I've had MSNBC on in the background for the past couple of hours while I was working on something and I had a "eureka" moment. Trump is going to be elected president. I'm convinced of it. His visit to Washington is being covered as if it was the second coming of Christ. I've never seen anything like it. They had a box on the screen with coverage of his empty plane sitting on the tarmac for crying out loud. The media is the reason he is the GOP nominee and the media is the reason he is going to be president. Now, excuse me while I go and puke.

.. playing this right

His air time during the campaign - it must have been about 85% of political coverage - is how he got traction and how he won the nomination. He's not getting more coverage now, he's getting the same coverage only now they're treating it as the most important thing that has ever happened in the history of the United States. Trump is walking out of the office building. Trump is climbing into his black SUV. Trump is now going to his attorney's office. There's the Trump plane on the tarmac awaiting his arrival. I think I'm going to jump off a bridge.

He went to kiss the ring of Speaker Ryan to get his endorsement.

His endorsement should be pro forma.

So interesting Trump is getting portrayed here as the supplicant wooing Ryan.

Yet Hillary and her supporters chastise Bernie and his supporters, mocking them as unnecessary (and worse!) with zero effort expended towards trying to unite the Dems. That's just another reason why she'll lose in November.

Can you point to one Democratic elected official who is withholding his or support from Hillary Clinton?


Thank you in advance.

The Democratic party says they're Dems.

Or are you one of those who don't think Bernie is a "real" Democrat?

Geez, you made me think for 30 seconds...



And I don't expect anyone to endorse or not endorse. They will do what they want.

This subthread has to do with Trump starting to work on uniting the party and you're comments that Trump was seeking fealty (which sharply contrasts with what's going on with Team Hillary ).

There are actually a lot of them - I named several off the top of my head.

I'm not moving the goalposts, you are.

And big whoop, I forgot Harry Reid endorsed her. My point stands.

I thought we were having a discussion. It appears you were simply in it to snark.

Silly games from Hillary supporters are too typical. You asked a question, I answered. Now you want to move the goalposts. Fact remains Trump is doing what's necessary to unite his party. He'll have everyone on board and carry on, especially as he moves back to the center.

Hillary’s already said she's not prioritizing party unity (defeat, destroy and worry about unity later). Her supporters say it here and elsewhere, multiple times daily.

Her party endorsements miss the boat actually. This election isn't about how much the establishment loves her. We already know that. Its how many of us there are who hate that same establishment and her disdain at "kissing" our rings.

He is in a demographic straitjacket.

He needs 66%, ??? 67% ??? of the white vote to win... No Republican has reached those numbers since Reagan.

Here are exit polls for every presidential race going back until 1976:


http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1984/

This should be pro forma. This just illustrates his problems.

Trump as the 2nd coming of Christ but don't acknowledge how both Clinton's have been demonized by same media or who the media has handled Sanders with kid gloves.

For many Sanders supporters on DU (those who are actually on the left and not disruptors or libertarians) a Trump win would validate their choice of candidate.

In the real world though, most Sanders supporters are fine with Clinton and know she's going to win.

he considers it his job.

Bernie has only pointed out the differences in
policies between HRC and himself, which is not
impugning her character (though he could,imo).

I am glad you consider her tough. OTOH she has a
lot of surrogates, including the media, who are
doing the complaining for her.

... of the privileged and entitled not the boogymen of groups she's been talking to one on one throughout her career

... her character for knowing a true asshole like Kissinger but those who need to get things done or are truly hurting or threatened by a REAL boogyman of some type of ism

Kissinger doesn't mean shit...

Again, there's a reason why he's losing the diversity contest

She's never talked to me one on one. So if that is her strong suit then I feel rejected by it. She better come to my kitchen in order to win my vote. Anything less wont do

in someones mind............

It is what it is.

If she is apt "to shake off" consequences of her mistakes and actions why is she trying hide the reality?

"Tough" or Self serving?

Please translate.

And, a major issue.

... something corrupt either.

Another NON THERE THERE issue about Clinton

When you're TRULY... TRULLY hurting or need to get things done bullshit doesn't mean as much to you, including these non issue transcripts

by releasing the transcripts?

The she could point to them and say, "See! Nothing!".

Where's the harm?

tax returns? Sanders is giving Trump plausible deniability by hiding his own returns. That is SOP- transcripts of speeches is not. If Trump does the same, then she should consider it. But that is unlikely.

