Gary Johnson will take Utah and New Mexico. He will be the first 3rd party candidate to win a state since Teddy won 88 electoral votes for the Bull Moose Party.
You might be on to something, because there hasn't been "reliable" polling data in either state since May. Clinton was trouncing Trump in the 4-way poll for NM, while Trump was way ahead of Clinton in Utah with Johnson running a fairly distant third in both states. But the way that the conventions went, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a slight Clinton lean in NM with Trump closer to Johnson, and vice versa for Utah right now. I think Johnson still isn't going to win the states in the end, as a third-party vote likely puts "the other person" in the White House.
4th, here's my take on the bankruptcies way back in the thread that somehow got buried by Clinton e-mails and Ivanka's rear. BTW, I heard there's a hashtag now #Trumpsacrifices. I haven't checked it out, but don't people realizes this sort of social media mocking feeds right into his support?
Not to act like a nitpicking douche, but George Wallace (1968) and Strom Thurmond (1948) both carried some southern states.
FWIW- It looks like HRC got a bounce from DNC. If looking only at the CNN/ORC poll Clinton jumped 7 points, Trump dropped 5 for a total of a 12 point swing. I'm sure that will be short lived as the national conventions are in the rearview mirror.
John Oliver mocking the Democratic National Convention and laying waste to Trump's inept response to Khizr Kahn and wife. Is it any wonder that the public official that got the best approval bump from the conventions was POTUS Obama?
It's things like this why the Libertarian party will always just be a fringe party. They just do not appear serious about effecting real change and certainly not serious about winning. They don't appear serious in general. If they were trying to turn off Republican voters who will not vote for Trump then I could not of thought of a better way to do it then praising Hillary and Obama.
I think this is because they realize it is impossible. In order to make society libertarian, you would have to blow it all up and completely start over. Libertarian solutions to current real world problems cannot work -- the necessary framework is not there. I am not saying they are wrong, only that, as an alternative, it is not realistic.
He shouldn't have gone after either one. First, if you single out an entire demographic for attack or any kind of punitive action, all your opponent has to do is find one who appears sympathetic and has a compelling story, and you'll look like a damn fool. In other words, Trump put himself in a tough position at the very beginning. Second, once Khan gave his speech, Trump could have backpedaled like the article suggests or just just shut the hell up. But no, he had to shoot off his mouth, which invited more attention and commentary from the Khan family. Even worse, he had his media propagandists circulate negative conspiracy theories about Mr. Khan without any evidence. Unless he had something very bad (bad enough to overcome the sympathy someone normally gets for losing a child in battle), very specific, and supported by overwhelming evidence, he was picking a battle he had absolutely no chance of winning. Mrs. Deez has said from the very beginning that Trump has a deal with Hillary to rig the election for her. I joked about it but mostly laughed it off, but now I'm not so sure that she's wrong. You almost couldn't do more to screw up.
Mr. Deez, I had almost the exact conversation with a friend this evening. I don't care if Mr. Khan is very involved in Muslim/Sharia law, as it appears. You just don't ever, ever make fun of a parent who has lost a child. That territory is sacred space. I am beginning to believe that Trump is either 1) a sociopath who wants to keep pushing the borders of his supporters by being more and more outrageous ("I could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and still get votes") or he is trying to give the Democrats the election on a silver platter. Either way, it's disgusting. What makes me the saddest, is the fact that any other candidate, with a modicum of decency, would walk away with this election and rid this country of the Clintons once and for all. The fact that things are still close should be a huge embarrassment to her party, and all who support her. This election is a huge embarrassment to me. I can't believe these 2 are the best options the USA could put forward.
Y'all be careful about saying "well Trump really stepped in it this time". How many times has that been said in the past year, only to be not true? He has a knack for getting his political opponents to make fools of themselves and even apologize for their remarks. As more info comes out about Mr. Khan, this could very well happen again.
The point being Trump should have left it alone, or just said Khan was too emotional (with reason) to allow for a discussion about policy. I would have added why is he shaking a constitution at me instead of Obama who has actual history of ignoring it. Plus, immigration is not a constitutional issue.
