2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: ams288Trump should stick to his off the cuff speeches. At least he's funny and entertaining that way.
Naturally, you would feel that way. It helps your candidate the most if he creates lots of things to attack him on by just saying whatever he wants. I don't think him as much as the Democrats would like, but who knows how it will play as we move towards the general election.
For his part, he does need to start doing more scripted speeches outlining the "how" of doing things in order to build credibility. He needs to show that he understands issues and provide answers on how to fix them. He could fail miserably at that, of course...but I really feel that his candidacy will be doomed if he does not flesh some things out so people understand his actual position.
Of course, I have been dead wrong in every prediction about Trump.
Quote: ams288Last night's speech had Jeb! levels of low energy.
That will impact him if it continues...I did not listen, but it sounds like he is even worse at giving a speech that Hillary is...that is bad!
Quote: RonCThat will impact him if it continues...I did not listen, but it sounds like he is even worse at giving a speech that Hillary is...that is bad!
I know you hate Hillary and always will, but even her critics admit that her last two speeches (the hit on Trump and last night's victory speech) have been very well delivered.
So yes, he is worse at giving a speech than Hillary.
Quote: ams288I know you hate Hillary and always will, but even her critics admit that her last two speeches (the hit on Trump and last night's victory speech) have been very well delivered.
So yes, he is worse at giving a speech than Hillary.
Yes, I do dislike her. She has questionable moral standards that are clearly evident. She has ties to foreign governments that seem inappropriate for a Secretary of State and President.
I'm not listening to her right now; I will later on. She cannot change my mind to make her vote for her. I've seen enough of her.
Trump can change my mind about voting for him. I don't like him much more than Hillary to begin with... That is not necessarily a god thing--it can only change one way from where I stand today. He may well do that. I may join the camp that sits it out. I was never "committed" to him as a candidate; he just became the better choice of two bad ones to me. However, my candidate(s)--there were several I would have rather had than Trump--failed.
We'll see how it goes from here...
Quote: RonCNaturally, you would feel that way. It helps your candidate the most if he creates lots of things to attack him on by just saying whatever he wants. I don't think him as much as the Democrats would like, but who knows how it will play as we move towards the general election.
For his part, he does need to start doing more scripted speeches outlining the "how" of doing things in order to build credibility. He needs to show that he understands issues and provide answers on how to fix them. He could fail miserably at that, of course...but I really feel that his candidacy will be doomed if he does not flesh some things out so people understand his actual position.
Except any time he has elucidated policy positions he holds they have been down right bonkers. His tax plan is nonsensical and does the exact opposite of what he claimed. His borrow and default idea is utterly moronic. His foreign policy ideas on nuclear proliferation are criticized by basically every major person involved in nuclear proliferation. The guy clearly has no idea what he's doing and he hasn't had the intelligence to surrond himself with more intelligent people.
Quote: TwirdmanExcept any time he has elucidated policy positions he holds they have been down right bonkers. His tax plan is nonsensical and does the exact opposite of what he claimed. His borrow and default idea is utterly moronic. His foreign policy ideas on nuclear proliferation are criticized by basically every major person involved in nuclear proliferation. The guy clearly has no idea what he's doing and he hasn't had the intelligence to surrond himself with more intelligent people.
Trump is going to be in for a world of hurt if he makes it to the Oval Office. I don't care if he is the President, he's going to have a hundred advisers and cabinet members around him saying, "Look... this ain't the private sector. Here's how this is gonna work..."
Quote: onalinehorseSaw Gary Johnson interview on CNN while channel surfing. Decided to watch, thinking he was NOT a nut job or a racist. Only took a minute for him to prove me wrong.
He said that as he was talking, this very moment a woman was crossing the Rio Grande to go to El Paso where as sewing job was waiting for her. He added we should make it easier for her and also anyone who wanted to come into the USA. When questions about the effect on American jobs, he stated 1 and 1/2 million Mexican returned to Mexico during the last years , because thats were the jobs were. NUT JOB
Then he added Mexicans are only taking those jobs Americans won't do. RACIST
Does he think Mexicans can only pick peaches, like my granddaughter a single Mom of 23 is doing today in Palisades , Colorado. Temp is 92, a dry heat, but so is an oven. Does he think Americans are lazy and Mexicans incapable of having a trade ? Ask my friends in construction about that. Drywallers who were getting $20 to hang and mud a section of sheet rock, now being done by illegal immigrants for $8 a section. Or carpenters who were getting $45 a corner joint, now being done by illegals for $15.
