until it is too late and they are already not at our borders, but inside our borders and amoung us.
We are therefore deciding to place a freeze on certain immigrants from certain countries until such time that we are in a position to better check the background and associations of potential migrants into our country."

You may get blowback and perhaps insinuations of racism or xenophobia BUT it would not be very unpalatable and may open up discussion.

Compared with what sort of thing Trump may say:

"The Muslims are criminals and trying to come into our country to do crimes over here. Not on my watch. I am not letting them in"

It is a PR Agents nightmare.

What I am saying is that maybe, if pressed "Donald do you actually mean ALL Muslims or that there is an element of Muslims who are criminally motivated." You would find he was talking shorthand. Maybe not too. That is what I get the impression of.

So he is seen as a bigot and xenophobe. Any possible nuance was never conveyed and the message is killed off in a rage of blowback. BUT I think people misjudge him.

I do not think he is a fascist or against free speech. In fact I think he is FOR free speech. Sure he criticises people being critical of him, but that is not being against free speech. Yes he does get protesters at his rally removed but why allow them to disrupt him. It is not doing him any favour and its his rally to share his message not their rally to convey their message.

I think a lot of this bluster and bullshit will fall away IF he is ever sitting down in the big chair (I DO NOT think he will win against Hillary). I think he will be teachable and malleable. I do not think she will be.

['Butterflies']

I think you are reading Donald Trump entirely wrong. I will explain my rationale.

Let's say the situation is that you see the problems of large swaths of possibly criminal fundamentalist Muslims streaming into US. You are concerned for the National security this would pose to the US and wish to avoid this. You feel that there are not good enough checked in place to counter this threat at present.

(This is obviously a hypothetical).Now if you are diplomatic you may say something like:

"There is a very real and pronounced problem within the greater Muslim immigrant community. Whilst many victims of horrible devastation are fleeing war torn lands and are wishing to start a fresh life elsewhere. There is an element who may flee with them. An element that is a risk to Americans and a danger to society. A small percentage of rotten apples and truly wolves in sheep's clothing. Rather than victims, these are the perpetrators of violence and crime and would use their countrymen as a shield to hide them from being detected until it is too late and they are already not at our borders, but inside our borders and amoung us.
We are therefore deciding to place a freeze on certain immigrants from certain countries until such time that we are in a position to better check the background and associations of potential migrants into our country."

You may get blowback and perhaps insinuations of racism or xenophobia BUT it would not be very unpalatable and may open up discussion.

Compared with what sort of thing Trump may say:

"The Muslims are criminals and trying to come into our country to do crimes over here. Not on my watch. I am not letting them in"

It is a PR Agents nightmare.

What I am saying is that maybe, if pressed "Donald do you actually mean ALL Muslims or that there is an element of Muslims who are criminally motivated." You would find he was talking shorthand. Maybe not too. That is what I get the impression of.

So he is seen as a bigot and xenophobe. Any possible nuance was never conveyed and the message is killed off in a rage of blowback. BUT I think people misjudge him.

I do not think he is a fascist or against free speech. In fact I think he is FOR free speech. Sure he criticises people being critical of him, but that is not being against free speech. Yes he does get protesters at his rally removed but why allow them to disrupt him. It is not doing him any favour and its his rally to share his message not their rally to convey their message.

I think a lot of this bluster and bullshit will fall away IF he is ever sitting down in the big chair (I DO NOT think he will win against Hillary). I think he will be teachable and malleable. I do not think she will be.

Well, yes. There is the obvious suggestion that Trump doesn't really mean it, and that he's only saying what he's saying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. As soon as he gets into office, he'll get a grip and start behaving like a proper human. That the whole bigoted behaviour is just an act that he thinks has the best chance of securing his place in the White House.
It's perfectly possible, but:

1) The media can't report on what Trump might become when in office. He has no political experience and a history of changing political views, so they certainly can't judge him on his history. They can only judge, and report, on what he says, and the "policies" he lays out, during elections. The things that he's said so far have been awful.

