Reply With Quote
59% by one recent poll. not a vast majority, but a clear one.
Obviously I was speaking in a general term that excludes his own base.
They think Trump is a god. And before you say you're not a Trump guy..lol you damn well know you like him more than Hillary so by default, you are.
The vast majority either think Trump is a racist or a bigot.
59% by one recent poll. not a vast majority, but a clear one.
I'm not a Trump guy and I still don't find him to be a racist or bigot. Certainly not on the level of calling black people super predators.
And no, the vast majority don't think Trump is a racist or a bigot, that is easily refutable.
51+ is not a majority?
whether or not polls back up the perception that Trump is bigoted, perceptions count.
the perception that Trump is a bigot is a liability regardless.
Trump could've dispelled the impression. Not only did he miss his chance to do so, he spoiled it by openly courting bigots and trash talking minorities during the primaries.
Now that the chickens have come home to roost, he points at HRC and calls her a bigot. It makes him look childish.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/24/...ampaign-staff/Federal disclosures released this past weekend help make the case that the real estate mogul, at the very least, is not conducting a traditional campaign operation.
They show, among other things, that Trump’s organization spent more money in July on the now-iconic “Make America Great Again” red hats, Trump T-shirts, and mugs than on the staff whose job it is to run the campaign.
The Trump campaign paid more than $1.8 million to two vendors — California-based headwear-maker Cali-Fame and Louisiana’s Ace Specialties — for T-shirts, mugs, stickers, and the red hats (which the campaign spent over $400,000 on alone).
Compare that to his spending on staff. In the month of July, Trump spent roughly $921,000 on staff and consultants, about half of what he spent on merchandise bearing his own name and slogans.
You claimed vast majority. Or is this another just kidding just speaking in general terms I didn't really mean vast majority?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f741...rump-companiesTrump's defenders, including New York donor Anthony Scaramucci, say a major part of his appeal is that he's a "non-politician" who does things differently. That extends to his propensity to mix business with politics.
Finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission detail a campaign unafraid to co-mingle political and business endeavors in an unprecedented way.
Wealthy political candidates in the past, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and presidential contender Steve Forbes both walled off their campaigns from the companies bearing their names.
Not so for Trump. Through the end of May, his campaign had plowed about $6 million back into Trump corporate products and services, a review of federal filings shows. That's nearly 10 percent of his expenditures.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...paign-offices/new FEC filings from the Trump campaign indicate it paid Trump Tower Commercial LLC $35,458 for commercial space in March, when Trump was still largely self-funding. But as the months went by, up went the rent. By May, the same space in Trump Tower cost the campaign $72,800. Then it paid $110,684 on June 9, and $169,758 on July 10.
In total, the campaign paid $169,758 in rent during the month of July, HuffPost tells us, nearly five times what it paid in March.
But wait—maybe costs were just growing with his campaign. After all, Trump secured the Republican nomination during this period and may have been gearing up for the general election. Except the same report indicates the Trump campaign was paying 197 employees and consultants in March. In July, the number actually dropped to 172. That's pretty much in line with what we know about Trump's organization, which has long been hovering between bare-bones and non-existent.
What's the difference between vast majority and a majority?
My mistake for making it sound like I meant 90% think he's a racist. I meant that more than 50 percent of people here think he is one. A majority threshold has been reached.
I am curious. Could it be the office has grown as the campaign staff grew? A quick search appears to show the Trump Tower commands a $91 per square foot per month rental rate with outside, unaffiliated commercial tenants...
http://streeteasy.com/building/trump-tower
No, the staff when from 197 to 172.
"The Trump campaign paid Trump Tower Commercial LLC $35,458 in March ― the same amount it had been paying since last summer ― and had 197 paid employees and consultants. In July, it paid 172 employees and consultants.
In addition to the rent for Trump Tower space in Manhattan, Trump has paid his eponymous golf courses and restaurants more than $260,000 since his campaign and the RNC struck a joint fundraising deal in mid-May, after he essentially locked up the GOP nomination. On May 18, the day the fundraising deal was announced, Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach was paid $29,715; Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, was paid $35,845; and Trump Restaurants LLC was paid $125,080, according to FEC records. Such large payments were much rarer when Trump was self-funding."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03d51368a82b9
As per usual, Trump is ripping off his own donors.
as usual, CC fails to read the post he's responding to. it's a curiously common fault in this forum.
That's horrible. I have a friend whose wife was killed in almost the same way in LA while walking with her 9 year-old son.
I'd tell you the difference is vast but that word seems to give you trouble so....it's a big difference.
Pardon me for not phrasing my question to pass Wineholes sneering scrutiny. A more accurate way to have phrased the question is if the square footage increased as he added executives to the campaign. I saw no reference to actual office area used.
At the top rent number divided by $91 dollars divided by the number of employees it works out to about 11 square feet per employee.
TSA and CC split hairs to excuse Trump's faults, but malign anyone who does so for Hilary.
Pots jeering at kettles.
I simply point out obvious inconsistencies in partisan arguments. I admit to despising Hillary but don't particularly like Trump either. Since about 90% of this forums posters are Hillary apologists I tend to rebut their arguments more than Trump supporters. If you were fair however, you would admit I have rebutted some of ducks and others more outrageous assertions about Hillary.
It hurts the GOP in particular, there has long been a perception of underlying racism and now they are looking at losing 98% of the black vote , Obama won 93% and 95% for comparison. I saw a poll back in March (before the judge and Telemundo comments) that had his favorably with Hispanics was at less than 20%. Trump could be permanently losing the Latino vote for the GOP going forward, that thing just doesn't flip election to election. This will be the 20th straight election that Blacks have voted Democrat and the 10th straight for Hispanics.
ducks, tbh
If I read all of your posts -- which I don't -- I might say you're justified patting yourself on the back for being even-handed.
Throwing ducks under the bus hardly counts as a principled stand for fairness. And it's simply not true that 90% of the forums posters are Hilary apologists. I bet you couldn't name five and credibly support the charges.
Seems you can't make a point without stretching it. Sometimes you just make stuff up.
What percentage would you claim? I certainly see you as a defender of Hillary and there are a lot that are more aggressively "progressive" than you are. As for naming five off the top if my head would be boutons, reck, fuzzy, rg, bonnerific, hitman, pusher, etc.
I laffed at the 90% Hillary supporters in here.
I think I'm the only democrat in here who has defended some of her positions in here. Bouton is all over the place. Fuzzy is an independent whose calling it like he or she sees it as are others.
I've not seeing them go all out for Hillary since I started posting in this section.
What's happening is, being objective in this place is no longer considered being just objective. You either have to be a Hillary or a Trump. That's why I stopped defending myself when I was accused of being a Hillary shill.
Also I think Trump's positions are so out of whack that most common sense people just tend to be like yeah Hillary might or might not be corrupt but at least she's not going full re ed out there.
No it didn't. Trump got a bump from his convention to make it close. Wasn't the emails loser.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions