[blackjack21]

An enthusiase tic vote counts exactly the same as a hold your nose vote. I don't think the rallies mean that much, especially since the mantra in pro-Hillary circles is all about getting out there and voting, despite what the polls say.

He holds a rally in Tampa and 20k people show up? That's a lot of people for a political rally. Everywhere he goes, he draws the biggest crowds--far bigger than Hillary. The reason they are encouraging people to get out and vote is that the polls are just psyops that overweight Democrats to dispirit those who don't favor the Democrats.

By contrast, Trump is like a rock star: FULL EVENT: Donald Trump MASSIVE 28K Rally in Tampa, Florida (10/24/2016) Trump Tampa Florida Speech

These rallies are way too big for it to be the typical Democratic party astroturf. A lot of people will be showing up to vote for Trump.

Now you have the detractors like this:
I Told the Truth About a Donald Trump Rally. Then the Trolls Threatened My Life.
They did the same thing at Tea Party rallies calling everyone racist. Did someone have a "Hillary Sucks, but not like Monica" shirt? I'm sure of it, but that's not misogyny. That's simply rebutting the fraudulent context of Hillary's campaign--that she somehow is a great defender of women. She's running on that, because she can't run on her record.

Yet, the same people omit things like this:

Exclusive — Victim of San Jose Trump Rally Violence on Project Veritas Video: The ‘Mob’ of ‘Paid’ Protesters Threw Eggs in My Hair

[Tewodros III]

Good, I want more terror in Dump Rallies, fight em, shoot it out, the choice on them

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

He holds a rally in Tampa and 20k people show up? That's a lot of people for a political rally. Everywhere he goes, he draws the biggest crowds--far bigger than Hillary.

That doesn't mean that he's going to win. It just means that he has big rallies. He's an entertainer, of course he's going to draw a large crowd: he's entertaining. It doesn't mean that he's going to win, because America doesn't decide elections by rally size. Besides, it's not that Clinton can't draw a big crowd: she drew 18k+ people to a rally in Ohio.

The reason they are encouraging people to get out and vote is that the polls are just psyops that overweight Democrats to dispirit those who don't favor the Democrats.

I'm talking about regular people who are voting for Hillary, not people in the media or in the campaign. Besides, you see it that way, we see it a different way. You think that Hillary polling well will help us, we think that her polling well will help the more enthusiastic campaign, which is Trump's campaign. Sensible people might assume that their vote isn't important because Hillary's going to win anyway, so why go out and vote? There's no proof that positive polling numbers hurts the turnout of the person down or helps the turnout of the person up. Maybe on election day, but not before it. Also there are so many undecided voters still that it's hard to be sure that Hillary is going to win.

[Donna]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Point still stands though. How can you call yourself a Catholic and feel that it's ok to sexually shame somebody?

Actually, this is acceptable in the Catholic world because we abhor puritanism and bourgeois moralism.

[colliric]

We already know google manipulates searches, now also curated news articles that show up in the news section, no matter your region: http://archive.is/tvS4w

I switched back to Bing recently. No political reason, I just got a new Windows Phone. But i'm glad I dont have to put up with that shit at least. Id rather outdated news articles than curated ones.

[blackjack21]

That doesn't mean that he's going to win. It just means that he has big rallies. He's an entertainer, of course he's going to draw a large crowd: he's entertaining. It doesn't mean that he's going to win, because America doesn't decide elections by rally size.

I assume you are too young to remember the 1980 election. They did the same thing and acted like Carter was going to win. When the votes came in, Reagan won it handily. I don't know anyone who is enthusiastic about Hillary. Lots of people don't like Trump, but there are a lot of people who absolutely love him. To me, he's just a transitional character. The establishment has failed, and Trump is the messenger. A lot of people are Trump fanatics.

Also there are so many undecided voters still that it's hard to be sure that Hillary is going to win.

I don't think the media is even close on this. They are busy trying to cover up the WikiLeaks scandal and their complicity and in-kind contributions to the campaign. People have seen Trump supporters leaving his rallies bleeding, and now they know Hillary was behind the thuggery.

The email story is going strong too: Trump: ‘Absolutely Disgraceful’ McAuliffe Sent Money to FBI Official’s Wife Investigating Clinton’s Emails

This is getting some serious traction now too, as it is becoming clearer how Clinton got away with her email crimes.

[colliric]

Actually, this is acceptable in the Catholic world because we abhor puritanism and bourgeois moralism.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Plus the Clinton Campaign targeted Catholics in their emails by insulting the entire religion(and by that I also concurrently mean she generally issued insulting remarks about all Christians because the email attacked other denominations of Christianity), . No way I'd vote for that woman.