2) If indeed he is only presenting a vile bigoted face, to appeal to the base prejudices of a large chunk of the electorate, only to become a moderate when elected, then that would make him a fraud.

Compared with what sort of thing Trump may say:

"The Muslims are criminals and trying to come into our country to do crimes over here. Not on my watch. I am not letting them in"

It is a PR Agents nightmare.

What I am saying is that maybe, if pressed "Donald do you actually mean ALL Muslims or that there is an element of Muslims who are criminally motivated." You would find he was talking shorthand. Maybe not too. That is what I get the impression of.

Being able to talk in shorthand is not a luxury that a President possesses. Yes, man on the street may speak that way, and he'll get away with it because his words are irrelevant. The President on the other hand, has to be clear about the meaning of his words. Especially on such a highly charged subject as race relations.
If he was speaking in shorthand, and he really didn't intend for his words to be taken at face value, then such a misjudgement alone should show that he lacks the tact necessary to take on such an important role. Especially a role where what you say, and the image that you present, is almost as important the things you do.

(I DO NOT think he will win against Hillary)

I'm not so convinced. At the moment, he's a rank outsider, and it looks highly unlikely that he'll win. I think he will have a few tricks up his sleeve though. His team will be digging through Hilarys, and Bills, past looking for every bit of dirt. They won't have to dig too deep, but if they do, imagine what they might find Bills history of alleged sexual assault, and possible rape, will be under the microscope. Every bit of corrupt dealing that Hilary, or Bill, perpetrated while climbing the greasy pole will be investigated. By the time of the election, much of the electorate will be convinced that Hilary should in jail.
Add to that, that Hilary is just genuinely not a likeable person.
Almost any other Democrat would be guaranteed a win against Trump. Sadly not Sanders, but any Democrat with a fairly wide appeal. Hilary is probably just about the worst candidate that the Democrats could put forward.

[Al Swearegen]

I think you are reading Donald Trump entirely wrong. I will explain my rationale.

Let's say the situation is that you see the problems of large swaths of possibly criminal fundamentalist Muslims streaming into US. You are concerned for the National security this would pose to the US and wish to avoid this. You feel that there are not good enough checked in place to counter this threat at present.

(This is obviously a hypothetical).Now if you are diplomatic you may say something like:

"There is a very real and pronounced problem within the greater Muslim immigrant community. Whilst many victims of horrible devastation are fleeing war torn lands and are wishing to start a fresh life elsewhere. There is an element who may flee with them. An element that is a risk to Americans and a danger to society. A small percentage of rotten apples and truly wolves in sheep's clothing. Rather than victims, these are the perpetrators of violence and crime and would use their countrymen as a shield to hide them from being detected until it is too late and they are already not at our borders, but inside our borders and amoung us.
We are therefore deciding to place a freeze on certain immigrants from certain countries until such time that we are in a position to better check the background and associations of potential migrants into our country."

You may get blowback and perhaps insinuations of racism or xenophobia BUT it would not be very unpalatable and may open up discussion.

Compared with what sort of thing Trump may say:

"The Muslims are criminals and trying to come into our country to do crimes over here. Not on my watch. I am not letting them in"

It is a PR Agents nightmare.

What I am saying is that maybe, if pressed "Donald do you actually mean ALL Muslims or that there is an element of Muslims who are criminally motivated." You would find he was talking shorthand. Maybe not too. That is what I get the impression of.

So he is seen as a bigot and xenophobe. Any possible nuance was never conveyed and the message is killed off in a rage of blowback. BUT I think people misjudge him.

I do not think he is a fascist or against free speech. In fact I think he is FOR free speech. Sure he criticises people being critical of him, but that is not being against free speech. Yes he does get protesters at his rally removed but why allow them to disrupt him. It is not doing him any favour and its his rally to share his message not their rally to convey their message.