Seriously? Maybe not http://www.sltrib.com/news/4183208-155/libertarian-gary-johnsons-comments-on-religious But he didn't walk back the comments about religious liberty. So where does he stand on that? I don't think anyone can count on religious protection from a candidate when he can't distinguish between a conscientious right to not fund abortions and a conscientious right to shoot someone in the face. We'll see what else he says on this... Libertarians often sound like they grabbed a whole bunch of bumper stickers and arranged them into a platform. But then, I guess that's everyone now.
I, unfortunately, have to side with Trump on the Khan issue. Those parents trivialized their son's sacrifice by turning it into a political talking point for a presidential candidate at her party's convention. When you make your child's death a political talking point for a candidate at a convention, it absolutely becomes open for debate. Trump's points were not bad for once. A. Hillary is all about women's empowerment, yet there the mother is wearing a symbol of the islamic oppression of woman and said nothing. B. Hillary voted for the war. Trump was not elected when that war started. Hillary was a proponent and it is a reason she lost in 2008. It is the Khans' right to go speak at a political convention. However, when they politicize their child's sacrifice for the advancement of one party or candidate, they open themselves up to the debate and criticism that comes with it. At least Cindy Seehan was consistently against war no matter which party was in charge (she just got less media coverage when Bush left office). I come from a military family, but I cannot sympathize with the Khans as far as taking Trump's criticism goes when they put themselves in this position and took on Trump at the democratic convention for Hillary. Trump has every right to respond to any convention speaker and his attacks, for once, did not cross the line. Losing a child in war is a terrible thing, but it does not place you above reproach when you use it to campaign in a partisan manner.
I just went and found Trump's initial remarks with regards to Mr. Khan's speech. I don't see what he said that is so offensive. This looks like another big nothing being pushed by the left to try to finally find something to stop Trump. I don't think it's going to work. This is why he is where he is - so many people are FED UP with being silenced by the left for saying not very much at all with this "Have you no decency!" slam they trot out, while excusing themselves for calling every GOP candidate for POTUS in the past 25 years the next Hitler. Quite frankly I don't even get the connection except they are Muslim. Their son was a Muslim, he was killed by Muslims, in a war that HRC voted for, yet he sees fit to use his son's death to bag on Trump. His argument seems to be that Trump has not had a child killed by Muslims, so he should not be allowed to decide if Muslims can or cannot enter the US. Seriously? This is your argument?
Everyone should feel terrible for the loss of someone's child. However, that loss does not change the fact that Islamists are an undeniable, material threat that needs to be defeated. I only saw part of Khan's speech. Did Mr. Khan ever mention the thousands that have died at the hands of Muslims? Did he mention the beheadings, "honor" killings, pressure-cooker bombings, acid burns, and dismemberment of non-muslim victims? I do feel bad for the Khan's loss. I also think about the innocent Americans that had to jump 90 stories to their death in order to avoid being burned to death, and those killed instantly on impact of two airliners into the buildings, and in the subsequent collapse of the towers. My company lost over 500 good people (employees and consultants) in the World Trade Center collapse. How about the families of those people? What do you imagine their thoughts are on Islamists and the Obama administration's current immigration policy and "vetting" practices? Sympathy for the Khans is warranted as it relates to their son, but if you really want to feel something, have three officers of your company make 295 phone calls to the families of your employees that died in the WTC. Just let that process sink in for a few minutes. The physical and emotional change due to the stress of talking with those families is permanent, and that change does not come close to the pain and grief experienced by those families. May the Khan's son, and everyone who has been murdered by the proponents of the ****** -up religion known as Islam rest in peace. If you can separate the good Muslims from the bad, please do so. Until that is done, quit acting as if everything will be fine and dandy, and stop being a ******* enabler of Islam. Htown77 is right. The Khan's have no moral high ground. I don't feel one iota of sympathy for their political beliefs or their need to justify their "religion", or using the loss of, what I assume is, their heroic son at a partisan political convention. The Democrats have no moral high ground. Using a lone example of someone's pain does not justify ignoring a threat to millions of people. Now, please vote for someone that will stop importing these less-than-human *** holes into America, and will take decisive action to eliminate them from the face of the earth.
my first thought on seeing Mr and Mr Khan on the DNC stage was why are you supporting someone who voted for the war that killed your son and somehow making a man who had NOTHING to do with your brave son's death look like the bad guy? The more I learn about Mr Khan I realize he is a willing shill. I am very glad to see many people stepping back and saying wait a minute there is more here than the media is reporting. Trump doesn't help himself either but this wasn't worth more than 1 day. Hillary must be cackling loudly to see how she can dupe people.