How happy would you be to take a 60% pay cut?
But don't expect much to change for the working man. Democrats want the votes, Republicans want cheap labor.
Seven years ago, my friends company would hire almost anyone as there was more work than they could handle. Kids right out of high school trained for two weeks and then were making $40 an hour framing and sheetrocking.
Today his business is about a third what it was and he has many less employees. There is no reason for him to pay top wages because there is a surplus of labor.
Boom and bust.
Every job has two parts -- the employee and the employer. If the employee is able to "take" a job it's because the employer has offered it. If a construction firm offers unskilled demolition and clean-up jobs for a low wage (I did this job during high school) and only Mexican immigrants sign up, why is that bad? The vast majority of my co-workers were day-laborers who signed up at the local office and got paid by check at the end of the day. The next morning I could always tell which of my co-workers had spent their paychecks on booze the night before. And for what it's worth, I don't recall a meaningful discrepancy between the demographics of the unskilled labor (clean-up, demo, moving stuff) and skilled labor (electrical, sheetrock, plumbing, etc.)Quote: onalinehorseSaw Gary Johnson interview on CNN ...
Then he added Mexicans are only taking those jobs Americans won't do.
The real issue is one of entitlement and relative experience. From the stories I've read, most recent Mexican immigrants laborers are happy to take low wage jobs because they're not relatively "low wage" compared to what they experienced in Mexico, they pay much more. But the same low wage jobs pay significantly less than what a laid-off auto worker or coal miner used to make, so that's relatively a step down. But here's the problem with a totally unregulated market: nobody's entitled to a "good paying" job, where "good" is defined by your own personal standard of living. An unregulated labor market will always seek maximum productivity for minimal costs, and that means if there are laborers with equal skill willing to work for less than you, they'll get the job. I haven't seen any conservative economic proposal, based on unregulated labor markets, that properly addresses the plight of the underemployed, angry blue-collar worker. Clearly there won't be any push to restrict companies from moving jobs outside the US, so what's the proposed conservative solution?
Quote: SOOPOOI surmise that if stating "minorities are paid too much" would garner an extra vote, you'd hear the words come out of her mouth.....
She would never say that... that is Trump's stance.
Quote: SOOPOOMrs. Clinton gave a speech on income inequality wearing a designer suit that costs over $14,000. She gave paid speeches for a fraction of an hour that paid more than many Americans make in a year. I don't recall her railing against those fees she accepted. I surmise that if stating "minorities are paid too much" would garner an extra vote, you'd hear the words come out of her mouth.....
Without defending Clinton too much, I just want to point out two things:
1) Income equality doesn't mean that rich people will go away. They'll still be around buying expensive designer clothes. "Income inequality" mainly refers to an inordinately unequal distribution of wealth, i.e., "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
2) It's possible whatever company designed that suit gave it to her for free or at least loaned it to her for the free advertising.
Let's examine your solution -- a "regulated labor market." Such a system, as you describe, would NOT "always seek maximum productivity." And the converse would NOT include "minimal costs." In other words, a disastrous combination of inefficient productivity and increased costs. Sounds like Venezuela.Quote: MathExtremistHere's the problem with a totally unregulated market: nobody's entitled to a "good paying" job, where "good" is defined by your own personal standard of living. An unregulated labor market will always seek maximum productivity for minimal costs, and that means if there are laborers with equal skill willing to work for less than you, they'll get the job. I haven't seen any conservative economic proposal, based on unregulated labor markets, that properly addresses the plight of the underemployed, angry blue-collar worker. Clearly there won't be any push to restrict companies from moving jobs outside the US, so what's the proposed conservative solution?
Quote: SOOPOOMrs. Clinton gave a speech on income inequality wearing a designer suit that costs over $14,000.