I think a lot of this bluster and bullshit will fall away IF he is ever sitting down in the big chair (I DO NOT think he will win against Hillary). I think he will be teachable and malleable. I do not think she will be.

Well, yes. There is the obvious suggestion that Trump doesn't really mean it, and that he's only saying what he's saying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. As soon as he gets into office, he'll get a grip and start behaving like a proper human. That the whole bigoted behaviour is just an act that he thinks has the best chance of securing his place in the White House.
It's perfectly possible, but:

1) The media can't report on what Trump might become when in office. He has no political experience and a history of changing political views, so they certainly can't judge him on his history. They can only judge, and report, on what he says, and the "policies" he lays out, during elections. The things that he's said so far have been awful.

2) If indeed he is only presenting a vile bigoted face, to appeal to the base prejudices of a large chunk of the electorate, only to become a moderate when elected, then that would make him a fraud.

Compared with what sort of thing Trump may say:

"The Muslims are criminals and trying to come into our country to do crimes over here. Not on my watch. I am not letting them in"

It is a PR Agents nightmare.

What I am saying is that maybe, if pressed "Donald do you actually mean ALL Muslims or that there is an element of Muslims who are criminally motivated." You would find he was talking shorthand. Maybe not too. That is what I get the impression of.

Being able to talk in shorthand is not a luxury that a President possesses. Yes, man on the street may speak that way, and he'll get away with it because his words are irrelevant. The President on the other hand, has to be clear about the meaning of his words. Especially on such a highly charged subject as race relations.
If he was speaking in shorthand, and he really didn't intend for his words to be taken at face value, then such a misjudgement alone should show that he lacks the tact necessary to take on such an important role. Especially a role where what you say, and the image that you present, is almost as important the things you do.

(I DO NOT think he will win against Hillary)

I'm not so convinced. At the moment, he's a rank outsider, and it looks highly unlikely that he'll win. I think he will have a few tricks up his sleeve though. His team will be digging through Hilarys, and Bills, past looking for every bit of dirt. They won't have to dig too deep, but if they do, imagine what they might find Bills history of alleged sexual assault, and possible rape, will be under the microscope. Every bit of corrupt dealing that Hilary, or Bill, perpetrated while climbing the greasy pole will be investigated. By the time of the election, much of the electorate will be convinced that Hilary should in jail.
Add to that, that Hilary is just genuinely not a likeable person.
Almost any other Democrat would be guaranteed a win against Trump. Sadly not Sanders, but any Democrat with a fairly wide appeal. Hilary is probably just about the worst candidate that the Democrats could put forward.

I think despite the attempt of The Republican GOP establishment, Trump will run against Hillary and will lose. I don't like Sanders BUT I think he was more honest than either of them.

As for digging on Hillary

The precise skills she based this on will allow her to be teflon for any accusations and skeletons Trump may bring to the fore.

Trump will have all the Kasich, Rubio, Cruz supporters abstaining or voting for Hillary. He is no chance to get in.

Trump is still playing that "You're fired" guy. The New York corporate bigshot BECAUSE that is all he has, poor bastard. He doesn't. "John you really tried your best in the challenge that was placed before you. It took you out of your comfort zone and tested the abilities that you had and I believe helped you develop some valuable skills. However there were a few mistakes made and a few others on your team seemed to show a bit more ingenuity and their result were a little better. Therefore I will have to advise you that unfortunately, I will have to let you go"

Not he is Donald Trump. Nuance and diplomacy are not his thing:

"You're fired!!!"

The thing is, is that the REASON Donald appeals is that he is this ballsy concise arrogant dickhead that seems to appeal to the common people. (Such people are far more easy to identify with than politician's politicians) BUT also he is a caricature. So recognisable. I am sure there are Americans who have NO idea who Ben Carson was nor John Kaisich nor Senator O'Malley BUT Trump? He is not even a politician. He is not a Senator. First bid for President, he HAS to be noticeable EVEN if it for the "wrong things".

