National Review devotes an entire issue to "Against Trump"

[doorhinge]

@marshmallow

People are still trying to stump the Trump? Good luck.

Forget the pundits, check out this thread. All these Trump threads will be hilarious to bump if Trump wins. Yeah, Trump has no idea what he’s doing, which is why he’s playing everyone like a fiddle. Libs are pretty sure what conservatives want too, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” all over again.

Too bad Bernie gets blown out in any state where melanin exists. On the plus side, Trump/Hillary debates will be top tier entertainment.

Trump has a history of getting things done. People aren’t used to having politicians who can actually make the deals that gets get things done. It feels strange.

It’s my guess that Trump knows what he’s doing. It’s the pundits, media outlets, and the internet that have no idea what Trump is doing. With Bernie and Trump leading in the polls, it appears to be the year of the outsider. Voters are clearly tired of the same ol’ bozos running for office.

Don’t count Bernie out just yet. Depending on the poll, some 60+% of the voters believe Hillary is untrustworthy. Out with the old - In with the new. IMHO, of course.

[CarnalK]

Bernie is not leading in the polls except in a couple of States.

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

Bernie is not leading in the polls except in a couple of States.

Like Iowa and New Hampshire? Hillary and Bill are currently trying to ignore Trump. Especially after Hillary called Trump sexist. Trump responded by reminded the voters that Bill was accused of raping two women and that the Clinton’s had attacked Lewinski along with the other women Bill (Clinton, not Cosby) molested. The end result was that Bernie rose in the polls and Hillary dropped. It’s a long way to the general election and the Clinton’s may be forced to deal with Trump on a daily basis. History shows that politicians who attack Trump don’t do well. We live in interesting times.

[iiandyiiii]

@doorhinge

Like Iowa and New Hampshire? Hillary and Bill are currently trying to ignore Trump. Especially after Hillary called Trump sexist. Trump responded by reminded the voters that Bill was accused of raping two women and that the Clinton’s had attacked Lewinski along with the other women Bill (Clinton, not Cosby) molested. The end result was that Bernie rose in the polls and Hillary dropped. It’s a long way to the general election and the Clinton’s may be forced to deal with Trump on a daily basis. History shows that politicians who attack Trump don’t do well. We live in interesting times.

I think it’s extremely likely that Hillary and Bill are quietly rooting for Trump, just like I am (except I’m not so quiet!).

[YogSothoth]

And to think, by this time next Tuesday, we’ll have actual data. One of those psychos will actually win! I’m scared, hold me

[CarnalK]

@doorhinge

Like Iowa and New Hampshire?

Yeah. Hillary is beating him almost everywhere else and pretty handily nationally.

[Voyager]

@doorhinge

Visitors and immigrants are already being screened. That’s not a First Amendment issue. Depending on their country of origin (or current passport if not their original state of birth), some visitors/immigrants are screened more thoroughly than others. Again, not a First Amendment issue. Trump didn’t say that all Muslims should be banned forever. Only until there is better screening in place.

The screening process could be improved before there is ever an attempt to ban all Muslims UNTIL there is a better, more thorough, method of screening visitors and immigrants. Problem solved and no one group would have been banned.

The pundits are being inaccurate in their reporting. I believe the pundits are trying to influence the election by twisting and spinning the candidates statements. Is that fair? No it isn’t. Are elections fair? No they aren’t. It’s a run what you brung contest and the person with the most votes wins.

If you read the press release (or remembered when he said it) the ban was “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Besides from the fact that some of our representatives have a hard time figuring out what is going in in a variety of areas (like climate change) this is a pretty broad stopping point. How do we determine when they’ve figure this out? A vote? Trump’s personal opinion.

Now, even if your distortion of his statement was correct, it doesn’t exactly give us an indication of when to stop. How exactly do we tell when we’ve figured out ow to block the terrorists? And will he even believe the facts. Republicans don’t about Mexican immigration, after all.
Then we have slight implementation issues, like how to be sure that the Syrian refugee who claims to be a Christian isn’t lying.
Not to mention that Trump’s ban would exclude that Muslim menace to America Richard Thompson.

