Stora tråden om Donald Trump [mod]

Åh från nu gäller bara Trump testamentet.

USA har hur mycket egen olja som helst. Behöver inte bry sig om Mellanöstern.

Om man stoppar socialbidrag, foodstamps till illegala så blir man av med dom.

Att Trump helt uppenbart inte är kristen tycker jag är någonting positivt. Jag gillar också att han spelar kristen så dåligt att bara de kristna är dumma nog att tro honom. På så sätt försäkrar han sig om deras röster samtidigt som han försäkrar oss normala att han inte är kristen och inte kommer låta muh bible spela någon som helst politisk roll. Här är jag! Du citerade ett av mina inlägg, jag skrev även ett till om Aryan Wisdom. När andra upptäcker något var det ofta ett halvår sedan jag tog saken:

(FB) Stora tråden om Donald Trump (mod)

Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/05/trumps-history-of-corruption-is-mind-boggling-so-why-is-clinton-supposedly-the-corrupt-one/?utm_term=.375b2d5656c0

In the heat of a presidential campaign, you’d think that a story about one party’s nominee giving a large contribution to a state attorney general who promptly shut down an inquiry into that nominee’s scam “university” would be enormous news. But we continue to hear almost nothing about what happened between Donald Trump and Florida attorney general Pam Bondi.

[...]Trump paid a penalty to the IRS after his foundation made an illegal contribution to Bondi’s PAC. While the Trump organization characterizes that as a bureaucratic oversight, the basic facts are that Bondi’s office had received multiple complaints from Floridians who said they were cheated by Trump University; while they were looking into it and considering whether to join a lawsuit over Trump University filed by the attorney general of New York State, Bondi called Trump and asked him for a $25,000 donation; shortly after getting the check, Bondi’s office dropped the inquiry.

At this point we should note that everything here may be completely innocent.[...] But here’s the thing: We don’t know the answers to those questions, because almost nobody seems to be pursuing them.

Whenever we get some new development in any of those Clinton stories, you see blanket coverage — every cable network, every network news program, every newspaper investigates it at length. And even when the new information serves to exonerate Clinton rather than implicate her in wrongdoing, the coverage still emphasizes that the whole thing just “raises questions” about her integrity.

The big difference is that there are an enormous number of reporters who get assigned to write stories about those issues regarding Clinton. The story of something like the Clinton Foundation gets stretched out over months and months with repeated tellings, always with the insistence that questions are being raised and the implication that shady things are going on, even if there isn’t any evidence at a particular moment to support that idea.

When it comes to Trump, on the other hand, we’ve seen a very different pattern. Here’s what happens: A story about some kind of corrupt dealing emerges, usually from the dogged efforts of one or a few journalists; it gets discussed for a couple of days; and then it disappears. Someone might mention it now and again, but the news organizations don’t assign a squad of reporters to look into every aspect of it, so no new facts are brought to light and no new stories get written.

The end result of this process is that because of all that repeated examination of Clinton’s affairs, people become convinced that she must be corrupt to the core. It’s not that there isn’t plenty of negative coverage of Trump, because of course there is, but it’s focused mostly on the crazy things he says on any given day.

But the truth is that you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has. The number of stories which could potentially deserve hundreds and hundreds of articles is absolutely staggering.

Ny poll från CNN visad nyss på TV ger Trump 49, Clinton 48 statewide.

49% är nytt rekord för Trump bara att säga grattis.


Nu jävlar lär han bli galen och tro att han är en diktator.

Statewide? I vilken delstat?

Tror det betyder hela USA.

49% -48% med bara DJ och H

45%

43%

7%

2%

med Alla fyra kandidater.

Statewide innebär väl över en delstat och Nationwide över hela USA?
Nån länk?
Hillary leder ju i så gott som varenda poll, ofta stort.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/index.html?adkey=bn

Verkar vara hela USA.

Sorry, Nationwide såklart!

Ja, alltså inte statewide utan Nationwide.
Skillnaden är väl inom felmarginalen 3.5% så det är statistiskt oavgjort i denna undersökning.
Här kan du se hur det gått i många andra aktuella undersökningar och se att Clinton fortf. har ett ganska bekvämt övertag.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Kom ihåg att debatterna inte ens har börjat , Trump lär soppa mattan med Clinton och säkra presidentvalet på det sättet.