7 Myths about Trump's 'Doomed' Path to the White House

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Polls never going above 1000 persons aren't what we'd call Very Scientific.

You'd be wrong about that.

An Attack Dog Media on the march is what we call Social Engineering.

Fox news did it in 2012 with Mitt Romney, whats the difference?

The media is only covering what trump says and does. How is it their fault? Sure it's saturated and far too much coverage of this little orange faced bully of a man. But he, along with his surrogates keep saying INSANE THINGS, and get called on it.

Good Lord just watch any interview with that Pierson lady, she's a total idiot. She can't even keep her facts straight for a 5 min interview. It's just ineptitude and idiocy, washed in in fear and bigotry.

Bush & Obama instigating a New Cold War with Russia for over 10 years with their futile missile defense shield in Europe worked so well. Ironic when the US has had nukes on the Eurasian mainland surrounding the Soviet Union / Russia forever. Yet when the Soviet's dared put some launchers off our coast it was like Godzilla was an "Active Crusher" stomping through NYC.

That has nothing to do with anything, it's just another deflection. You point out that Trump is basically saying nothing all the time, and all his supporters do is go ' Well Obama and Clinton, blah blah blah blah".

And then, no substance, no solutions no anything. You can't defend his positions, because he doesn't really have any.

I hate the media as much as the next person, but Trump is doing this to himself and anybody who can critically think beyond their little partisan box they put themselves in can see that.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
The media is only covering what trump says and does.

And that's about all they've been covering.

That has nothing to do with anything, it's just another deflection.

I pointed out that Bush/Obama/Clinton have been actively instigating a New Cold War since roughly 2002, in a discussion about who's going to help cause/stymie a nuclear armed confrontation. So you might not speak in such absolutes.

Trump having no plan, all I can say is let's look at Obama's plans. How much of it really worked out. Everything he ran on none of it I can think of materialized. And blaming it the GOP is not what leaders do. They are suppose to find a way, not get in petty disputes about things.

My favorite one though is when he came to Afghanistan in 08, before he was elected to FOB Fenty. I was there and he said he was going to end these wars. Ok, I thought, even if it takes him 8 years I would consider he stuck to his word.
Yeah, we are still there and will be after he leaves. Pretty sad considering how much time he had to make it happen.

annnnnddddd....nothing of substance. The same old lines

1. RIGHT WING website
2. They attack what he says...that is enough...
3. Need to steer the ship


1. It is data. Like I stated, the pulse of the nation. I am very hard pressed to find people I know, ones who voted for Obama, who are voting for Hillary. Not one guy I know is and there are a few women but it is not like Trump supporters. Brushing something off because it is from a specific website is ignorant. As much as I hate it I peruse the HuffPo for alternate opinions, find the same article on Drudge and then read an overseas outlet. fFrom the 3 you can usually seperate BS from truth.

2. Been pretty quiet this week. Great speech Monday on terrorism. HIllary's camp needs to be less reactive and more proactive. Remember, he threw out a mother, stole a purple heart and fought with a nice American family...he also survived "TRUMP ADVISOR SLAMS REPORTER TO GROUND" and others....the media does not report what he says. They report one line of a 30 minute speech. That would be like ESPN showing a ball in the 3rd inning and not giving you the final score.

3. There was a post by Mr Spad and although I do not always agree he makes valid points. Direction has to transition to a candidate out of the primaries and he has struggled but not to the point it is over. That is fallacy.

Keep you head out of the sand and keep looking at the candidates. All of them. Except Johnson, he is a tool....

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump if the only one that can prevent a battle of the empires.

The fact that you would believe this - without any kind of proof, is the proof that Trump is NOT the man to do this.

He has NO plan, no substance, no policy.

All he has is talking points and fear mongering.

If anything Trump willing probably cause a war of Empires, at least he will most certainly start a trade war with Russia and China.

And it won't be the billionaires and millionaires who pay the price for it, it will be his supporters.

Also if you think that polls are somehow less accurate than a room full of people at an event, then you don't understand how polling science works.

~Tenth

How exactly does one person's beliefs, have any bearing as to the potential ability of someone else, most likely with either ever having any contact with each other?

You do not have any proof he does not have a plan, you only know what he has told you, and I doubt you have listened to every speech.

Fear is a useful tool of control, fear inspires hate and that collective emotion can be directed towards his opponent.

War is inevitable, a system based on infinite growth on finite resources, it is expand or die.

If people are so gullible as to put their faith into a person, let alone a politician or actor, maybe it's for the best.

-God

a reply to: GodEmperor

You do not have any proof he does not have a plan, you only know what he has told you, and I doubt you have listened to every speech.

Every single one I've had access to. I would LOVE to support the GOP.

It's just no possible this cycle with a candidate such as him, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Where do you get your info that you are so informed on how Trump would act in a national crisis situation. I would hope like Reagan and not Obama.

He has lots of plans, lots of substance and lots of policy. You are choosing to ignore it.

They are all talking points and he is hitting the ones that mean the most to the common person. Defense, immigration....economy...heatlh care...education....

It Trump is elected we will not be a personal army to the House of Saud and big banks. Hillary is already bought, paid for and has sold the right weapons to the wrong people. War is in motion with her already.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And that's about all they've been covering.

I do agree it's far too much - but then again there's never been a candidate like this. But at the end of the day, you're right about that one.

I pointed out that Bush/Obama/Clinton have been actively instigating a New Cold War since roughly 2002, in a discussion about who's going to help cause/stymie a nuclear armed confrontation. So you might not speak in such absolutes.

Right and I see that, but Putin has plenty to blame on that front as well, it's not like he's been a victim in all of this.