To be completely honest, I do not think he is bigoted. I have heard for example that he supports and promote equality in his corporation for women and blacks and gays. However he will say dumb shit instead of thinking how it could be interpreted.

I heard today that he said "If they force a broker convention there will be riots in the street over this"
I am pretty sure that people will not riot over Donald and he meant. "people will be outraged" BUT it will be seen as inciting a riot. I heard that and laughed. Stupid call.

['Butterflies']

I think despite the attempt of The Republican GOP establishment, Trump will run against Hillary and will lose. I don't like Sanders BUT I think he was more honest than either of them.

As for digging on Hillary

The precise skills she based this on will allow her to be teflon for any accusations and skeletons Trump may bring to the fore.

Trump will have all the Kasich, Rubio, Cruz supporters abstaining or voting for Hillary. He is no chance to get in.

Trump is still playing that "You're fired" guy. The New York corporate bigshot BECAUSE that is all he has, poor bastard. He doesn't. "John you really tried your best in the challenge that was placed before you. It took you out of your comfort zone and tested the abilities that you had and I believe helped you develop some valuable skills. However there were a few mistakes made and a few others on your team seemed to show a bit more ingenuity and their result were a little better. Therefore I will have to advise you that unfortunately, I will have to let you go"

Not he is Donald Trump. Nuance and diplomacy are not his thing:

"You're fired!!!"

The thing is, is that the REASON Donald appeals is that he is this ballsy concise arrogant dickhead that seems to appeal to the common people. (Such people are far more easy to identify with than politician's politicians) BUT also he is a caricature. So recognisable. I am sure there are Americans who have NO idea who Ben Carson was nor John Kaisich nor Senator O'Malley BUT Trump? He is not even a politician. He is not a Senator. First bid for President, he HAS to be noticeable EVEN if it for the "wrong things".

To be completely honest, I do not think he is bigoted. I have heard for example that he supports and promote equality in his corporation for women and blacks and gays. However he will say dumb shit instead of thinking how it could be interpreted.

I heard today that he said "If they force a broker convention there will be riots in the street over this"
I am pretty sure that people will not riot over Donald and he meant. "people will be outraged" BUT it will be seen as inciting a riot. I heard that and laughed. Stupid call.

I liked Sanders. Well, I'm not sure I LIKED him. I agreed with his politics, but he just seemed a bit angry to really like Americans could never have handled him, because he's a *Shattner pause* Socialist SOCIALIST I mean that practically makes him a COMMUNIST  That must mean those pesky Ruskies are invading again


Now that it's all but certain to be a Trump v Hilary contest, I will make a friendly bet with you. We both agree Hilary is likely to win, but I bet you the race is significantly closer than you will expect, and by the time we get to polling day, Hilary's "reputation " will have been thoroughly trampled into the ground. The only thing that will see her limp over the line is the fact that thankfully enough people will just be too sane to vote for Trump.

[Parts]

Are they considered news or viewed as a cut above gossip.

Depends who you ask. If you ask a liberal (ie me ) they're little more than celebrity gossip mags, with some right wing propaganda thrown into the mix.
If you ask the geezer down the pub, who only deals in "common sense," then they're basically his only source of news.

Fair enough. I mentally pictured them (purely by your description) to be like the lowbrow Woman's Day or Woman's Weekly or Cosmopolitan or whatever ladies read here, in terms of newsworthiness. I actually don't have any idea either way.

It's like with the whole media dogpiling Trump.  Trump's an Arsehole.  In principle I don't have an issue with this SO LONG as they equally as negative with Hilary because she has equal amounts of crap on her

I think this is a different issue. I think we all know what we'll get if Hilary becomes President. A crooked politician, with vaguely centrist policies, and a cupboard full of skeletons waiting to come out. She will put personal ambition above all else. Maybe she might do averagely, or maybe worse, but worst case scenario, she will just be a shit Prez. She won't set the world on fire, she won't nuke Mexico, and she certainly won't take a dump in the middle of the National People's Congress on a state visit to China.

