2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#2,356
#2,356
Even if Trump tried to soften his rhetoric at this point, the Clinton campaign can just runs ad after ad doing nothing but quoting Trump about women. He's going to get killed in the general, absolutely killed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,358
#2,358
lawgator1 said:
Even if Trump tried to soften his rhetoric at this point, the Clinton campaign can just runs ad after ad doing nothing but quoting Trump about women. He's going to get killed in the general, absolutely killed.
Click to expand...

There is just as much (probably way more) mud that can be slung right back at her.

Contrary to the Dem belief that women are dumb, they're not. Can you give us 1 reason for a woman to respect and/or like Hillary? What does Hillary have in common with the average American female?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,359
#2,359
lawgator1 said:
Even if Trump tried to soften his rhetoric at this point, the Clinton campaign can just runs ad after ad doing nothing but quoting Trump about women. He's going to get killed in the general, absolutely killed.
Click to expand...

You are so, so wrong. Trump calls Rosie fat. Hillary lies, steals, deletes, and leaves people on roofs to die. The Trump campaign will DESTROY Hillary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,360
#2,360
I'm out of the prediction game with Trump v Clinton. Two highly disliked candidates. Anything could happen.

Trump has a problem with women and Clinton has a problem with white, blue collar people.

Trump could win states that Republicans haven't won since Reagan but lose states they typically win.

Too many unknowns at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,361
#2,361
VolAllen said:
You are so, so wrong. Trump calls Rosie fat. Hillary lies, steals, deletes, and leaves people on roofs to die. The Trump campaign will DESTROY Hillary.
Click to expand...

This. The ultimate strawman argument is about to be made against her. Even if there is no indictment or FBI leak, political operatives will claim they have received leaked info about the investigation. The type and amount of dirt is only limited by the imagination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,362
#2,362
Ernest T. Vol said:
This. The ultimate strawman argument is about to be made against her. Even if there is no indictment or FBI leak, political operatives will claim they have received leaked info about the investigation. The type and amount of dirt is only limited by the imagination.
Click to expand...

If dirt was able to be found against Cruz, Rubio, etc...Hillary is a dirt toy store.

I can't wait to see all the skeletons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,364
#2,364
VolAllen said:
You are so, so wrong. Trump calls Rosie fat. Hillary lies, steals, deletes, and leaves people on roofs to die. The Trump campaign will DESTROY Hillary.
Click to expand...
You assume people care about any of that. Look at who occupies 1600 Pa. Ave. The electorate doesn't care about anything but voting in another Clinton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,367
#2,367
lawgator1 said:
Even if Trump tried to soften his rhetoric at this point, the Clinton campaign can just runs ad after ad doing nothing but quoting Trump about women. He's going to get killed in the general, absolutely killed.
Click to expand...

Remember all the women during the Clinton scandal? Yeah. Trumps got plenty of ads to run against her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,368
#2,368
Let's see,....Hillarys war on women sh!t ain't gonna work against The Donald because she accepts donations from Countries that women have no rights. This woman has no boundaries, she's a hypocrite and a pathological liar. Hence the name hilLIARy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,370
#2,370
lawgator1 said:
Even if Trump tried to soften his rhetoric at this point, the Clinton campaign can just runs ad after ad doing nothing but quoting Trump about women. He's going to get killed in the general, absolutely killed.
Click to expand...

The more Clinton talks, the less people like her. Before Bernie made a charge, her strategy was to speak as little as possible. It was a wise move.

Once the country is subjected to her screeching on a regular basis, her numbers are going to plummet further.

She's not a very likable person and has a hard time relating to others in a warm way.

To top it off, she has the possibility of being charged with felonies during the election cycle. That may turn out to be a gift to the Democratic Party.

This will not be an easy campaign for Hillary.
 
#2,371
#2,371
DC_Vol said:
The more Clinton talks, the less people like her. Before Bernie made a charge, her strategy was to speak as little as possible. It was a wise move.

Once the country is subjected to her screeching on a regular basis, her numbers are going to plummet further.

She's not a very likable person and has a hard time relating to others in a warm way.

To top it off, she has the possibility of being charged with felonies during the election cycle. That may turn out to be a gift to the Democratic Party.

This will not be an easy campaign for Hillary.
Click to expand...

And don't forget her cackling.

Good grief, I wish nobody would say something funny around her.
 
#2,372
#2,372
Trump is weak with women, Clinton is weak with young people. She's trying to rebuild the Obama coalition but young people were a key component of that coalition. I'm betting voter turnout among young people is low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,373
#2,373
Ernest T. Vol said:
This. The ultimate strawman argument is about to be made against her. Even if there is no indictment or FBI leak, political operatives will claim they have received leaked info about the investigation. The type and amount of dirt is only limited by the imagination.
Click to expand...


We already see bits and pieces of how this right wing dance goes:

Step 1: Conservative blogger writes that she will be indicted. No source or fact cited.

Step 2: Breitbart reports that unnamed sources say that unnammed people in unidentified positions at unidentified agencies, are saying she will be indicted.

Step 3: Drudge links Breitbart with siren thingy.

Step 4: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then make absolutely astonishingly stupid analogy to Petraeus, for the 3,945th time.

Step 5: WND or Breitbart (they are all interchangeable at this point) runs story that unnamed people claim that unidentified officials are saying some other unnamed people got fired because they wanted to indict her but couldn't.

Step 6: Drudge links with siren thingy.

Step 7: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then claim it is proof she was supposed to be indicted but conspiracy by Obama must have blocked it.

Step 8: Fools, including a bunch of the folks on this board, nod in agreement, send in checks, never ask any question about the "facts," because to do so risks getting answers they don't really want to hear.

Repeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,374
#2,374
lawgator1 said:
We already see bits and pieces of how this right wing dance goes:

Step 1: Conservative blogger writes that she will be indicted. No source or fact cited.

Step 2: Breitbart reports that unnamed sources say that unnammed people in unidentified positions at unidentified agencies, are saying she will be indicted.

Step 3: Drudge links Breitbart with siren thingy.

Step 4: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then make absolutely astonishingly stupid analogy to Petraeus, for the 3,945th time.

Step 5: WND or Breitbart (they are all interchangeable at this point) runs story that unnamed people claim that unidentified officials are saying some other unnamed people got fired because they wanted to indict her but couldn't.

Step 6: Drudge links with siren thingy.

Step 7: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then claim it is proof she was supposed to be indicted but conspiracy by Obama must have blocked it.

Step 8: Fools, including a bunch of the folks on this board, nod in agreement, send in checks, never ask any question about the "facts," because to do so risks getting answers they don't really want to hear.

Repeat.
Click to expand...

Step 9: LG votes for Hillary despite his words in the past to the contrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,375
#2,375
lawgator1 said:
We already see bits and pieces of how this right wing dance goes:

Step 1: Conservative blogger writes that she will be indicted. No source or fact cited.

Step 2: Breitbart reports that unnamed sources say that unnammed people in unidentified positions at unidentified agencies, are saying she will be indicted.

Step 3: Drudge links Breitbart with siren thingy.

Step 4: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then make absolutely astonishingly stupid analogy to Petraeus, for the 3,945th time.

Step 5: WND or Breitbart (they are all interchangeable at this point) runs story that unnamed people claim that unidentified officials are saying some other unnamed people got fired because they wanted to indict her but couldn't.

Step 6: Drudge links with siren thingy.

Step 7: Fox has roundtable during "news" segment during which Krauthammer and that snide little f%ck from the Weekly Standard reference these reports as news and then claim it is proof she was supposed to be indicted but conspiracy by Obama must have blocked it.

Step 8: Fools, including a bunch of the folks on this board, nod in agreement, send in checks, never ask any question about the "facts," because to do so risks getting answers they don't really want to hear.

Repeat.
Click to expand...


Am I the only 1 that thinks it is hilarious that LG watches more fox news than anyone in this forum? I don't know the name of a single person that Broadcasts this stuff except Megan jelly , because she is hot.

I would bet my left but that our liberal squeaker and designated Obama blower watches more fox news and reads more conservative websites than any conservative here. I am dead serious. He always knows exactly what they are talking about, who is on which program, etc. It's amazing.

By the way, I will vote straight conservative republican all the way down the liNE and I don't even know what channel fox news is here in charlotte. No idea. I read what I need to know online, and form my own opinions. Don't need a talking head to think for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top