[SpecialOlympian]

Trump has been a friend to the faithful. He often starts his rallies off with a joke about how two Corinthians walk into a bar.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, we all know what the Pope thinks of Trump.

[Drlee]

If he sues on the grounds that the DNC or Hillary Clinton for President campaign paid these women to say things to effect the outcome of the election, that will be the nature of the suit. He can subpoena bank records to see if they were in fact paid. If he can show payment, a jury is likely to be sympathetic. Go back and read my first post, specifically the last line. Trump doesn't back down under pressure.

Nonsense. He will not be allowed to go on a fishing expedition. He can't "subpoena" anything. In about 20 days Trump will likely be non-news. He will fade to obscurity and his lawyers will not be suing Clinton. They will be negotiating a settlement with these women.

I actually feel sorry for Trump. He really had a shot at it. If he could only have pretended to be a tad bit humble, admit mistakes and stick to a positive message he would he President.

[SpecialOlympian]

Nothing says "presidential" like tweeting out conspiracy theories that involve ducks reminding everyone that you haven't released your taxes.

[colliric]

Nonsense. He will not be allowed to go on a fishing expedition. He can't "subpoena" anything. In about 20 days Trump will likely be non-news. He will fade to obscurity and his lawyers will not be suing Clinton. They will be negotiating a settlement with these women.

No they won't.

His lawyers can sopena whatever the fuck they want to so long as it's relevant to the case. If he believes Clinton payed them off, they can get the bank records.

Also you're clearly in noddyland about the "20 days" thing. Most of your fellow Clinton supporters would agree surely. Trump wont go away into the night.

[Donna]

Re-tweeting a Daily Mail article is a smart move imo

[Albert]

Nonsense. He will not be allowed to go on a fishing expedition. He can't "subpoena" anything. In about 20 days Trump will likely be non-news. He will fade to obscurity and his lawyers will not be suing Clinton. They will be negotiating a settlement with these women.

I actually feel sorry for Trump. He really had a shot at it. If he could only have pretended to be a tad bit humble, admit mistakes and stick to a positive message he would he President.

Drlee you would had not voted for him regardless. Enough of your drama here.

[Beren]

When was the last time you've had coitus?

I have coitus every Friday. I hope that makes me eligible to judge the masculinity represented by presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

Regardless of my sexuality your beloved candidate is a pig anyways.

[Zagadka]

[Drlee]

His lawyers can sopena whatever the fuck they want to so long as it's relevant to the case. If he believes Clinton payed them off, they can get the bank records.

OK. Read the fourth amendment then get back to me. One can not institute a search without probable cause and an order from the judge. What Trump "believes" is irrelevant. What he can prove is quite another.

[colliric]

OK. Read the fourth amendment then get back to me. One can not institute a search without probable cause and an order from the judge. What Trump "believes" is irrelevant. What he can prove is quite another.

Probable cause is right here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileak ... d=43027902

And an even better write-up:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/24/email ... t-project/

Other emails state the Clinton Campaign discussed Alicia Machado in particular in 2015.

Lawyers could have a field day with it. They can argue that the emails clearly state there was a "group of individuals" being prepared to attack Trump in a coordinated public relations attack, and investigate the accusers connections to the Clinton Campaign, which could easily include sopenas for bank records to see if there was any financial connection.

[Drlee]

Won't work. A judge would laugh Wikileaks out of court. He would have to come up with a great many more pieces of evidence before he could even involve the Clinton campaign if he ever could. He would have to show, before opening any records, that the women were paid inappropriately for accusing Trump. Not going to happen.

Trump has to wear this one. He will pay and pay dearly for it. He already has. It cost him the presidency.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Probable cause is right here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileak ... d=43027902

And an even better write-up:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/24/email ... t-project/

Other emails state the Clinton Campaign discussed Alicia Machado in particular in 2015.

Lawyers could have a field day with it. They can argue that the emails clearly state there was a "group of individuals" being prepared to attack Trump in a coordinated public relations attack, and investigate the accusers connections to the Clinton Campaign, which could easily include sopenas for bank records to see if there was any financial connection.

'Probable cause' my arse. All that shows is that Clinton's campaign was planning to attack Trump (ie paint him in as bad a light as possible). And the reply even says that if they hadn't prepared, it would have been 'half-assed'. This is what campaigns do - look for ways to attack their opponents. That doesn't mean there's "probable cause" to suspect that they made payments to people to make things up.