Hillary: I have concluded Donald Trump is not qualified to be president

[Ronnie]

Okay, in other news, I've concluded that 2+2=4.

This is actually an unusually decisive remark on her part.  Not too long ago, she answered that voters should decide whether or not he is qualified.

But... But... Her integrity is so great!

What?

[SillyAmerican]

Yes, but Trump and Sanders have managed to energize disenfranchised voters; Hillary has managed to stay out of prison.

Trump: I have concluded Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Mallow]

Recent polling suggests almost 43% of the nation is prepared to vote for Trump, though.

Which really means nothing at this point, but it's fun to engage in these discussions.

My point was he already has a group of voters much larger than 18-20 who say they'll vote for him.

[136or142]

Yes, but Trump and Sanders have managed to energize disenfranchised voters; Hillary has managed to stay out of prison.

Trump: I have concluded Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

How has Rapist Crony Capitalist Trump managed to stay out of prison?

[136or142]

Recent polling suggests almost 43% of the nation is prepared to vote for Trump, though.

Which really means nothing at this point, but it's fun to engage in these discussions.

My point was he already has a group of voters much larger than 18-20 who say they'll vote for him.

Of course, but the point is that it's not his 18-20 million idiot hard care supporters he has to worry about losing.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Yes, but Trump and Sanders have managed to energize disenfranchised voters; Hillary has managed to stay out of prison.

Trump: I have concluded Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

How long before he publicly changes his mind on that? Two hours? Two days? Two weeks?

[RightBehind]

Trump isn't qualified to be president? That's the biggest 'duh' statement I've heard in a while.

[Santander]

Does Hillary Clinton have the proper conduct, integrity, and honesty to be President?
No. Trump has more integrity than her.
Is Trump qualified?
No, but qualifications do not greatness make.

That's really debatable here. Trump has spent the entire election season so far blatantly lying on a daily basis, on camera.

On the definition of integrity, there is no way you can say Trump has more than Clinton.

Ah, Virginia, Hillary can do no wrong in your eyes, so I'm not surprised by your comment. Good luck convincing undecided voters that your candidate is the answer...

I certainly do not hold back in expressing my disdain for Hillary, but you can't say that she lies more than Trump. Hillary has told many lies, half-truths and misleading statements throughout her career, including during this campaign, but Trump has taken lying to a level so unprecedented that you cannot even fact-check him because he's already told 3 more lies by the time you call him out on his first one... and that's just his short political career. As a lifelong salesman, self-promoter and general asshole, I guarantee you he's told more lies than Hillary in his lifetime... and I say that as someone who is leaning Trump.

[IceSpear]

I mean, he's a buffoonish reality TV star. Not exactly a bold statement here, but I'm glad she's finally said it.

[IceSpear]

Yes, but one of the ladies talking with Speaker Gingrich back in mid April made the following comment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That has to scare the party faithful.

I'd imagine the slice of the Democratic Party that has an unfavorable view of both Hillary and Bernie is exceedingly slim. Probably 5% or less. Was this lady from West Virginia? Because if so, nobody cares.

[Santander]

I'd imagine the slice of the Democratic Party that has an unfavorable view of both Hillary and Bernie is exceedingly slim. Probably 5% or less. Was this lady from West Virginia? Because if so, nobody cares.

The number is way more than 5%, and it's not just Dixiecrats. Self-identified conservatives and moderates outnumber liberals among registered Democrats, and a lot of them are unhappy with Clinton chasing Sanders to the left. Most of them will hold their nose and vote for Clinton, but that doesn't mean they were impressed with the menu on offer during the primaries this year.

[IceSpear]

I'd imagine the slice of the Democratic Party that has an unfavorable view of both Hillary and Bernie is exceedingly slim. Probably 5% or less. Was this lady from West Virginia? Because if so, nobody cares.

The number is way more than 5%, and it's not just Dixiecrats. Self-identified conservatives and moderates outnumber liberals among registered Democrats, and a lot of them are unhappy with Clinton chasing Sanders to the left. Most of them will hold their nose and vote for Clinton, but that doesn't mean they were impressed with the menu on offer during the primaries this year.

In this poll, Hillary has an 88-12 favorability among Democrats and Bernie has an 84-12 rating. Unless there's no overlap whatsoever (unlikely), the percentage of Democrats who see them both unfavorably would almost certainly be in the single digits. And considering Romney got 7% of the Democratic vote, it would be nothing new.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/05/04/rel6b.-.2016.general.pdf

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

This is sort of historic is it not? When's the last time a major party candidate said this about the other side?

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, but Trump and Sanders have managed to energize disenfranchised voters; Hillary has managed to stay out of prison.

