It's not literally blasphemy, which is defined as taking or appealing to the Lord's name in vain, but i appreciate the 'word' anyway.
2016 Presidential Campaign
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
It's not literally blasphemy, which is defined as taking or appealing to the Lord's name in vain, but i appreciate the 'word' anyway.
You sure about that? If you're wrong, you insulted God by calling Trump His candidate, and even if you are right, you couldn't possibly know it and so your incredible arrogance at claiming to know the mind of God is bad enough. Don't bother arguing with me about it. You know in your heart the blasphemous liberties you've taken here.
I'm kinda hoping Trumpet gets in. He would be the least effectual prez ever. Not even the republicans would allow his stupid stuff through. Hillary, well, she would make Thatcher look like a school girl. She is pro oil, pro war, pro Big Pharma and is indepted to the banksters and Wall street criminals. Besides, most of Trumpet's platform is anti-establishment and that would get him JFK'd.
I'm having trouble buying the progressive argument that Trump would be better than Clinton. The two reasons usually given are
1. Congress wouldn't let him do the awful things he says he'll do and,
2. He'll be so bad there'll be major shift to the left and the next president will be a super progressive.
For #2, I feel like it's a gamble and the cost is too high. The kind of damage Trump could do to the social fabric of the United States and peace in the world is too much to risk.
My problem with #1 is that I don't believe it. A Republican congress will fall in line. The string of Republicans denouncing then endorsing then unendorsing and then re-endorsing Trump this year proves that Republicans have no principles. They changed their stance on Trump gambling that it would win them votes and flipped back to Trump when their base revolted. They don't care about what Trump stands for. They want to keep their jobs, and they are all craven closeted fascists. They will jump at the chance to line up behind a racist demagogue.
1. Congress wouldn't let him do the awful things he says he'll do and,
2. He'll be so bad there'll be major shift to the left and the next president will be a super progressive.
For #2, I feel like it's a gamble and the cost is too high. The kind of damage Trump could do to the social fabric of the United States and peace in the world is too much to risk.
My problem with #1 is that I don't believe it. A Republican congress will fall in line. The string of Republicans denouncing then endorsing then unendorsing and then re-endorsing Trump this year proves that Republicans have no principles. They changed their stance on Trump gambling that it would win them votes and flipped back to Trump when their base revolted. They don't care about what Trump stands for. They want to keep their jobs, and they are all craven closeted fascists. They will jump at the chance to line up behind a racist demagogue.
I would think he's about neck and neck with all other politicians. Lying is the sin..........................does it matter how much? Who trusts them after they are caught lying once. Is lying worse than making stupid promises?
Has Black Loaf been mouthing off again?
The moral force? You mean, he has the experience of being involved in what you call 'the moral decay'.
I like to keep things simple, basically I think Trump will do what he says while Clinton will likely do nothing!
I was pretty young when it happened but basically Truman put an end to W.W. 2 - the last bomb was dropped on Aug. 9 and the Armistace was signed Aug. 15!
I like what David Frum said about those who are voting for Trump to protest Hilary: If you have high blood pressure, you don't solve it by slitting your throat.
Coldstream doesn't have the moral courage to address Donald Trump's immorality. He turns a blind eye to it because he's a hypocrite.
That's an argument against Trump.
2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map
If you look at the electoral college possibilities, if states go as they've been polling, the tossups are going to be Nevada, Florida or North Carolina. Give Trump Ohio and Iowa which were considered possible swings but have consistently polled for Trump for weeks. Give Trump New Hampshire as a benefit of the doubt and one vote in Maine, which splits votes. Give Colorado and New Mexico to Clinton, though they may be close and Michigan and Virginia to Clinton, though they have the potential to be upsets. This, I think, is a likely scenario giving Trump some advantages. With all this, Clinton needs to win just one of the states I mentioned (Nevada, Florida or North Carolina).
So consider the possibilities with those three states:
Nevada is small so if that's all she gets, it's a squeaker, and she could lose if Trump upsets her in a big state like Michigan, Virginia or Pennsylvania, which are possibilities, or New Mexico or Colorado which aren't sure things either.
If Clinton takes Florida and none of those other states, it's pretty much game over. Clinton could lose Colorado and New Mexico and still win. Then Trump would have to upset her somewhere with over 13 electoral college votes (Virginia has 13). Michigan and Pennsylvania are the only high vote states with a chance of going to Trump that would beat a Clinton taking Florida.
If Clinton takes North Carolina and loses Nevada and Florida, Trump would have to take New Mexico and Colorado for a tie or upset Clinton somewhere with more than 14 electoral college votes.
In order to win, Trump has to win all three of those states or pull off an upset like I described above, taking a state he's not expected to win but could win like Virginia, Michigan or Pennsylvania.
I'm not sure which is the most likely scenario. Probably the won that ends in the tie because it doesn't rely on upsets, but the Nevada scenario also relies on New Mexico and Colorado going to Clinton, which are the states I gave to Clinton least likely to go to her. States aren't voting in a vacuum, so a major shift somewhere (like an upset in a state Clinton seems to have lock on) will be reflected in changes elsewhere. So I suppose the most likely scenario, given the high level of uncertainty in this election, polls swinging wildly throughout, traditional red and blue states toying with purple and so many people undecided, is that some places aren't as predictable as polls say.
Last edited:
That's all well and good but what happens if there's one major surprise like California, N.Y. or Texas? Remember Truman 1948!
Politicians are all immoral so it's a mute point.
If one is going to concern him/her self with immorality it's just a recipe for a cerebral hemmorhage