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: MathExtremistLet's not pretend that this is between Reality TV Personality and Criminal. This is between Reality TV Bankrupt Casino Owner Criminal and Experienced Politician Criminal. Hillary's skeletons don't hold a candle to Trump's. Worse, he continually makes it clear that he doesn't even intend to uphold the oath of office.
I don't like trump much either or disagree with you.
But I firmly believe that anyone else caught egregiously mishandling classified information would, at minimum, no longer be allowed to hold security clearance.
Quote: gamerfreakI don't like trump much either or disagree with you.
But I firmly believe that anyone else caught egregiously mishandling classified information would, at minimum, no longer be allowed to hold security clearance.
The only way satisfy your desire is through an amendment to the Constitution. Since the Constitution give Congress the impeachment power, one alternative to solution that can satisfy you is just let the voters decide first, and then ...
Quote: beachbumbabsBack in the late 80's in Washington State, a woman named Jeanne Dixon ran for statewide office. She won. People voted for her because they thought she was the famous (at that time ) psychic. She was a wackadoodle in her 80's with no experience or skills, just felt like running for something and filed to be on the ballot.
This seems similar.
She does sound just like Hillary now that you mention it!
I understand not wanting to support Trump--but why make a pledge that you won't keep? Just don't make the pledge. Why not denounce the pledge if you decide during the campaign if you cannot stand by it?
These are typical politicians in action. This time it was Republicans. I am not afraid, like others here seem to be when it is the party they support, to call them out on it.
Quote: RonCSome Republicans need to be taken to task. They agreed to support the candidate...they practically forced Trump to sign on to the deal...and they are refusing to stand by their word. If they felt that way all along, they should have never signed on. If they felt that way part way through the process, they should have stated that as part of their campaign. They gambled that they would win and not Trump; they just were trying to keep him out of the way.
I understand not wanting to support Trump--but why make a pledge that you won't keep? Just don't make the pledge. Why not denounce the pledge if you decide during the campaign if you cannot stand by it?
These are typical politicians in action. This time it was Republicans. I am not afraid, like others here seem to be when it is the party they support, to call them out on it.
I take it Ted Cruz's speech didn't win you over last night?
It seems clear to me with that speech he was trying to kick of the Ted Cruz 2020 campaign, and he failed miserably.
Quote: ams288I take it Ted Cruz's speech didn't win you over last night?
It seems clear to me with that speech he was trying to kick of the Ted Cruz 2020 campaign, and he failed miserably.
No, it didn't. I actually only saw a few minutes of it but I have been listening to various reports and doing some reading. At the very least, he should have not spoken to the convention. I think he lost a lot of ground; he seem adept at that.
The pledge thing bothers me more; they cornered Trump as a party into doing it and now they won't uphold their part of the bargain. If it was a bad deal, they should not have done it to start with. I never really liked it, but it was what done.
Quote: RonCNo, it didn't. I actually only saw a few minutes of it but I have been listening to various reports and doing some reading. At the very least, he should have not spoken to the convention. I think he lost a lot of ground; he seem adept at that.
The pledge thing bothers me more; they cornered Trump as a party into doing it and now they won't uphold their part of the bargain. If it was a bad deal, they should not have done it to start with. I never really liked it, but it was what done.
See, I have a different concern about the Republicans. They are booing any leader not in Trump lockstep. They are removing and censoring their own people who protest the racist, sexist, or fascist aspects of the Trump campaign. They take a night themed "keep America safe" and turn it into a hate-fest, including calling for killing the other nominee, with not a suggestion of solutions or ideas of actually keeping America safe.
Godwin ' s Law keeps me from completing the comparison I'd like to make, but any awareness of 20th century history should take you there. Just a frightening perversion of American values going on, night after night.
I think there will be an undercurrent of self-sabotage from this point forward. It will be acceptable, even encouraged, for a large faction of Republicans to vote, but not for Trump, just down-ticket candidates in Senate and other races. A movement to pinch off the Trump faction and retain Senate and House control. It won't be overt, but I think it will be widespread.