Trump: I have concluded Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

How long before he publicly changes his mind on that? Two hours? Two days? Two weeks?

Hillary said "Let the voters decide." Not too long ago. Now she changes her mind.

[IceSpear]

This is sort of historic is it not? When's the last time a major party candidate said this about the other side?

Didn't McCain talk about how Obama wasn't qualified? I'm also pretty sure Trump has already said it about Hillary.

[136or142]

Yes, but Trump and Sanders have managed to energize disenfranchised voters; Hillary has managed to stay out of prison.

Trump: I have concluded Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

How long before he publicly changes his mind on that? Two hours? Two days? Two weeks?

Hillary said "Let the voters decide." Not too long ago. Now she changes her mind.

So?  Hillary Clinton is also a voter and now she's decided.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Does Hillary Clinton have the proper conduct, integrity, and honesty to be President?
No. Trump has more integrity than her.
Is Trump qualified?
No, but qualifications do not greatness make.

Rapist Donald Trump is a Rapist.  He has zero integrity or morals or ethics.  The only reasons I can think of why he wants to be President are either for his vanity or because he plans to rob the country blind.

Where do you get this rapist stuff. I can't stand Trump but I'd never call him that. Got any proof?

He's probably thinking of this (and similar allegations):
"The Time Donald Trump's Ex-Wife Accused Him of Brutally Raping Her"
http://gawker.com/the-time-donald-trumps-ex-wife-accused-him-of-brutally-1721129617

[136or142]

And this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-denies-rape-teenage-7857357

New York Times story is already well known.  I don't know if there are any other allegations that have been made.

The Mirror Story seems to be based entirely on rumors, but, as I wrote above, like that ever stopped Rapist Trump and his supporters from stating allegations as if they're facts.

[Hermit For Peace]

And this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-denies-rape-teenage-7857357

New York Times story is already well known.  I don't know if there are any other allegations that have been made.

The Mirror Story seems to be based entirely on rumors, but, as I wrote above, like that ever stopped Rapist Trump and his supporters from stating allegations as if they're facts.

That's really disgusting. I don't know what to think except Trump needs to be careful about throwing stones....

[136or142]

And this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-denies-rape-teenage-7857357

New York Times story is already well known.  I don't know if there are any other allegations that have been made.

The Mirror Story seems to be based entirely on rumors, but, as I wrote above, like that ever stopped Rapist Trump and his supporters from stating allegations as if they're facts.

That's really disgusting. I don't know what to think except Trump needs to be careful about throwing stones....

I find it a little hard to believe that this isn't an old trick, but my understanding is that this idea of throwing stones as political strategy was first adopted by George W Bush on the advice of messaging expert Frank Luntz.

Bush was accused of not being very knowledgeable on the details of his policy proposals and of being dishonest, so he was advised in debates to criticize Gore of using 'fuzzy math' and of claiming Gore's exaggerations (some of which were quite bizarre) were evidence that he was a serial liar.   Of course, Gore did also tell some mostly untrue statements and even some outright lies, but nothing on the scale of lying a nation into war.

So, it seems that Rapist Trump is using this strategy of attacking his opponent on what really are or might be (some of) his weakest points.  

I don't know if the Mirror Story is true or not.  Apparently the Mirror tends to write very sensationalist stories that may or may not be vetted.  I'd be leery to believe the story all that much, but for my purposes of referring to him as Rapist Trump it really doesn't matter if it's true or not, just that the story exists.

[Badger]

Yes, but one of the ladies talking with Speaker Gingrich back in mid April made the following comment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That has to scare the party faithful.

Does Hillary Clinton have the proper conduct, integrity, and honesty to be President?
No. Trump has more integrity than her.
Is Trump qualified?
No, but qualifications do not greatness make.

That will backfire terribly. She hasn't learned a thing from the primaries.

Wake me up when the three of you post something that doesn't look like it was lifted from a youtube video comments section.

[Hermit For Peace]

And this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-denies-rape-teenage-7857357

New York Times story is already well known.  I don't know if there are any other allegations that have been made.

The Mirror Story seems to be based entirely on rumors, but, as I wrote above, like that ever stopped Rapist Trump and his supporters from stating allegations as if they're facts.

That's really disgusting. I don't know what to think except Trump needs to be careful about throwing stones....

I find it a little hard to believe that this isn't an old trick, but my understanding is that this idea of throwing stones as political strategy was first adopted by George W Bush on the advice of messaging expert Frank Luntz.

