Who, here is voting for Trump?

[erislover]

@drad_dog

No, the election could not be rigged. And you know that or else you would have said remotely how.

Electronic voting machines without an audit trail. This concern predates Trump’s run.

[GIGObuster]

@erislover

I don’t understand they hyperbole. Horrifying? He’s running a tight campaign and knows by inspection that loose lips sink ships.

You will have no trouble finding a more cheap sake and mismanaged campaign as the one Trump is running. And he is an expert on having loose lips.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-warner-clinton-20160928-story.html

The lion of Virginia’s Republican Party, former Sen. John Warner, harkened back to his time in boot camp seven decades ago to explain why he was breaking partisan ranks to endorse Hillary Clinton.

“They drilled into us 17-, 18-year-old kids day after day — there was a placard on the wall that simply stated, ‘Loose lips sink ships.’ Got that, Trump? Loose lips sink ships,” Warner, four-term Senator and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said in announcing his rejection of GOP candidate Donald Trump.

Warner’s announcement hit hard on national defense issues, a key preoccupation of his time in government.

“And that cannot be learned overnight,” he said. “You don’t pull up a quick text, like National Security for Dummies. That book hasn’t been published.”

Warner said no presidential hopeful should undermine the nation’s military.

“And no one should have the audacity to stand up and degrade the Purple Heart, degrade military families, or talk about the military being in a state of disaster. That’s wrong,” he said.

Among other things it is clear that Warner also complained about Trump disparaging our military in other areas and publicly saying that he is distrusting our generals that are in active duty, not a good start to get the confidence that they would have on a would be commander in chief.

[DiggitCamara]

@erislover

I don’t understand they hyperbole. Horrifying? He’s running a tight campaign and knows by inspection that loose lips sink ships. The guy doesn’t single-handedly run his business and has already tried to develop some relationships which will almost certainly lead to cabinet positions. He knows that the party is unfriendly if not actually hostile to him, which was made clear very early on and which hasn’t let up since.

I don’t understand what you expect him to do in such a situation. Let people who have expressed hostility to him close to his campaign just to make you feel better? He’s clearly worked with a few people who haven’t tried to work against him in spite of a lot of other hostility. There’s no reason to suppose he won’t do the same as President: have trusted advisers in key positions. Like pretty much every President. Ever.

You’re twisting my words. What I would expect (and which I expect any good candidate would do) would be to let my closest collaborators find out what my opponents may find out during the course of the campaign. That way they won’t be blindsided by anything my opponents may find but will already have a course of action to follow.

You’re saying that he “clearly worked with a few people who haven’t tried to work against him in spite of lot of other hostility”. That, of course, is incomplete. You might say that during this campaign he “clearly worked with a few people who haven’t tried to work against him in spite of lot of other hostility” while not knowing if their words would be disavowed as they were speaking them.

Haven’t you watched the news lately? Hasn’t Pence been contradicted by Trump’s words during the debate? Hasn’t Conway retweeted critical comments during another debate out of sheer frustration?

If (God forbid) Trump ever gets to be the president, I would expect his cabinet to be formed by Yes-Men, who would constantly fear the tweets of their leader because they would probably contradict what they just had said.

[Robot_Arm]

@erislover

Ugh. I’m sorry to do this to you, it’s a long opinion.

I don’t mind a long opinion. I do find the content of it to be misguided, though.

I can’t prove that the election isn’t rigged. I can’t visit every polling place in the country and audit the results. I can’t read the mind of Anderson Cooper and see if he’s got a hot story that would bring down the Clinton campaign but he’s keeping a lid on it so she’ll be elected. And even if I could do those things, and presented my evidence here, you wouldn’t have to accept it. If I said the election is on the up-and-up you could just say I’m part of the conspiracy. I can’t prove it’s not rigged, but I find the chance of an organized, systemic conspiracy to be vanishingly small. The candidate would have to be in on it, along with election officials of both parties at state and local levels, multiple, independent polling organizations, and now the manufacturers of voting machines. I don’t think it’s possible to keep something that big a secret. Even if it was, it would be less trouble to just run a campaign and earn votes rather than to collude to steal them.

Further, the time to bring this up is not three weeks before the election. If Trump thinks the system is rigged, he could have brought it up before now. If he really cares about this issue he’ll keep fighting for it after the election is over. Come December, or January, let’s test our voting procedures to make them as error- and tamper-proof as possible. But he won’t push for that. Trump’s only evidence that things are rigged, and his only reason for caring, is that he’s losing.

And that, to me, is the evidence that you’re wrong; it’s all so one-sided. The media doesn’t cover the no-fly zone in Syria so they must be in bed with Hillary. Bullshit. How much have we heard about Clinton’s e-mails compared to Trump illegally doing business in Cuba during the embargo? You’ve got it all figured out, and every new piece of information just adds to the narrative. Trump says the election is rigged? Wow, we’d better look into that. James Comey says Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be prosecuted? He must be in on it. Is it really that hard for you to believe that Clinton might win the election because more people vote for her?

By the way, Trump wasn’t sued by the tenants he discriminated against. It was the U.S. Department of Justice.

[Czarcasm]

Who here is voting for…this.

[tomndebb]

@erislover

I think I’d resent this insinuation if only I knew what you were talking about. It is only in the last two years that I’ve felt this way. I’m sorry, I’m not an old hand at this like the “certain segment of the white population” you reference. I don’t have a bunch of prepared statements or anything. You don’t feel that way, fine, vote Democrat. I do feel that way and I cannot.

I do not care when you decided to adopt the theme that Democrats propose making white people the enemy. Your feelings are just that, feelings, and probably not based on any actual facts.

I simply noted that there is a history of what you are claiming, going back decades, and it has nothing to do with the claim that you made that the Democratic Party was promoting it.

[Sinaptics]

@tomndebb

I do not care when you decided to adopt the theme that Democrats propose making white people the enemy. Your feelings are just that, feelings, and probably not based on any actual facts.

I simply noted that there is a history of what you are claiming, going back decades, and it has nothing to do with the claim that you made that the Democratic Party was promoting it.

Further, HOW exactly is the Democratic party demonizing white people? Are they suggesting white people be locked up more often? Taxed more heavily? Make it harder for them to vote? They’re not asking white people to give up a single thing. They’re just asking that you put yourself in a minorities shoes, observe the challenges they face, and attempt to remove the barriers that stand in their way such as African American’s increased incarceration rate as compared to Caucasians. Or how illegal immigrants are abused by employers when they’re simply trying to feed their family.