The Donald is being vilified because he shows many of the signs of being a fascist. He is also openly bigoted against a large percentage of his own people.

There is simply no way to give equally negative coverage to Hilary and Trump.


I haven't come across many people who like Hilary, and I don't think many people will vote for her out of affection. The problem is, the only alternative should be completely unelectable in normal circumstances.

I think you are reading Donald Trump entirely wrong. I will explain my rationale.

Let's say the situation is that you see the problems of large swaths of possibly criminal fundamentalist Muslims streaming into US. You are concerned for the National security this would pose to the US and wish to avoid this. You feel that there are not good enough checked in place to counter this threat at present.

(This is obviously a hypothetical).Now if you are diplomatic you may say something like:

"There is a very real and pronounced problem within the greater Muslim immigrant community. Whilst many victims of horrible devastation are fleeing war torn lands and are wishing to start a fresh life elsewhere. There is an element who may flee with them. An element that is a risk to Americans and a danger to society. A small percentage of rotten apples and truly wolves in sheep's clothing. Rather than victims, these are the perpetrators of violence and crime and would use their countrymen as a shield to hide them from being detected until it is too late and they are already not at our borders, but inside our borders and amoung us.
We are therefore deciding to place a freeze on certain immigrants from certain countries until such time that we are in a position to better check the background and associations of potential migrants into our country."

You may get blowback and perhaps insinuations of racism or xenophobia BUT it would not be very unpalatable and may open up discussion.

Compared with what sort of thing Trump may say:

"The Muslims are criminals and trying to come into our country to do crimes over here. Not on my watch. I am not letting them in"

It is a PR Agents nightmare.

What I am saying is that maybe, if pressed "Donald do you actually mean ALL Muslims or that there is an element of Muslims who are criminally motivated." You would find he was talking shorthand. Maybe not too. That is what I get the impression of.

So he is seen as a bigot and xenophobe. Any possible nuance was never conveyed and the message is killed off in a rage of blowback. BUT I think people misjudge him.

I do not think he is a fascist or against free speech. In fact I think he is FOR free speech. Sure he criticises people being critical of him, but that is not being against free speech. Yes he does get protesters at his rally removed but why allow them to disrupt him. It is not doing him any favour and its his rally to share his message not their rally to convey their message.

I think a lot of this bluster and bullshit will fall away IF he is ever sitting down in the big chair (I DO NOT think he will win against Hillary). I think he will be teachable and malleable. I do not think she will be.

Voters on the political right finally believe they have found their weapon in beating back a scourge of social justice both online and in demonstrations across the country, and they believe that weapon is Donald Trump. To hear it told, the brash, supposedly un-PC outsider is just the ticket that conservatives need if they are to restore balance to the societal scale and end the shame-based culture of social justice. But a closer look at Donald Trump’s actions and words clearly show a disturbing pattern: Not only is he a long way from being the proud free-speech activist he claims to be, but he is in fact the most politically correct candidate running for the presidency in 2016. Trump consistently uses the threat of authority to silence those who criticize him, and such banana-republic tactics set conservatives on edge. Not being social-justice warriors by nature, conservatives don’t seek out ideological opponents in the hopes of silencing them through protests, brute force, or judicial restraint. And they are wary of a social-justice god king barreling toward them from their (supposedly) right flank.

On more than one occasion, he has expressed his desire to “open up” libel laws so he can punish journalists who write “mean” things about him. He has urged the FCC to suspend his critics on television. On social media, he has demanded that his critics be fired, much to the delight of his mob of anonymous supporters, who flood the accounts of those Trump has singled out. Some online Trump enforcers have even attempted to “dox” the naysayers by revealing their personal info on the Internet.

