why the F is Mrr Trump doin rallies in Texas and Mississippi?!

  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
CqqMCwqXEAEhO0J.jpg
 
I heard some comments on this earlier today...
Trump loves the rallies where he gets the big crowds...
He gets to use those hand gestures with his tiny little fingers and he yells and screams at the people
and they love it....

He has no interest in trying to close the gap in states where he's behind.
 
he's lost it.

the election i mean. he's already lost his mind!
He hasn't lost anything. He had two scheduled fundraisers in Dallas then Austin. Then they decided to do a rally focusing on illegal immigration and 10,000 showed up. And what's wrong with doing a rally in Jackson, Mississippi?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
A NUCLEAR WAR IS MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN THAN HIM LOSIN MISSISSIPI!
 
A NUCLEAR WAR IS MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN THAN HIM LOSIN MISSISSIPI!

Strangely enough Mississippi is weak. So is Texas.
For that matter so is South Carolina (South Carolina) -- Georgia and NC have already shifted, and Virginia is deep blue. So in one way it makes sense if he's playing defense to avoid the embarrassment of getting shut out.
 
Mr Trump promised to go to California and New York A LOT! Mr Trump has failed to deliver on that promise!
 
Texas ... Mexicans (no hope)

Mississippi ... Blacks (still no hope)

he's obligated to burn $$$ donated to his campaign other than quadruple the rent he charges for his HQ in the tower he owns.

````````````

Federal Election Commission filings show that the Republican nominee's campaign paid $169,758 in rent last month for space at the Manhattan skyscraper -- a dramatic jump from March, when the campaign paid Trump Tower LLC only $35,458 in rent.

Thats called a Trump Fukin' .. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^



gave himself a little raise... LOL
 
Last edited:
wonderful donald will win new york and he will win new york easily!
 
he's lost it.

the election i mean. he's already lost his mind!

The only reason he's doing it is to attempt to make the case among conscientious white voters that he's not a bigot. It's all about the numbers. White folks, because they are the majority race in the country have to be distinguished by some set of traits. This election cycle, the key trait for Trump is:
  • Education level
    • College educated whites
    • Non-college educated whites
College educated folks -- white or black -- tend to, because they are generally better informed, understand the complexities of issues like economics, immigration and race. Non-college educated whites are the largest single bloc of voters in the country. Thus, Trump's only path to victory is to convince college educated whites that he is:
  • Believable in general
  • Not a bigot -- Trump is attempting to make this case with college educated whites via any and all of the following arguments:
    • He's no more of one than they are.
    • He's sympathetic to the human impacts of deporting illegal immigrants
    • He's sympathetic to the plight of minorities in the U.S.
    • At least he's trying to appeal to blacks/latinos whereas prior GOP candidates at best only halfheartedly tried to so, that is if they bothered at all. (This line relies on the bar for what "actually trying" entails being incredibly low to begin with.)
  • The "little guy," the victim of "whatever he can get them to think he's the victim of" and thus the candidate for whom they should have sympathy/empathy -- "Come on, give me a chance." -- sympathy that would in no other situation be accorded to a billionaire or deserved by them, sympathy that no other billionaire would have the gall to solicit.
What astute observers will notice, however, is that the limit of Trump's argument is that he only states the nature of the situation; he does not identify specific approaches/policies that correspond to any of those three arguments. The thing is that many people, perhaps most people, fallaciously infer that because candidate describes the nature of a situation -- race relations, immigration, economic disparity, unemployment, etc. -- as s/he believes it to be, the candidate also intends to correct the problem.

Of course, nothing need be farther from the truth. For example:
  • No Klansman will deny the circumstances of blacks or Latinos, but nary a one of them is interested in doing anything about them other than shipping blacks and Latinos to anyplace outside the U.S.' borders.
  • Tobacco companies were well aware of the addictive and health harming nature of cigarette smoking, but that didn't mean they were of a mind to stop producing tobacco products.
Quite simply, recognizing the nature of a situation doesn't mean one wants to alter that situation. To be seen as credibly inclined to alter the situation, one needs to put forth a plan, but not a lot of people realize that in terms of political candidates. Their inferring that identification = desire for alteration, like the "trying" argument noted earlier, relies on bar for what Americans demand of their politicians being stupidly low.
 

Forum List

Back
Top