I guess we'll see as the fall comes.
Quote: RonCThe pledge thing bothers me more; they cornered Trump as a party into doing it and now they won't uphold their part of the bargain. If it was a bad deal, they should not have done it to start with. I never really liked it, but it was what done.
This morning Cruz said that Trump slandered his wife and father during the campaign, and that basically voids the pledge in his eyes.
Quote: beachbumbabsSee, I have a different concern about the Republicans. They are booing any leader not in Trump lockstep. They are removing and censoring their own people who protest the racist, sexist, or fascist aspects of the Trump campaign. They take a night themed "keep America safe" and turn it into a hate-fest, including calling for killing the other nominee, with not a suggestion of solutions or ideas of actually keeping America safe.
Hipocracy in the GOP is nothing new.
They preach small government and personal freedom (unless you are LGBT).
They preach constitutionalism (unless it means allowing a democratic president to do their job).
They preach a free and open market (until the ISP's and big Utility companies start padding their coffers).
Every "principle" that they claim to hold so close has a giant asterisk next to it when it doesn't fit their political agenda.
Quote: RonCNo, it didn't. I actually only saw a few minutes of it but I have been listening to various reports and doing some reading. At the very least, he should have not spoken to the convention. I think he lost a lot of ground; he seem adept at that.
The pledge thing bothers me more; they cornered Trump as a party into doing it and now they won't uphold their part of the bargain. If it was a bad deal, they should not have done it to start with. I never really liked it, but it was what done.
In the campaign tradition, all candidates often lie, promise, pledge, or attack & praise each other to manipulate their constituencies; and things said, promised, or pledged during campaigns are not enforceable. A broken pledge is no different than a lie, a misleading statement, or a broken promise.
Under the protection of the 1st amendment, candidates can lie, say outrageous things, pledge, and promise the impossible to manipulate their constituencies. But once the election is over, whether wining or loosing, all the campaigning, bickering, and the "guilty" & "lock her up" chanting must stop; and the focus must be on a common goal of making America first, safe, and great, and any continuation of unnecessary obstructions, hostilities toward each other will only make America last, less safe, and worse.
There's a limit, though -- and there should be. Inciting violence crosses the line. The Secret Service is, rightly, investigating the Trump adviser who called for Hillary to be killed:Quote: 777Under the protection of the 1st amendment, candidates can lie, say outrageous things, pledge, and promise the impossible to manipulate their constituencies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/20/secret-service-investigates-trump-advisor-who-said-clinton-should-be-executed/
Quote: MathExtremistThere's a limit, though -- and there should be. Inciting violence crosses the line. The Secret Service is, rightly, investigating the Trump adviser who called for Hillary to be killed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/20/secret-service-investigates-trump-advisor-who-said-clinton-should-be-executed/
It was a stupid statement; I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
He gave his opinion on the punishment for the crime he believes was committed. He did not say that someone should go shoot her. The investigation will be short and there will be no charges.
He should not be a part of the campaign moving forward.
We'll see what happens.
It was very "dark." That's all they keep talking about on the cable channels this morning, how "dark" it was.
I suspect had he hit a home run with his speech, Hillary would have announced her VP pick this morning to steal some his thunder and change the news cycle. But since reviews were average, we will probably have to wait a day or so for that announcement...
Quote: ams288I suspect had he hit a home run with his speech, Hillary would have announced her VP pick this morning to steal some his thunder and change the news cycle. But since reviews were average, we will probably have to wait a day or so for that announcement...
She'll announce today. The news outlets have been covering the GOP Conventions 24 hours the past few days. She wants the next couple news cycles for herself.
---------
In a normal election year, this would be a big deal. But Jeb's campaign was such a waste (and Trump was actually right for once - it was low energy), I don't think this will make any difference.
Quote: gamerfreakShe'll announce today. The news outlets have been covering the GOP Conventions 24 hours the past few days. She wants the next couple news cycles for herself.
