Oldgringo wrote:Just reading through this thread, et al, reinforces my glee with having lived this long. I feel kinda' sorry for the young folk who have not much for which to look forward.
![cryin :cryin](./images/smilies/cryin.gif)
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Oldgringo wrote:Just reading through this thread, et al, reinforces my glee with having lived this long. I feel kinda' sorry for the young folk who have not much for which to look forward.
TexasJohnBoy wrote:See that 12%? Looks an awful lot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_1992
I believe a recent poll shows the same thing regarding Johnson, although I don't have a link handy.Wikipedia wrote:Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton
That because the people who are either democrat or republican more out of habit than actual conviction keep getting told not to consider it.TexasJohnBoy wrote:There will be no third party candidate elected in the next 2 decades.
SewTexas wrote:mojo84 wrote:Yeah, but I have too many other conflicts with Johnson. Plus, he has much less of a chance than Trump.SewTexas wrote:Y'all do realize there is a 3rd party that is pro-gun....right? And Johnson is gaining ground.
I'm not sure what they could be. He's actually more conservative than The Donald in many areas. ....and they are now talking about allowing him into the debates, so his polling numbers are going up.
You're right. They wanted him to be the candidate. That does not equate to them wanting him to be the president.allisji wrote:One thing that I've noticed about Trump and his media coverage during the campaign is that he was almost a media darling during the primaries. I couldn't find a news channel that wasn't airing a Trump speech. Even with all of his media rivalries, he seemed to be the media darling. He owned it. Since the convention I haven't seen a televised Trump speech, the media is roasting him over every thing that he tweets and dissecting things that he has said, but they are not putting him on TV (except for maybe Bill O'Rielly). The MSM has turned quickly on him since he officially received the nomination. I think it may have caught him off-guard. I hope that he responds well this week.
Yes, the mainstream media selects the two candidates and selects the one to win. They do this by being who they are. Running favorable stories on who they want. Negative stories on who they dislike.mojo84 wrote:allisji,
It seems like and ambush to me. It's apparent they wanted a Trump vs Hillary race.
For your own sake, I encourage you to read and familiarize yourself with certain names, as well as the references to "Islamic State" etc. made as far back as the early 80's.WTR wrote:AS I said, your sources are suspect at best.parabelum wrote:Because George Staphylococcus "forgot" to mention this:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... -scandals/
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... migration/
An ambush that many people could see coming. People who opposed Trump in the primary repeatedly warned that the media was deliberately treating Trump with kid gloves and that this would change after the nomination. It was also clear that Trump would not be able to raise anywhere near as much money as Clinton. This was all dismissed by Trump supporters because "he's a media genius who's not running a traditional campaign". Well, we'll see who's the genius on Nov 9th.mojo84 wrote:It seems like and ambush to me. It's apparent they wanted a Trump vs Hillary race.