Now that she knows wearing knockoffs would help her with voters, I'm sure that's what she'll do and finally earn your support
Now I gotta go find one and burn it in her honor. /sigh.
Quote: ams288She would never say that... that is Trump's stance.
She has no stance. Her only stance is to get elected.
As much as you may deplore Trump's 'stances', he at least has them!
Quote: TigerWu
2) It's possible whatever company designed that suit gave it to her for free or at least loaned it to her for the free advertising.
And what does she 'owe' the multibillion dollar company that produced the designer suit?
Quote: TomGNow that she knows wearing knockoffs would help her with voters, I'm sure that's what she'll do and finally earn your support
That's equivalent to the criminal, once caught, saying... "I won't do it again!"
Quote: SOOPOOAs much as you may deplore Trump's 'stances', he at least has them!
Does he though? Most of his stances change depending on the time of day (not even because he's trying to say what he needs to to get elected, but because he simply doesn't know what he's talking about).
Look at his abortion comments. He literally took 5 different stances in a couple of days.
Quote: FaceThis news is ridiculously old, but I just found out Hil proposed a bill to make flag burning a crime. It's weird the stuff that gets us riled, isn't it?
Haha... I've come across more than a few conservatives in my day that would be all for that bill!
Quote: SOOPOOAnd what does she 'owe' the multibillion dollar company that produced the designer suit?
With her specifically, no idea.
I just know with a lot of non-politician celebrities (actors, singers, etc.), just wearing the clothes in public and name-dropping the designer is enough of a payback. It's all but free advertising. See also: Any awards show red carpet.
But for all I know, she did pay for it out of her own pocket. That doesn't necessarily negate the message of income inequality, though.
Quote: TigerWuHaha... I've come across more than a few conservatives in my day that would be all for that bill!
Sadly, so have I. Even sadder, most of them are vets =/
Hugh Hewitt: GOP should change convention rules to stop Trump
Quote: ams288The panic on the right continues:
Hugh Hewitt: GOP should change convention rules to stop Trump
I am not sure that his comments on the Hispanic judge and the like are not calculated moves. I don't know that it's the correct move, but now that he's got the nomination most people that always vote Republican are going to vote for him anyways because "better than any democrat" to them. He may be re-distancing himself from the Republican establishment to pull in more of the angry redneck hillbilly crowd that might not otherwise vote, more of the crowd that drove his early numbers. Is the damage done among minority voters with these sort of comments too much to overcome? You would think so, but what he's done has worked for him so far, he's proven the doubters wrong so far for lower stakes.
Quote: FaceSadly, so have I. Even sadder, most of them are vets =/
I respect the right of people to burn the flag even though I think it is wrong.
I also respectfully ask them to either do something "real" about the problem--get involved; try to change what you don't agree with--or maybe find somewhere better to live if they don't want to bother trying to change things...however, most of them don't really want to do anything more than whine and complain.
...and that is their right, too.
Quote: ams288The panic on the right continues:
Hugh Hewitt: GOP should change convention rules to stop Trump
He's not the first one to put forward that idea...maybe his call for this will pick up steam!
Quote: mcallister3200Quote: ams288The panic on the right continues:
Hugh Hewitt: GOP should change convention rules to stop Trump
I am not sure that his comments on the Hispanic judge and the like are not calculated moves. I don't know that it's the correct move, but now that he's got the nomination most people that always vote Republican are going to vote for him anyways because "better than any democrat" to them. He may be re-distancing himself from the Republican establishment to pull in more of the angry redneck hillbilly crowd that might not otherwise vote, more of the crowd that drove his early numbers. Is the damage done among minority voters with these sort of comments too much to overcome? You would think so, but what he's done has worked for him so far, he's proven the doubters wrong so far for lower stakes.
His party doesn't have all that many minorities. He won by getting about a third of the Republicans to vote for him.
Now he has to expand his base beyond the approximately 10% of the general electorate that voted for him in the primary.
