By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Does Trump have any real chance of winning

Once the debates happen, no. All those undecideds are going to see what the rest of us do. That he's a celebrity, reality tv star without a clue.



Around the Network

He's one of the only 2 candidates for Presidency right now, does that not answer your question by itself? Of course he has a chance to win.



Colocho said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

If I was a betting man I would say absolutely. As a Libertarian, I'm not a fan of Trump (or Clinton) but I am fairly confident that he will be the next President.

Momentum is on his side and there are still alot of people who will not admit that they are voting for him. The Clinton scandals we've seen with the corrupted foundation, emails and Bernie Sanders DNC screwjob will pale in comparison to what Drudge, Infowars and Julian Assange will release next month. 

I can see it being a landslide for Trump. Similar in retrospect of the 88' elections.

The only way she wins this is if they can manage to rig the voting machines.

Ohhh boy.   Here we go...   conspiracy theories... >_>

 

 

He wont win.    No candidate can ever hope to win in USA while completely alianating the minorities..  Not going to happen.   

 Please elaborate on what you believe is conspiracy theories?

His support with Hispanics in recent polls is near 30% which is even higher than Mitt Romney. African American vote is also hovering around high 20's with Clinton losing ground. It seems surreal, however his outreach to both communities who are disenfranchised with the establishment seems to be working.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.ibtimes.com/latest-presidential-polls-how-much-does-hispanic-vote-mean-hillary-clinton-donald-2419362%3famp=1?client=ms-android-rogers-ca



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Terrifyingly (for me, at least), yes, yes he has a more than decent chance of winning. As others have noted, if he were running against a popular candidate like Obama, he wouldn't have a prayer, but against Hillary I'd put the odds at 1 in 3 or so. She is incredibly unpopular herself, and long before the email scandals and such, there was a perception that she was willing to do or say anything to get elected, and therefore untrustworthy. That perception has only gotten worse. 



I dont think he will win, but its still in the realm of possibility.
I dont think he ll make a great president, so kinde hopeing he doesnt.



Around the Network

I don't think he will but there is always a chance



Poojipoo said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

If I was a betting man I would say absolutely. As a Libertarian, I'm not a fan of Trump (or Clinton) but I am fairly confident that he will be the next President.

Momentum is on his side and there are still alot of people who will not admit that they are voting for him. The Clinton scandals we've seen with the corrupted foundation, emails and Bernie Sanders DNC screwjob will pale in comparison to what Drudge, Infowars and Julian Assange will release next month. 

I can see it being a landslide for Trump. Similar in retrospect of the 88' elections.

The only way she wins this is if they can manage to rig the voting machines.

I'm curious, am I missing something on the Clinton Foundation scandal? I've been doing a ton of research on it (and other aspects of each candidate to stay informed) but I'm having trouble understanding the controversy here. The Foundation's use of its funds are fully transparent and obviously going towards very good causes across the world... There's only allegations that the Clintons give special attention to donors, but no substantial evidence it had any negative impact in how Hillary did her job.  There's definitely stuff of substance to criticize her for, but I'm having trouble finding evidence their Foundation is of importance? 

 

On the flip side, Trump uses the Trump Foundation's charity earnings to pay off lawsuits for his businesses and buy paintings of himself. It's sort of hilarious to even compare the two foundations' work in this regard... 

I know no substantial evidence, but it's not easy to prove, and it seems she has very strong connection to prevent anyone to want to prove it (her IT guy got immunity !). Still, and that's New York time source, Bill get 500.000$ for a speech, her foundation get 2 millions $ from a russian company at the very same period where a deal is decided with this very company. Why would they give 2 millions it didn't have benefits ? What I'm saying is not a substantial prove for a court of justice, I understand that... but really, you believe they gave 2 millions to the vice president's foundation at this very moment... just by accident ? In all logic, they give because that helps them. Hence the controversy. This is just one case, but you can find documentation for multiple cases.

As for the OP question, I believe he unfortunately stand no chance. Just look at how biased the press is (there are crystal clear examples), the funds she get, the relationships she has, it's incredible.



Norris2k said:
Poojipoo said:

I'm curious, am I missing something on the Clinton Foundation scandal? I've been doing a ton of research on it (and other aspects of each candidate to stay informed) but I'm having trouble understanding the controversy here. The Foundation's use of its funds are fully transparent and obviously going towards very good causes across the world... There's only allegations that the Clintons give special attention to donors, but no substantial evidence it had any negative impact in how Hillary did her job.  There's definitely stuff of substance to criticize her for, but I'm having trouble finding evidence their Foundation is of importance? 

 

On the flip side, Trump uses the Trump Foundation's charity earnings to pay off lawsuits for his businesses and buy paintings of himself. It's sort of hilarious to even compare the two foundations' work in this regard... 

I know no substantial evidence, but it's not easy to prove, and it seems she has very strong connection to prevent anyone to want to prove it (her IT guy got immunity !). Still, and that's New York time source, Bill get 500.000$ for a speech, her foundation get 2 millions $ from a russian company at the very same period where a deal is decided with this very company. Why would they give 2 millions it didn't have benefits ? What I'm saying is not a substantial prove for a court of justice, I understand that... but really, you believe they gave 2 millions to the vice president's foundation at this very moment... just by accident ? In all logic, they give because that helps them. Hence the controversy. This is just one case, but you can find documentation for multiple cases.

As for the OP question, I believe he unfortunately stand no chance. Just look at how biased the press is (there are crystal clear examples), the funds she get, the relationships she has, it's incredible.

The CEO of the Clinton foundation basically stated that phone calls from the Clinton foundation were made to get appointments for donors as courtesy appointments, including business people but "claimed" that no policy decisions were apparently made.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_BMq1exe0&feature=youtu.be



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

invetedlotus123 said:

I'm not going to make it longer, my question is just OP.

Only Trump can win.

Hillary cannot win.



Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:

I know no substantial evidence, but it's not easy to prove, and it seems she has very strong connection to prevent anyone to want to prove it (her IT guy got immunity !). Still, and that's New York time source, Bill get 500.000$ for a speech, her foundation get 2 millions $ from a russian company at the very same period where a deal is decided with this very company. Why would they give 2 millions it didn't have benefits ? What I'm saying is not a substantial prove for a court of justice, I understand that... but really, you believe they gave 2 millions to the vice president's foundation at this very moment... just by accident ? In all logic, they give because that helps them. Hence the controversy. This is just one case, but you can find documentation for multiple cases.

As for the OP question, I believe he unfortunately stand no chance. Just look at how biased the press is (there are crystal clear examples), the funds she get, the relationships she has, it's incredible.

The CEO of the Clinton foundation basically stated that phone calls from the Clinton foundation were made to get appointments for donors as courtesy appointments, including business people but "claimed" that no policy decisions were apparently made.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_BMq1exe0&feature=youtu.be

Is it ironical ? Guilty or not, the CEO would say that, that's just a statement. Again why would the russian give 2 millions dollars to this very foundation, at this very moment if they did not believe it will "smooth" discussions ? In fact they would purposely give to another foundation if they wanted to make a good action and avoid misunderstanding. And what would do this foundation if they wanted to avoid to give the apparence of a conflict of interest ? They would not take the money.