Do we need to bargain for transparency? I'll show you mine if you show me yours? Is that how it should be?

thing SBS ever said publicly out there, and Trump has no intention of unveiling his past.....we both know that.
Sorry, but this dog does not hunt.

... will never ever be satisfied anyway.

If she said "you people are going to pay for tax free college under my term" and made that her whole speech the Hillary haters ON BOTH sides would scream she's raising peoples taxes.

Waste of precious time

It can quickly and easily lead to corruption.

Hillary is much smarter than that. After decades of RW smears and attacks, do you honestly believe that she's writes her speeches without a self-awareness and full knowledge that someone will try to twist her words and use them against her?

Besides, for her to "release the transcripts" would only serve to flatter the egos of a group who'd never vote for her anyway. She seems to be the type of person who does not suffers fools gladly.

At this late date, it should be clear to most people that her answer is "no".

If she writes her own speeches and is fully aware and has such knowledge that "people will try to twist her words", why would she write speeches that provide that opportunity?

She seems to be the type of person who does not suffer scrutiny well.

That's why God invented religion, politics, and horse races.

And before you whitewash with claims that she's an innocent victim and the world is out to get her because she's a woman, recognize that her character IS a legitimate concern based on so many issues -- arms-for-donations, email hiding, national security negligence, money laundering through the foundation and the victory fund, preventing paltry min wage increase in poverty stricken Haiti, on and on and on.

If you truly cannot see her character flaws I feel sorry for you.

.. shit that gets those who already hate her with a bush level passion riled up.

Not all flaws are equal, my friend.

Hillary is beating two men at the same time.

... one group of angry do nothings riled up and shouting

She is totally unflappable.

I think she's been fighting the battles for a long time.

She might as well get used to it.

The investigation have turned up bupkis.

know it's all political games and bullshit.

A couple greased out of court settlements at least one Presidential Pardon. Generally no high treason that is good. First Presidential candidate to ever be the target of an FBI investigation and it looks like I will have to vote for her.

Refused to answer 3 questions regarding Whitewater got a full Presidental Pardon from Bill. Yes and the Clinton's got a smear job but asked for it someone else took the fall.

It says a lot about the Clintons someone would be so loyal to them.

Compromised, Nixon also got a pardon.

it counts. When we needed her most she failed to be tough on the republicons that wanted to invade Iraq for profits. She was all for increasing corporate profits.

She was tough on the AA community:

.... and intimates she's not trustworthy, something the establishment usually does to those who are marginalized in some way.

They gave her lots of money, and not just in campaign contributions. It's a pretty simple fact.

... where WS isn't at the top of their list to fuck with.

We got stupid cops, bad schools and lower paying wage jobs...

That's like saying the ICE cream truck isn't payin their fair share of taxes to communities where they don't even deliver pizza!!!

sometimes the shoe fits.

that much of it is. BUT

much of it is a result of, at best, very poor judgment.

She chose to give those speeches when she knew that she'd probably be running for President. We know this because she was working with the Ready For Hillary Pac in the same time period.

She chose to put that server in her basement. No, no other SoS has done that. We know for a fact that it wasn't for convenience as she claimed.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-20150824-story.html

While at State, she made decisions, time after time, to to that gave the appearance of conflict of interest.

She chose to tell silly, self-aggrandizing lies like the sniper fire one.

She chose or acquiesced to run a dog whistle campaign in 2008.

She chose to bring Sidney on board against the express wishes of the President.

And that list is just for starters.

the last 8 years of "anything goes" attacks on Obama will be child's play compared to what the "left" will bring against President Hillary Clinton.

Sid

I've failed in that recently, but that should be reasonable for any discussion about a politician.

"Lie down with the dogs, wake up with the fleas".

Very apropos for Clinton.

I've got Flea-Dead collar on me.

I know most of it is portrayed as "criticism" or "analysis of the issues", but much of it is clearly nasty and brutish and is focused on personal attacks.

Those aren't character attacks. Those are real issues.

People who disagree with you about Clinton and her ability as a leader aren't evil, they're people with often legitimate concerns that are typically met with deflection, lies, and belittlement. Your OP isn't promoting Clinton as much as it's insulting those who you call "an angry and perpetually disgruntled gang." That's an awfully broad brush you're smearing everyone with, and you're blurring the distinction between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters and therefore Sanders and Trump. That's more of the lying I mentioned before.

Trump attacks her for going to the bathroom.