Quote: billryanQuote: mcallister3200Quote: ams288The panic on the right continues:
Hugh Hewitt: GOP should change convention rules to stop Trump
I am not sure that his comments on the Hispanic judge and the like are not calculated moves. I don't know that it's the correct move, but now that he's got the nomination most people that always vote Republican are going to vote for him anyways because "better than any democrat" to them. He may be re-distancing himself from the Republican establishment to pull in more of the angry redneck hillbilly crowd that might not otherwise vote, more of the crowd that drove his early numbers. Is the damage done among minority voters with these sort of comments too much to overcome? You would think so, but what he's done has worked for him so far, he's proven the doubters wrong so far for lower stakes.
His party doesn't have all that many minorities. He won by getting about a third of the Republicans to vote for him.
Now he has to expand his base beyond the approximately 10% of the general electorate that voted for him in the primary.
Correct. Been pointing out the math on this for months. He's doomed.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Correct. Been pointing out the math on this for months. He's doomed.
I agree with you. Barring some smoking gun that is unequivocally proven to be fired by Hillary, I see no way DT can win enough states to win the general election. But since you and I are so smart, why is she only a 2 to 1 favorite?
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: billryanHis party doesn't have all that many minorities. He won by getting about a third of the Republicans to vote for him.
Now he has to expand his base beyond the approximately 10% of the general electorate that voted for him in the primary.
Correct. Been pointing out the math on this for months. He's doomed.
What is that math exactly?
Real Clear Politics (just a source that came up first on Google for me, your mileage may vary) has Trump with 13,300,000 popular vote today out of 28,583,000 Rep Votes split amongst the Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Kasich campaigns. That appears to be 46.5% of the votes split between those four candidates.
Hillary has 15,730,000 to Bernie's 12,009,000 votes or 56.7% of that Dem popular vote.
So Reps had immaterial higher popular vote turnout in primaries to date (may have been higher turnout, but with Cruz/Kasich dropping out 30+ days ago, recent Rep turnout was likely softened) with Trump having twice the popular vote of his nearest competitor and Hillary has Bernie 57% to 43% on the Dems side.
How are those numbers alone (forget the recent carnage that is the Trump campaign this week) an indication of anything in the General Election. Not that I disagree if the General Election was next week, Trump would be in real trouble....just unclear as to how anyone can use the primary popular vote "math" to get to that conclusion.
With the big Dem ad buy on anti Trump ads (I saw one yesterday on MSNBC, they are going to be classic) this is going to be a super entertaining next 5 months. That and the upcoming Hillary/Trump Presidential debates...watch those ratings skyrocket as Trump takes the gloves off and Hillary is forced to go places and say things she never thought she would have to in defense....it is gonna be great television!!
The 2016 Presidential Cycle...the Best of America on display for the world. Don't Hillary (under FBI investigation and a "do whatever gets me votes" sickening individual) and Trump (a reality TV star and "do anything to make a buck" billionaire/0.1%'er) just make you feel proud to be an American?
http://spectator.org/trump-judge-belongs-to-group-that-called-for-trump-business-boycott/
Trump got about 13 million votes in the primary.
In 2012, about 125 million voters participated in the Presidential election.
The population has grown, so expect more voters this time around.
So Trump has thus far gotten about ten percent of the people who will vote in the election to vote for him so far.
A rough guess is the winner will garner at least sixty million votes.
The popular vote is meaningless though. It's the Electoral that counts and any Republican starts with a huge disadvantage.
Well, B****** walks and money talks. 2 to 1 shots frequently win.
The B****** seems necessary in the new and improved forum environment.
This tells me one thing: nothing will ever come of the "email scandal."
If there was even a slight chance Hillary would get indicted and her nomination could get thrown into question, Obama would not have rushed to endorse her so quick.
Quote: onalinehorseAre judges supposed to recluse themselves when there might be even a hint of bias ???
http://spectator.org/trump-judge-belongs-to-group-that-called-for-trump-business-boycott/
If this is true, why haven't Trumps lawyers asked the Judge to recuse himself?
I hope republicans keep this issue alive
Please Please keep complaining that an American born judge cant be trusted due to his Hispanic heritage
Please keep driving all the Hispanics to the Dem side :-)
The judge is an American hero due to death threats he has gotten from the Hispanic drug cartels putting drug dealers in jail as a prosecutor. He prosecuted the same drug dealers Trump is trying to keep out with his bogus wall.