You can't be that dense. His argument was against Trump's (and surrogates) treatment of Muslims, specifically those that are citizens of the US. Khizr Khan pointed out that Muslims like his son have and are fighting and died for the same thing that the other US citizens are fighting for. The reference to the constitution was a direct response to Trump's plan for a Muslim database which he said he would "certainly implement". This was a statement against Trump that stated the parents of the Orlando shooter shouldn't have been allowed into the country in the 80's. Trump has pedaled fear of Muslims throughout his campaign and at no point has delineated "good" from "bad" in any discernable way.
Sure I can. I do dumb stuff all the time. Oh I have no doubt you loved the speech, SH, but do please tell me what Trump said that was so offensive.
He played on a stereotype when he questioned why the wife didn't talk. He plays on stereotypes often to create neat little caricatures of his target to then tear down. In this case, he was trying to cast this Muslim couple as different than you or I. As long as they are different his supporters don't listen to the attack. That's what he's counting on. The strategy removes him from actually having to craft a cogent argument to counter the attack. Rather, he dodges the attack in favor of some oversimplified strawman argument.
Peculiar there is so much press and hoopla over Kahn a Dem shill and zero over Pat Smith speaking at the RNC and repeating what Hillary lied to her at Dover, Hillary even double downed and said she could not be responsible for what the families "misheard" in their grief.
If Trump had ignored Kahn like the entire media outside of conservative outlets had ignored Pat Smith, this probably wouldn't be an issue. In the primaries, Trump got used to being able to grab the spotlight, which he loves. What he doesn't get is that publicity works both ways. When he attacks someone he thinks needs to be attacks, he pulls them into the spotlight and by default makes them the hero. So now the media has something more to bash him with. Sometimes I think it's all for the purpose of keeping himself in the media as the villain. I'm starting to feel like Trump is trying to play the WWF heel. The DNC wheels out some useless pawn to read a script in the middle of the ring to a relatively indifferent crowd, until the Trump intro music blasts in to interrupt, the house lights shift over to the arena entrance and Trump comes strolling down to a cascade of boos, drinking it in, egging everyone on, then climbs into the ring and goes off on his rant.
You're right. Pat Smith's recollection of that days events run directly counter to other family members that were present though. It's a less clean storyline and if we can agree on anything it's that today's media like oversimplified storylines. So far, I'm not sure anyone is saying that Kazir Khan's son didn't die as both a Muslim and a hero in the theater of combat.
I think Trump simply can't back away from a fight. His lack of ability to accept criticism is epic. Trump likes to say "I'm the best ever..." well if he said "I'm the most thin skinned politician ever" I might actually agree with him. He plays right into HRC's "temperament" accusation by picking a fight with any critical review. Did anyone else catch Trumps speech on Saturday in which he addressed Khan and proclaimed "I may have the best temperament of any President ever."
Having a good temperament is like having "big hands" (to use Trump's rhetoric). If you have to tell people you have it, then you probably don't actually have it.
Husker "Pat Smith's recollection of that days events run directly counter to other family members that were present though" Really? counter to this father's account of that day? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ton-still-lying-stood-sons-casket-lied-video/ Charles Woods , father of Tyrone Woods remembers verbatim what lyin Hillary said to him that day. It is the same thing she had said publically. That the US would get the filmmaker responsible for the video . Mr Woods says Hillary is either lying OR she has a bad memory because of her age or maybe from a fall. Who has more credibility? Hillary who has been caught in lies all the time or 2 different parents grieving for their fallen heroes?