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

Yeah. Hillary is beating him almost everywhere else and pretty handily nationally.

Do you believe a Hillary loss in Iowa and New Hampshire and an indictment by the FBI will have any future effect on Hillary’s numbers?

Or, just to keep this detour on topic, do you believe that the National Review’s anti-endorsement hit piece effect Trump’s numbers?

It’s still a long way to the conventions and even longer to the general election. Anything can happen along the way.

[CarnalK]

@doorhinge

Do you believe a Hillary loss in Iowa and New Hampshire and an indictment by the FBI will have any future effect on Hillary’s numbers?

Of course an indictment would, but the Clinton camp is already braced for a NH loss and possibly Iowa so no on that.

Or, just to keep this detour on topic, do you believe that the National Review’s anti-endorsement hit piece effect Trump’s numbers?

I doubt it.

It’s still a long way to the conventions and even longer to the general election. Anything can happen along the way.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of your butt? We do live in interesting times, after all.

[elucidator]

*Again? *

[doorhinge]

@Voyager

If you read the press release (or remembered when he said it) the ban was “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Besides from the fact that some of our representatives have a hard time figuring out what is going in in a variety of areas (like climate change) this is a pretty broad stopping point. How do we determine when they’ve figure this out? A vote? Trump’s personal opinion.

Now, even if your distortion of his statement was correct, it doesn’t exactly give us an indication of when to stop.

(post shortened)

Distortion? I paraphrased Trump’s statement. Notice the lack of quotes?

There is still plenty of time for our elected representatives to correct/improve our screening process “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Currently, the ball is in the legislators court.

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

Of course an indictment would, but the Clinton camp is already braced for a NH loss and possibly Iowa so no on that.

I doubt it.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of your butt? We do live in interesting times, after all.

Why should you care? Do you collect shitty monkeys? Interesting indeed.

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

Of course an indictment would, but the Clinton camp is already braced for a NH loss and possibly Iowa so no on that.

(post shortened)

Hillary is used to losing her parties Presidential nomination races. While the “Clinton camp” is already braced for a possible loss in Iowa, the “Clinton camp” isn’t “the voters”. Will the voters begin to swing to Bernie if Hillary loses Iowa and New Hampshire?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

If Hillary loses Iowa and New Hampshire, it will presumably mean the voters have already swung to Bernie. And Hillary has only been a candidate for the nomination once before. Hardly “used to losing.”

[doorhinge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If Hillary loses Iowa and New Hampshire, it will presumably mean the voters have already swung to Bernie. And Hillary has only been a candidate for the nomination once before. Hardly “used to losing.”

Did Hillary win when she ran for the nomination? No, she didn’t. Hillary certainly knows what it’s like to have the lead and lose it to another candidate. I didn’t say she liked it. I said she was used to losing.

What’s the National Review’s opinion of Hillary? I didn’t read the issue. Did the NR mention Hillary in their anti-Trump hit piece?

[CarnalK]

Umm, do you not know that the National Review is a very conservative magazine? What do you imagine their opinion of Clinton is?

[VinylTurnip]

@doorhinge

Do you believe a Hillary loss in Iowa and New Hampshire and an indictment by the FBI will have any future effect on Hillary’s numbers?

Or, just to keep this detour on topic, do you believe that the National Review’s anti-endorsement hit piece effect Trump’s numbers?

It’s still a long way to the conventions and even longer to the general election. Anything can happen along the way.

Like, Trumpheads learning to read?

[BrainGlutton]

@CarnalK

Umm, do you not know that the National Review is a very conservative magazine? What do you imagine their opinion of Clinton is?

It should be a pretty good one, if it were an honestly conservative magazine.

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

Umm, do you not know that the National Review is a very conservative magazine? What do you imagine their opinion of Clinton is?

That Bill is a rapist and Hillary attacked the women who accused Bill (Clinton, not Cosby) of molesting them?

[kayaker]

@doorhinge

That Bill is a rapist and Hillary attacked the women who accused Bill (Clinton, not Cosby) of molesting them?

(post shortened)

Wait, you’re saying Bill Cosby molested Bill Clinton?