   Link
 
His love of free speech only concerns those who he agrees with others not so much 

 Opps had to fix the quoting in the post

[Al Swearegen]

I think despite the attempt of The Republican GOP establishment, Trump will run against Hillary and will lose. I don't like Sanders BUT I think he was more honest than either of them.

As for digging on Hillary

The precise skills she based this on will allow her to be teflon for any accusations and skeletons Trump may bring to the fore.

Trump will have all the Kasich, Rubio, Cruz supporters abstaining or voting for Hillary. He is no chance to get in.

Trump is still playing that "You're fired" guy. The New York corporate bigshot BECAUSE that is all he has, poor bastard. He doesn't. "John you really tried your best in the challenge that was placed before you. It took you out of your comfort zone and tested the abilities that you had and I believe helped you develop some valuable skills. However there were a few mistakes made and a few others on your team seemed to show a bit more ingenuity and their result were a little better. Therefore I will have to advise you that unfortunately, I will have to let you go"

Not he is Donald Trump. Nuance and diplomacy are not his thing:

"You're fired!!!"

The thing is, is that the REASON Donald appeals is that he is this ballsy concise arrogant dickhead that seems to appeal to the common people. (Such people are far more easy to identify with than politician's politicians) BUT also he is a caricature. So recognisable. I am sure there are Americans who have NO idea who Ben Carson was nor John Kaisich nor Senator O'Malley BUT Trump? He is not even a politician. He is not a Senator. First bid for President, he HAS to be noticeable EVEN if it for the "wrong things".

To be completely honest, I do not think he is bigoted. I have heard for example that he supports and promote equality in his corporation for women and blacks and gays. However he will say dumb shit instead of thinking how it could be interpreted.

I heard today that he said "If they force a broker convention there will be riots in the street over this"
I am pretty sure that people will not riot over Donald and he meant. "people will be outraged" BUT it will be seen as inciting a riot. I heard that and laughed. Stupid call.

I liked Sanders. Well, I'm not sure I LIKED him. I agreed with his politics, but he just seemed a bit angry to really like Americans could never have handled him, because he's a *Shattner pause* Socialist SOCIALIST I mean that practically makes him a COMMUNIST  That must mean those pesky Ruskies are invading again


Now that it's all but certain to be a Trump v Hilary contest, I will make a friendly bet with you. We both agree Hilary is likely to win, but I bet you the race is significantly closer than you will expect, and by the time we get to polling day, Hilary's "reputation " will have been thoroughly trampled into the ground. The only thing that will see her limp over the line is the fact that thankfully enough people will just be too sane to vote for Trump.

Deal

['Butterflies']

I think despite the attempt of The Republican GOP establishment, Trump will run against Hillary and will lose. I don't like Sanders BUT I think he was more honest than either of them.

As for digging on Hillary

The precise skills she based this on will allow her to be teflon for any accusations and skeletons Trump may bring to the fore.

Trump will have all the Kasich, Rubio, Cruz supporters abstaining or voting for Hillary. He is no chance to get in.

Trump is still playing that "You're fired" guy. The New York corporate bigshot BECAUSE that is all he has, poor bastard. He doesn't. "John you really tried your best in the challenge that was placed before you. It took you out of your comfort zone and tested the abilities that you had and I believe helped you develop some valuable skills. However there were a few mistakes made and a few others on your team seemed to show a bit more ingenuity and their result were a little better. Therefore I will have to advise you that unfortunately, I will have to let you go"

Not he is Donald Trump. Nuance and diplomacy are not his thing:

"You're fired!!!"

The thing is, is that the REASON Donald appeals is that he is this ballsy concise arrogant dickhead that seems to appeal to the common people. (Such people are far more easy to identify with than politician's politicians) BUT also he is a caricature. So recognisable. I am sure there are Americans who have NO idea who Ben Carson was nor John Kaisich nor Senator O'Malley BUT Trump? He is not even a politician. He is not a Senator. First bid for President, he HAS to be noticeable EVEN if it for the "wrong things".