Maybe not now with things happening in Germany
Quote: ams288
It was very "dark." That's all they keep talking about on the cable channels this morning, how "dark" it was.
That is because cable channels like to jump on a word like "dark" and they all use it over and over. Good for low-information types to be able to repeat simple thoughts, though I guess.
Quote: rxwineTim Kaine is Hillary's official pick.
She made the safe choice.
She knows she can beat Trump without "going rogue."
Quote: MathExtremistThere's a limit, though -- and there should be. Inciting violence crosses the line.
Tell that to Tom Hayden.
Quote: bobbartopTell that to Tom Hayden.
You know, the only thing missing from your previous comments was a remark about Hanoi Jane. I think the Hayden reference qualifies. Bio complete. :)
Wikileaks just released a ton of emails leaked from the DNC which shows them activly colluding with the Clinton campaign and media outlets to bring down Bernie Sanders. Not only is this super scummy, it's super illegal. It's literally proving what many people have been saying all along, things that were dubbed as tin foil hat conspiracy theories.
You won't see main stream media covering this, because they are all implicated.
Quote: beachbumbabsYou know, the only thing missing from your previous comments was a remark about Hanoi Jane. I think the Hayden reference qualifies. Bio complete. :)
I thought this Trump Convention might be something like the '68 Convention but not even close. I was only a kid but old enough to start looking beyond my own little world. The Vietnam War was in full swing, people were pissed off, and Chicago was a powder keg. I think I even wore a peace sign in those days. Groovy. I could probably remember their names if I think hard enough, without googling. Tom Hayden, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Dave Dellinger, Bobby Seale, uh I forget the rest. Conspiracy, inciting a riot, etc. I do remember the main lawyer, William Kuntsler, I think the lawyers were the only ones to catch time, for contempt. I can't remember the judge, but Mayor Daley ran Chicago.
Heck, they're all dead now. Except Tom Hayden and I bet he's in his mid 70s. I think Bobby Seale is alive. It was a long time ago, I think blackjack was still all single deck.
Chicago, now THAT was a convention!
--------------------------------------------------------
Though your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to Chicago
Just to sing
Quote: gamerfreakHo Lee crap
Wikileaks just released a ton of emails leaked from the DNC which shows them activly colluding with the Clinton campaign and media outlets to bring down Bernie Sanders. Not only is this super scummy, it's super illegal. It's literally proving what many people have been saying all along, things that were dubbed as tin foil hat conspiracy theories.
You won't see main stream media covering this, because they are all implicated.
Yeah, it's all over social media, though.
Chances of Bernie supporters voting for Clinton are going down the drain.
Quote: RigondeauxYeah, it's all over social media, though.
Chances of Bernie supporters voting for Clinton are going down the drain.
It was so obvious from the start. GOP tried the same thing to bury Trump but he was able to push through. Will be interesting to see how the Bernie supporters react.
Quote: AZDuffmanWill be interesting to see how the Bernie supporters react.
The majority of them will vote for Hillary anyway, because you know they're not going to vote for Trump no matter what. The rest will either vote third party or not at all.
Quote: TigerWuThe majority of them will vote for Hillary anyway, because you know they're not going to vote for Trump no matter what. The rest will either vote third party or not at all.
A lot are saying they are going to Trump to send a message, with the argument that he can't do much damage in 4 years and someone conservative is better than someone corrupt. But the next prez is most likely going to be able to nominate multiple SCOTUS judges. Thats a 20-30 year impact, not a 4-8 year.
https://twitter.com/KiloJonez/status/756653120437059584
One systemic problem with today's technologized political climate is the rapid (and vapid) media cycle that surrounds frivolous events like "some congresswoman stuttered before answering a question."Quote: gamerfreakClinton camp asked about leaks on Fox News
https://twitter.com/KiloJonez/status/756653120437059584
That's not a discussion of policy issues, it's just juvenile schadenfreude. We're all guilty of it to some degree, but you can't expect to have meaningful policy discussions -- which require actual thought -- when the majority of the audience instead wants to be entertained by political stand-up comedy.