The actual fact is this judge has bent over backwards for Trump
Justice delayed is justice not served
The judge should be hearing this case now
As a favor to Trump, he has delayed it till after the election
Really, can't wait to see your source. Or is this just something Hillary whispered in your ear ?
Quote: onalinehorse" The actual fact is this judge has bent over backwards for Trump. "
Really, can't wait to see your source. Or is this just something Hillary whispered in your ear ?
Absolutely, he delayed the trial till after the election.
Having the trial now would only hurt Trump
Its what the defense wanted.
I see Trump still writes his own absurd tweets
"Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!"
????????
1/2 the country or more is nobody?????
Does he even read his tweets before he sends them out
He's just awful at it. Constantly looking to his left and right to read.
It's funny that he criticized Hillary's delivery of her speech against him. She is so much better at it than him.
Quote: ams288Trump is giving another teleprompter speech right now to some family and faith group in DC.
He's just awful at it. Constantly looking to his left and right to read.
It's funny that he criticized Hillary's delivery of her speech against him. She is so much better at it than him.
So, I'm watching Trump brag about the NRA endorsement during this speech, and just ONE MINUTE later, the news cuts away form The Mouth to a shooting at Dallas Love Field baggage claim. Oh, irony, thy name is Donald today...lol.
Quote: beachbumbabsSo, I'm watching Trump brag about the NRA endorsement during this speech, and just ONE MINUTE later, the news cuts away form The Mouth to a shooting at Dallas Love Field baggage claim. Oh, irony, thy name is Donald today...lol.
I guess. There are reports of shootings every day. Red turns green. Blood leads.
I don't think the NRA supports shootings.
I don't think it is the NRA's fault that there are shootings.
**********
UPDATE DUE TO MORE COMING OUT ON THE STORY...
This was a shooting that the person shot made happen...
"Officers shot a man involved in a domestic disturbance outside the Dallas Love Field airport terminal after he rushed one of them, a police spokesman said Friday.
A father was throwing rocks at the mother of his children outside the baggage claim area, Assistant Police Chief Randy Blankenbaker told reporters.
An officer who responded was able to move the woman away, "but the individual came toward him again, and so he discharged his weapon a number of times," Blankenbaker said."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/us/dallas-love-field-shooting/
I guess there isn't much irony there...sorry...
Quote: ams288Trump is giving another teleprompter speech right now to some family and faith group in DC.
He's just awful at it. Constantly looking to his left and right to read.
It's funny that he criticized Hillary's delivery of her speech against him. She is so much better at it than him.
He'll have to get better on the prompter.
Hillary is not someone I like listening to; her shrillness at points is annoying.
Warren seems to be a better speaker.
Any thoughts of another candidate are just silly. They might as well vote for Hillary and be done with it. That is what they are doing without saying it if they add a candidate or fight Trump during the whole election cycle--they are conceding and the only difference between voting for Hillary and just griping about Trump is that they can tell us how they supported the real conservatives. I'm not saying they shouldn't do something like this if their personal standards tell them they should; I just don't believe career politicians have many personal standards...
They would give away the Supreme Court, among other things, if they concede in this way.
Obviously, I think they need to drop these silly notions of "fixing" the Trump issue and start working to get him elected. If they are truly conservative, the thought of adding three or four liberals to the court should scare the crap out of them. This election may be scary, but everyone can name a President in their lifetime that they disliked immensely; the country survived that Presidency. We'll survive either one of the bad candidates running this year, too!
Can't believe it, they let me in :-)
Quote: RonCWe'll survive either one of the bad candidates running this year, too!
Yep... but people will still be saying, "Trump/Hillary is the worst president in the history of America!!"
Just like they said about Obama...
...and Bush....
....and Clinton....
....etc...
Quote: TigerWuYep... but people will still be saying, "Trump/Hillary is the worst president in the history of America!!"Quote: RonCWe'll survive either one of the bad candidates running this year, too!
Just like they said about Obama...
...and Bush....