To be completely honest, I do not think he is bigoted. I have heard for example that he supports and promote equality in his corporation for women and blacks and gays. However he will say dumb shit instead of thinking how it could be interpreted.

I heard today that he said "If they force a broker convention there will be riots in the street over this"
I am pretty sure that people will not riot over Donald and he meant. "people will be outraged" BUT it will be seen as inciting a riot. I heard that and laughed. Stupid call.

I liked Sanders. Well, I'm not sure I LIKED him. I agreed with his politics, but he just seemed a bit angry to really like Americans could never have handled him, because he's a *Shattner pause* Socialist SOCIALIST I mean that practically makes him a COMMUNIST  That must mean those pesky Ruskies are invading again


Now that it's all but certain to be a Trump v Hilary contest, I will make a friendly bet with you. We both agree Hilary is likely to win, but I bet you the race is significantly closer than you will expect, and by the time we get to polling day, Hilary's "reputation " will have been thoroughly trampled into the ground. The only thing that will see her limp over the line is the fact that thankfully enough people will just be too sane to vote for Trump.

Deal

 

And I will be reminding you of this after the election

[Arya Quinn]

and most media outlets are heavily left leaning and all reporting is done deliberately through this bias.

Certainly not the case in Britain. Our populist tabloids are frothing at the mouth right wingers

[Al Swearegen]

I think despite the attempt of The Republican GOP establishment, Trump will run against Hillary and will lose. I don't like Sanders BUT I think he was more honest than either of them.

As for digging on Hillary

The precise skills she based this on will allow her to be teflon for any accusations and skeletons Trump may bring to the fore.

Trump will have all the Kasich, Rubio, Cruz supporters abstaining or voting for Hillary. He is no chance to get in.

Trump is still playing that "You're fired" guy. The New York corporate bigshot BECAUSE that is all he has, poor bastard. He doesn't. "John you really tried your best in the challenge that was placed before you. It took you out of your comfort zone and tested the abilities that you had and I believe helped you develop some valuable skills. However there were a few mistakes made and a few others on your team seemed to show a bit more ingenuity and their result were a little better. Therefore I will have to advise you that unfortunately, I will have to let you go"

Not he is Donald Trump. Nuance and diplomacy are not his thing:

"You're fired!!!"

The thing is, is that the REASON Donald appeals is that he is this ballsy concise arrogant dickhead that seems to appeal to the common people. (Such people are far more easy to identify with than politician's politicians) BUT also he is a caricature. So recognisable. I am sure there are Americans who have NO idea who Ben Carson was nor John Kaisich nor Senator O'Malley BUT Trump? He is not even a politician. He is not a Senator. First bid for President, he HAS to be noticeable EVEN if it for the "wrong things".

To be completely honest, I do not think he is bigoted. I have heard for example that he supports and promote equality in his corporation for women and blacks and gays. However he will say dumb shit instead of thinking how it could be interpreted.

I heard today that he said "If they force a broker convention there will be riots in the street over this"
I am pretty sure that people will not riot over Donald and he meant. "people will be outraged" BUT it will be seen as inciting a riot. I heard that and laughed. Stupid call.

I liked Sanders. Well, I'm not sure I LIKED him. I agreed with his politics, but he just seemed a bit angry to really like Americans could never have handled him, because he's a *Shattner pause* Socialist SOCIALIST I mean that practically makes him a COMMUNIST  That must mean those pesky Ruskies are invading again


Now that it's all but certain to be a Trump v Hilary contest, I will make a friendly bet with you. We both agree Hilary is likely to win, but I bet you the race is significantly closer than you will expect, and by the time we get to polling day, Hilary's "reputation " will have been thoroughly trampled into the ground. The only thing that will see her limp over the line is the fact that thankfully enough people will just be too sane to vote for Trump.

Deal

 

And I will be reminding you of this after the election

I feel like I win in either case. In one I get kudos and smug satisfaction of knowing better and in the other Hillary gets a colossal amount of public smearing