Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

[DJC]

Are you guys really arguing who won a debate? 

People are going to give a biased answer based on who they wanted to win. 

What a farcical democratic process.

I don't have an opinion on who won Thry, but the anti-Democrat media are giving it to Clinton. Perhaps it's a double bluff 

As to the process, I have to keep reminding myself that the US democratic model is a product of the 18th century and is hopelessly outdated.  Of course, ours is a more modern 19th century product.  It's just as well because we are equally conservative when it comes to changing the constitution.

[laj]

I predicted a trump victory months ago and was mocked, told to look at the polls. Funny they haven't  been brought up in a while, wonder why? Not that they matter, Hillary will lose the election because she's  a terrible candidate.  Americans want change so why would they elect the same party with a vastly inferior corrupt leader?

Polls are up and down and unreliable unlike here. The only consistent thing is majority if them have Clinton on front by an average of 3%. Not only that it comes down to polls in individual states as states there have a different amount of delegates. If you lead in California that's worth 55 delegates, Hilary is way in front there, where if you lead in a smaller state it might only be worth 5 delegates. On that basis Hilary is actually well in front.

[Mav]

Interesting challenge for Trump.  Merely dangling the issue of Bill Clinton's indiscretions won't do much for him.  He'll have to do it directly and explain how this taints Hillary.  A direct attack may well be fatal for him.  Not only is he likely to pull the roof down on himself, it would actually allow Hillary to gain sympathy as she was cheated on and not the cheater.  To suggest she failed women because she stood behind Bill rather than his accusers verges on bizarre. I'd love to know if any women, feminist or not, sympathise with the likes of Genifer Flowers who made money from boasting about having an affair with Bill.  On the other hand, Trump also cheated on his wives, so how does this issue help Trump?

The more serious attack would be to go after the allegations made by Paula Yates and Juanita Broadderick.  The latter alleged rape but provided a sworn statement that there was never any rape before recanting the statement.  More importantly, Trump has faced rape and sexual assault claims too.  An ex-wife alleged rape in divorce proceedings even if she has tried to fudge that subsequently.  The wife of a businessman he was dealing with alleged he groped her.  And most amazingly, he faces a civil suit in which the plaintiff alleges he raped her when she was a child of 14 or so.  He's playing around with explosives.

I'd imagine that Clinton will be quick to nail him about the child rape case if he opens up the issue.  No doubt, Clinton doesn't want to go there first as it would be the ultimate in negative mudslinging, would open up Bill's issues and the case may not have much to it.  But if he attacks her with a half-baked allegation that she should answer for Bill's sins, especially if he peddles unproven rape allegations, then it would be fair game.  I suspect that most voters would say then that he brought it on himself.  Imagine Hillary asking him if he did rape a child after tying her to a bed at a party thrown by a convicted paedophile and whether he threatened that she would regret it if she told anyone.  What the hell could he say?  That would be an amazing moment.

I reckon if you're standing in petrol, playing with matches isn't a good idea.

[DJC]

Odd spot in today's Age:

The Oregonian newspaper, which serves a US state that has legitimised cannabis, offered, as a pre-presidential debate service,  and experts' guide to the nine best 'weed strains' to get voters through the Clinton-Trump televised stoush, offering the best options to reduce nausea and stress.

[DJC]

It's good to see that the ABC's News 24 has got its priorities right.  Live coverage of a rambling Trump was just cut short in order to cover a presser by Sydney's Josh Kennedy.  The latter certainly spoke more clearly and made more sense, not that Trump had set the bar all that high.

[Mav]

Clinton team preps for Trump’s Bill attack, Politico.

[Baggers]

The Clinton team only needs to remember the old saying, 'Give him enough rope and he'll hang himself.' And he is doing it rather well.

[Mav]

Some of us compared Trump with Fascists such as Hitler and Mussolini.  But this book review regarding Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939 shows how different they are: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/boo....html?_r=0.

[cookie2]

Some of us compared Trump with Fascists such as Hitler and Mussolini.  But this book review regarding Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939 shows how different they are: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/boo....html?_r=0.

Guess who's back!

[madbluboy]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/26662...=editorial

"To me, it was embarrassing to watch that these are our two candidates," Kaepernick said, via Yamiche Alcindor of the New York Times. "Both are proven liars, and it almost seems like they’re trying to debate who's less racist. And at this point, talking with one of my friends, it was, you have to pick the lesser of two evils, but in the end, it’s still evil."

"You have Hillary, who's called black teens or black kids 'superpredators.' You have Donald Trump, who's openly racist," Kaepernick said, per Richardson. "We have a presidential candidate who has deleted emails and done things illegally. ... That doesn't make sense to me because if that was any other person, you'd be in prison. So what is this country really standing for?"