In a classroom setting, the teacher has the ability to throw the class clown out of the room even if the students would rather focus on the toilet paper stuck to her shoe than the political theory on the whiteboard. But in a campaign setting, even though we should be focusing on political theory, what can we do when the candidate behind the lectern is the class clown?
Bread and circuses.
Quote: MathExtremistOne systemic problem with today's technologized political climate is the rapid (and vapid) media cycle that surrounds frivolous events like "some congresswoman stuttered before answering a question."
.
I guess you didn't watch the clip. The congresswoman did NOT answer the question. The stuttering is irrelevant.
Quote: gamerfreak
You won't see main stream media covering this, because they are all implicated.
I don't know about TV media, but as of this posting, I've seen online articles from CNN, ABC, Fox News, Yahoo, the Washington Post, and several other about the leak. So, the mainstream media is definitely covering this. Probably even more so once it starts picking up steam.
Edit: It's actually on the front page of the Huffington Post right now, too, top story in the politics section, so that tells you something if even Huffpo is reporting on it.
"Congresswoman evades question" is not news. That's the point I'm trying to make. Everyone is so damned busy playing "gotcha" on Twitter that nobody's focusing on the actual issues.Quote: SOOPOOI guess you didn't watch the clip. The congresswoman did NOT answer the question. The stuttering is irrelevant.
Here's an issue: tax policy and its effect on the national debt.
Here's another issue: Supreme Court nominees and their effect on federal jurisprudence.
Choosing a candidate based on your position on issues like those is a good way to choose. Choosing a candidate because some congresswoman dodged a question is a terrible way to choose.
Quote: MathExtremist"Congresswoman evades question" is not news. That's the point I'm trying to make. Everyone is so damned busy playing "gotcha" on Twitter that nobody's focusing on the actual issues.
Here's an issue: tax policy and its effect on the national debt.
Here's another issue: Supreme Court nominees and their effect on federal jurisprudence.
Choosing a candidate based on your position on issues like those is a good way to choose. Choosing a candidate because some congresswoman dodged a question is a terrible way to choose.
I don't think anyone is basing their vote off that video, it's just funny how ill prepared she was to answer a tough question. You shouldn't go on live TV representing your party if you can't speak in coherent sentences when you don't have a good answer.
Quote: TigerWuSo, does anyone honestly think that Trump is going to get a wall built along the Mexican border?? Is that something that Trump supporters SERIOUSLY believe is going to happen if he becomes President?
I love answering this question! I will vote for Trump before Hillary, and I do not believe, even if he is elected, that we will 'build that wall' literally. But I do believe a Trump administration will at least make it more difficult for illegal alien Mexican citizens to cross into our country.
Same for his stupid comment on "No Muslims to enter the US". I do believe that a Trump administration will make it more difficult for an Islamist Jihadist to make it to our shores than a Clinton administration would. But I am not worried that there will ever be a ban on a particular religion from entering the USA.
As far as the Supreme Court, although I tend to vote Republican due to fiscal policy, I am strongly pro abortion, now pro gay marriage, and align myself on social issues more left than right, or at least in the middle. So if I have to pick someone to select the new Justices, I think Cruz or Clinton or Sanders are the type of officials who wouldn't care about the qualifications as much as the 'lean' the potential justices would have. Trump is all over the place on some of the social issues so he is the MOST likely candidate to actually care about qualifications over whether they are conservative or liberal.
I have been saying this for my entire political life..... I NEVER want all 3 (House, Senate, President) to be from the same party. I like the NEED for some tempering of the power of the stronger party. The few minutes we had the 3 aligned we got Obamacare, which is helping us bankrupt the country..... another discussion....
Quote: TigerWuSo, does anyone honestly think that Trump is going to get a wall built along the Mexican border?? Is that something that Trump supporters SERIOUSLY believe is going to happen if he becomes President?