....and Clinton....
....etc...
Which says more about us than about them. Are any of us really better off because we smugly say that both Hillary and Trump are evil? Or would our lives instead be better if we made the choice to say that they're both successful Americans who really care about leading this country in the right direction?
Pretty much everyone in this country truly hates either Bush or Obama. Most of us are so certain that the worst President in our countries history has been in office within the past 15 years. But both of them simply did whatever was required to get reelected. They both did what their customers asked them to do. Both Trump and Clinton will do their very best to replicate that
Quote: TomGWhich says more about us than about them. Are any of us really better off because we smugly say that both Hillary and Trump are evil? Or would our lives instead be better if we made the choice to say that they're both successful Americans who really care about leading this country in the right direction?
I'm sorry, but at this point I truly feel that it has come down to the lesser of two evils. The people have spoken and that must be honored, but there were better candidates either running or who could have run that are far better leaders and citizens than either of these two. That doesn't mean that one of them won't win and gain respect--Bill Clinton did a lot of things I didn't like and I think he is a slimeball as a person, but he got together with the Republicans and got some things done, I don't think either Bush or Obama really gained the respect of the other side and the divide is wider between us because of it. Both were lucky enough to run against relatively weak candidates and did get reelected; that doesn't prove much to me.
Quote: RonCI'm sorry, but at this point I truly feel that it has come down to the lesser of two evils.
How is your life better by maintaining the belief that our country is going to go at least 20 years with evil presidents?
Quote: TomGHow is your life better by maintaining the belief that our country is going to go at least 20 years with evil presidents?
I'm not sure why, but you seem to be putting words in my mouth.
First, I don't think we will go 20 years with evil Presidents. You mentioned people thinking Obama or Bush were the worst Presidents of their lifetime. I don't. I think Jimmy Carter was the worst President in my lifetime. I certainly don't think of his as an evil person at all; just not a good President. Though many Republicans may think of Obama as "evil", I don't consider him that. I just consider him to be a weak President who has let down our country in many ways. His foreign policy is horrible and his domestic policies are mediocre at best. He hasn't been a great President and I did not vote for him...but I had hopes for him to be a decent President when he was elected.
I also did not say that Hillary or Trump would be evil as Presidents. It is not that good of a choice, but they both can only go up from where they stand in my opinion.
Lesser of two evils is different from calling one evil...I just think that two of the poorest candidates have been presented for the general election.
Quote: TomGHow is your life better by maintaining the belief that our country is going to go at least 20 years with evil presidents?
If I did maintain that view (and I don't), it really has little impact on my life. As long as they don't infringe too much on my basic rights and I have my freedom, I am better off than well over 90% of the earth's population, I am a lucky man.
They never checked tickets. They knew the crowd would be small
I estimated the room to be about 1/3 filled
One small disruption, 2 protesters. Pretty minor. Trump couldn't even see them or hear them
After the rally a huge police presence.
Absolutely no violence between Trump supporters and protestors outside
Bunch of Guardian Angles were there with nothing to do except twiddle their thumbs. Police were well in control
They formed a line between supporters walking out and protesters.
Here is a picture I took during Trumps speech. He never asked the media cameras to pan the room. I wonder why :-)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22787213@N02/27603171525/in/dateposted-public/
Quote: terapinedTrump Rally Tampa Convention Center
They never checked tickets. They knew the crowd would be small
I estimated the room to be about 1/3 filled
One small disruption, 2 protesters. Pretty minor. Trump couldn't even see them or hear them
After the rally a huge police presence.
Absolutely no violence between Trump supporters and protestors outside
Bunch of Guardian Angles were there with nothing to do except twiddle their thumbs. Police were well in control
They formed a line between supporters walking out and protesters.
Here is a picture I took during Trumps speech. He never asked the media cameras to pan the room. I wonder why :-)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22787213@N02/27603171525/in/dateposted-public/
In Trump's defense (something you won't hear me say often), weren't this weekend's rallies thrown together pretty quickly?
I'm sure if there was more notice, some more if his supporters would have been able to reschedule their klan rallies and get out to support Trump (I kid, I kid... kind of).