Bush was accused of not being very knowledgeable on the details of his policy proposals and of being dishonest, so he was advised in debates to criticize Gore of using 'fuzzy math' and of claiming Gore's exaggerations (some of which were quite bizarre) were evidence that he was a serial liar.   Of course, Gore did also tell some mostly untrue statements and even some outright lies, but nothing on the scale of lying a nation into war.

So, it seems that Rapist Trump is using this strategy of attacking his opponent on what really are or might be (some of) his weakest points.  

I don't know if the Mirror Story is true or not.  Apparently the Mirror tends to write very sensationalist stories that may or may not be vetted.  I'd be leery to believe the story all that much, but for my purposes of referring to him as Rapist Trump it really doesn't matter if it's true or not, just that the story exists.

So if Trump keeps trash talking Bill Clinton it makes Trump's own sexual "issues" seem not so bad in comparison. I'd call that genius advice.

[136or142]

And this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-denies-rape-teenage-7857357

New York Times story is already well known.  I don't know if there are any other allegations that have been made.

The Mirror Story seems to be based entirely on rumors, but, as I wrote above, like that ever stopped Rapist Trump and his supporters from stating allegations as if they're facts.

That's really disgusting. I don't know what to think except Trump needs to be careful about throwing stones....

I find it a little hard to believe that this isn't an old trick, but my understanding is that this idea of throwing stones as political strategy was first adopted by George W Bush on the advice of messaging expert Frank Luntz.

Bush was accused of not being very knowledgeable on the details of his policy proposals and of being dishonest, so he was advised in debates to criticize Gore of using 'fuzzy math' and of claiming Gore's exaggerations (some of which were quite bizarre) were evidence that he was a serial liar.   Of course, Gore did also tell some mostly untrue statements and even some outright lies, but nothing on the scale of lying a nation into war.

So, it seems that Rapist Trump is using this strategy of attacking his opponent on what really are or might be (some of) his weakest points.  

I don't know if the Mirror Story is true or not.  Apparently the Mirror tends to write very sensationalist stories that may or may not be vetted.  I'd be leery to believe the story all that much, but for my purposes of referring to him as Rapist Trump it really doesn't matter if it's true or not, just that the story exists.

So if Trump keeps trash talking Bill Clinton it makes Trump's own sexual "issues" seem not so bad in comparison. I'd call that genius advice.

And this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-denies-rape-teenage-7857357

New York Times story is already well known.  I don't know if there are any other allegations that have been made.

The Mirror Story seems to be based entirely on rumors, but, as I wrote above, like that ever stopped Rapist Trump and his supporters from stating allegations as if they're facts.

That's really disgusting. I don't know what to think except Trump needs to be careful about throwing stones....

I find it a little hard to believe that this isn't an old trick, but my understanding is that this idea of throwing stones as political strategy was first adopted by George W Bush on the advice of messaging expert Frank Luntz.

Bush was accused of not being very knowledgeable on the details of his policy proposals and of being dishonest, so he was advised in debates to criticize Gore of using 'fuzzy math' and of claiming Gore's exaggerations (some of which were quite bizarre) were evidence that he was a serial liar.   Of course, Gore did also tell some mostly untrue statements and even some outright lies, but nothing on the scale of lying a nation into war.

So, it seems that Rapist Trump is using this strategy of attacking his opponent on what really are or might be (some of) his weakest points.  

I don't know if the Mirror Story is true or not.  Apparently the Mirror tends to write very sensationalist stories that may or may not be vetted.  I'd be leery to believe the story all that much, but for my purposes of referring to him as Rapist Trump it really doesn't matter if it's true or not, just that the story exists.

So if Trump keeps trash talking Bill Clinton it makes Trump's own sexual "issues" seem not so bad in comparison. I'd call that genius advice.

It's extremely cynical but it's so obvious that I can't believe it's a recent idea, but my understanding is that it literally was the brainchild of Frank Luntz.  For instance, if you look at Alinsky's rules for radicals, in which he pretty much just codified already existing ideas, there is nothing like what Luntz suggested.

The only rules of Alinsky's that could be considered unethical or cynical are these:

11.“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

Alinsky was greatly influenced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, and he saw at the time how violence used against the groups they were leading ended up aiding their causes.  All three of them made it perfectly clear that their side must never use violence.  Never-the-less, I think many people would regard provoking the opponent to become violent, no matter how worthy the cause, of not being completely ethical.

In the case of Gandhi, I could be wrong but I don't think he had any idea that the British government would order the military (or was it the police?) to physically attack Gandhi and his protesters. In the case of Martin Luther King Jr, he and his supporters didn't have to do anything to get the police to act violently against them.

13.“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

This has apparently long been known in Europe as "playing the man and not the ball."

Those are the worst of Alinsky's rules, nothing all that close to Luntz's twisted genius.