I don't like it anymore than you do, but I still don't think Donald is going to be the guy to fix it.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower


nationalinterest.org...

Self profressed Henry Kissinger fans.

Apparently Kissinger is the honorary chairman of the magazine.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: GodEmperor

You do not have any proof he does not have a plan, you only know what he has told you, and I doubt you have listened to every speech.

Every single one I've had access to. I would LOVE to support the GOP.

It's just no possible this cycle with a candidate such as him, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

~Tenth

Archer would vote Trump. Just sayin...

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Where do you get your info that you are so informed on how Trump would act in a national crisis situation.

The man's character and temperament have been on conspicuous display for a year. Not to mention the questionable people he has surrounded himself with and the lack of qualified foreign policy advisors working with him.

a reply to: matafuchs

Where do you get your info that you are so informed on how Trump would act in a national crisis situation.

Well if he acts like the butt hurt child he's been lately, I assume not very well. He's certainly not giving me anything positive to go on.

He has lots of plans, lots of substance and lots of policy. You are choosing to ignore it.

Where is it? Show me the actual policy he's put forth, the legislation he intends to enact. Show me what provisions of NAFTA he specifically will change or renegotiate, show me how he's going to put Americans back to work.

Show me some proof, and I'll concede.

They are all talking points and he is hitting the ones that mean the most to the common person. Defense, immigration....economy...heatlh care...education....

But without any kind of action plan, or legislation, that means nothing. Not a single thing.

It's not any different than the Hope & Change that Obama promised, this is just the conservative version of that this time around.

It Trump is elected we will not be a personal army to the House of Saud and big banks.

You absolutely still will be. Donald isn't going to do ANYTHING to mess with Wall Street or Saudi Arabia. The idea that he would change any of that in while in office is nonsense and there's no proof it what so ever.

Hillary is already bought, paid for and has sold the right weapons to the wrong people. War is in motion with her already

I can't disagree, but that's another deflection, I'm not asking you about Hillary, I don't care about Hillary, I'm saying PROVE to me that Donald has some actual policy and legislation to enact.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I can't disagree, but that's another deflection, I'm not asking you about Hillary, I don't care about Hillary, I'm saying PROVE to me that Donald has some actual policy and legislation to enact.

Sometimes just have to roll the dice.

There is never proof when dealing with faith, and to vote for either candidate requires a lot...

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

Good Lord just watch any interview with that Pierson lady, she's a total idiot.
~Tenth

The thought that Katrina Pierson might have any role in a Trump administration other than changing the ink cartridges is reason enough not to vote for him.

a reply to: DelMarvel

See, this stuff always makes me laugh. His competition rewarded a person who rigged the primary for them to lead their team. That is questionable.

Who are these questionable people on his staff and who are those who are not qualified on foreign policy?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

So you get nothing out of these?

www.donaldjtrump.com...

as compared to this. It is not deflection. It is comparison. Deflection is simply laying blmae elsewhere. I want to show differences.

www.hillaryclinton.com...

C'mon now....

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: DelMarvel

Who are these questionable people on his staff....

Manafort, Brietbart, Sam Clovis, Michael Flynn, Katrina Pierson, Joe Schmitz, Carter Page, Walid Phares, Carl Paladino.

Off the top of my head.

a reply to: matafuchs

Great speech Monday on terrorism. HIllary's camp needs to be less reactive and more proactive.

trump's speech on monday included no ideas of how to stop daesh, explain how it was proactive?
an ideology test would prevent those stupid enough to tell they follow wahhabism from entering america, hardly a cure all strategy.
the homosexual from new york that shot up a gay bar in orlando would have been stopped how exactly?
i'm unsure how this ideology test will make daesh pack up in raqqa and the northern sinai either.
he was merely preaching to the already converted and faithful.

It Trump is elected we will not be a personal army to the House of Saud and big banks. Hillary is already bought, paid for and has sold the right weapons to the wrong people. War is in motion with her already.

would that be the same house of saud that have bailed trump out after several bankruptcies?
has trump given up his tower on wall street?
to believe trump and the republicans have no dodgy money involved, is at best fanciful.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Where do you get your info that you are so informed on how Trump would act in a national crisis situation. I would hope like Reagan and not Obama.

It's all speculation and hearsay. I have yet to be presented any solid information that Trump would be dangerous for national security. In fact it's quite the contrary when you take into account that Trump has negotiated countless successful deals and contracts that required him to be tactful and play things close to the chest. That doesn't happen by throwing temper tantrums and acting unprofessional.

In terms of successful deals who has more to their credit Hillary or Trump?
Only "deal" that comes to mind with Hillary was her hand in ramming NAFTA down our throats. Go ask the people of Ohio how that "deal" worked out for them.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

1. Hillary Clinton herself is a war monger. One of Bernie Sanders' primary beefs against her was how quickly she saber rattles and her financial connections to the war machine.
2. "polls always end up being mostly right" is an incorrect statement. Aside from the most glaring example of Dewey beats Truman, exit polling indicated Kerry had won in 2004, indicated Hillary had lost a couple of the primaries she was awarded, and have generally become little more than tools of the desired narrative.

It fascinates me that a conspiracy forum with logically discussed topics such as 9/11 being an inside job and the NWO has the volume of people rejecting of the obvious ease at which any poll can be either manipulated or entirely fabricated. It's even more fascinating to me because in my 20 years of registered voting, I've yet to be polled... My wife hasn't been polled, neither of my parents have been polled, I asked the other day at work, nobody's been polled. Where are these magical answering Americans that keep getting polled? Odds should be high that someone in a 20+ person pool with 20+ years of voter registration would have been polled at some point, ya?