That's seriously a good question. I'm having trouble picturing it. I might prefer bringing our boys HOME, put them on the border, and avoiding foreign entanglements.
Anyway, if he does build it, can you imagine the graffiti on the far side of it after a couple years?
Quote: bobbartopAnyway, if he does build it, can you imagine the graffiti on the far side of it after a couple years?
How 'bout BOTH sides?
Anyway, people have been building tunnels underneath the border for years, so I don't know what good a wall is going to do. And it's not like people won't be able to climb over it anyway, unless you have guys guarding every inch of it.
Why not? He says he will. I mean, that's entirely the opposite of why most people vote for candidates. Most people cast votes because they're hoping their candidate does what they say they'll do. You're voting for Trump yet hoping he doesn't do what he says he's going to do?Quote: SOOPOOI love answering this question! I will vote for Trump before Hillary, and I do not believe, even if he is elected, that we will 'build that wall' literally.
That's a really interesting phenomenon. What other promises that Trump has made do you believe he'll actually do vs. not do? Slash taxes on the rich? Mass deportations? Appoint Scalia-clones to SCOTUS?
Quote: TigerWuHow 'bout BOTH sides?
Anyway, people have been building tunnels underneath the border for years, so I don't know what good a wall is going to do. And it's not like people won't be able to climb over it anyway, unless you have guys guarding every inch of it.
It's a pretty big border, there's got to be a more efficient way than a wall. But it worked for East Berlin, although they were a little less forgiving. I dunno, I still can't picture it.
Quote: rxwineI don't consider Trump trustworthy. I wouldn't trust him with investments, I don't trust him with the US either.
Yet you want to trust someone who could not even secure her own email?
Quote: AZDuffmanYet you want to trust someone who could not even secure her own email?
I'm sure I would at least get my money back with Hillary. Trump might get me 70 cents back on my dollar only if I can win the lawsuit I have to file against him.
Quote: TigerWuI don't know.... I'm leaning more and more towards Trump. Hillary's got too much baggage. At least with Trump, you know 90% of his wacky schemes aren't even going to make it through Congress. He's going to have so many aides and assistants holding his hand... The economy is recovering (at least in the U.S.) so as long as he doesn't do anything too insane, in the end I think a Trump presidency will be fine.
On that basis, we could elect anyone. Just a pic of Alfred E, Neuman in the Oval Office. Maybe my dog, if we just need a figurehead.
.
Quote: rxwineOn that basis, we could elect anyone. Just a pic of Alfred E, Neuman in the Oval Office. Maybe my dog, if we just need a figurehead.
.
There's always a group. I don't think you can name a true dictator or monarch in history. There's always a group.
Quote: rxwineOn that basis, we could elect anyone. Just a pic of Alfred E, Neuman in the Oval Office. Maybe my dog, if we just need a figurehead.
.
Yeah, man, I mean I'll vote for your dog. Is he cool?
Nothin' wrong with a figurehead....
Quote: rxwineI'm sure I would at least get my money back with Hillary. Trump might get me 70 cents back on my dollar only if I can win the lawsuit I have to file against him.
QUIZ: Was it Hillary or Trump who took all of the debtor's equity when a payment was missed because they did not deliver a deed with a mortgage but rather had seller financing where if you missed your payment all previous payments were considered "rent" not payments?
Quote: AZDuffmanQUIZ: Was it Hillary or Trump who took all of the debtor's equity when a payment was missed because they did not deliver a deed with a mortgage but rather had seller financing where if you missed your payment all previous payments were considered "rent" not payments?
And then you plan to argue Trump's record, right?
I'll still take Hillary any day of the week. I've already read enough about Trump's business dealings.
Quote: rxwineAnd then you plan to argue Trump's record, right?
I'll still take Hillary any day of the week. I've already read enough about Trump's business dealings.
So, I assume you know it was Hillary.
