Donald Trump

Agricola

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He's extremely inarticulate for a Presidential candidate. He finds it very difficult to stay on point and convey his message in a clear and concise manner.

Yeah, it's kind of amazing the way his strings sentences together. He's clearly been schooled on the power of buzzwords and emphasizing certain things in his statements. But he's incapable of building an argument or setting out clear points, it's all just word soup.

His temperament is something they should be looking to exploit though. It's obvious Hillary Clinton could come out with some borderline below the belt stuff (insinuating racism was one last night) and he could easily lose the head and start ranting. His died in the wool fans will eat it up, but any swing voters should be left with the impression this isn't a man to put under any kind of pressure.

InTheTrees

B0jangles wrote: »

Joe Biden spoke today about the debate, specifically about Trump and his taxes.

He does not hold back.

Taxes were the final nail in the coffin for mitt Romney in 2012 when it was revealed he was only paying 5%(?).

Now trump comes right out and admits he's paid none.

Sand

I don't follow the line of thought that presents Trump as more likeable or personable than Clinton. That Trump is the likeable peoples man, and Clinton is the bookish nerd. Clinton is not charismatic, nor a natural public speaker, nor even a good people person. She is a very poor candidate in a US presidential election - its pure hubris on her part to force her candidacy on the Democrats and assuming the Republicans nominate an actual competent human being as their candidate in 4 years she will be a 1 term president.

But Clinton being the human equivalent of beige does not make Trump likeable. The constant bragging, the limited, repetitive vocabulary, the insecurity and the thin skin and hes a bore happiest talking about himself only. The candidate you would most want to go for a beer with? Not Trump. Being trapped on a night out with him would be a nightmare and he'd probably sneak out before it came to his round too.

PhiloCypher

Even Trumps most diehard supporter knows he lost the debate

https://twitter.com/rudygiulianiGOP/status/780597660138864641



https://twitter.com/rudygiulianiGOP/status/780596619678851072

robinph

Just watching some replay of last nights debate.

The idea of Trump is terrifying. He was just ranting about random topics, didn't understand the questions, answered something completely different to what was asked or just talked nonsense. He's an idiot.

learn_more

Sand wrote: »

She is a very poor candidate in a US presidential election - its pure hubris on her part to force her candidacy on the Democrats and assuming the Republicans nominate an actual competent human being as their candidate in 4 years she will be a 1 term president.

I'm sure she must have been suffering from the same hubris in 2008 - when she lost to Obama. So she wasn't able to force her candidacy then. She wasn't automatically selected this time either, remember Bernie, whom she beat.

Sand

learn_more wrote: »

I'm sure she must have been suffering from the same hubris in 2008 - when she lost to Obama. So she wasn't able to force her candidacy then. She wasn't automatically selected this time either, remember Bernie, whom she beat.

Its a matter of public record given hacks of the DNC emails that Clinton was the party's candidate, and Sanders definitely was not.

First Up

Sand wrote:

Its a matter of public record given hacks of the DNC emails that Clinton was the party's candidate, and Sanders definitely was not.

Being the preferred candidate doesn't override the votes of the party electorates.

Trump was not the candidate preferred by the GOP but he got the most votes - as did Clinton.

Sand

First Up wrote: »

Being the preferred candidate doesn't override the votes of the party electorates.

Trump was not the candidate preferred by the GOP but he got the most votes - as did Clinton.

Ah, you know I really, really, really, really do not want to get into a Sanders vs. Clinton debate. For the record I think both of them are poor candidates whose only hope of victory is that they are opposed by the worst candidate of all time in Trump. And given Sanders was only opportunistically a Democrat, I entirely get and agree why the party was against him.

However, if you think having the guys who set the rules of the game in your corner is not an advantage then, okay.

Butters1979

First Up wrote: »

Being the preferred candidate doesn't override the votes of the party electorates.

Trump was not the candidate preferred by the GOP but he got the most votes - as did Clinton.

It does of the super delegates though. That and you get all the funding. Again if she wasn't once the wife of a president we wouldn't have heard of her. And her most memorable thing as First Lady was getting cheated on. Her husband banged an intern and she stayed with him because coat tails. What a poor leader.

Disclaimer: I do not think Trump is a leader either.

iLikeWaffles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCabT_O0YSM

Or not.....

Billy86

Butters1979 wrote: »

It does of the super delegates though. That and you get all the funding. Again if she wasn't once the wife of a president we wouldn't have heard of her. And her most memorable thing as First Lady was getting cheated on. Her husband banged an intern and she stayed with him because coat tails. What a poor leader.

Disclaimer: I do not think Trump is a leader either.

You are right about the super delegates, and the DNC scandal as a whole was and remains beyond ridiculous.

I'm no big fan of hers, but Clinton as first lady did get the Family Medical Leave Act which provided health care for service veterans and their families, and perhaps even more importantly, the Children's Health Insurance Programme which cut the rate of uninsured children in the USA in half and today provides for over 8,000,000 children in the US who need health care for various illnesses. I'd consider that as having a little more of a lasting impact, to be honest.

fly_agaric

Hillary was very much expected to be the candidate back in 2008 + Obama caused a massive upset. I can understand why she would still want to get her shot at running for president.

...IMO she might have done a better job than Obama; especially in first term.

First Up

Sand wrote:

However, if you think having the guys who set the rules of the game in your corner is not an advantage then, okay.

I didn't say it isn't an advantage. I said it doesn't override the wishes of the electorate.

iLikeWaffles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zGpcbWqGE0

Grayson

B0jangles wrote: »

Joe Biden spoke today about the debate, specifically about Trump and his taxes.

He does not hold back.

It was quite good actually.

Butters1979

Billy86 wrote: »

You are right about the super delegates, and the DNC scandal as a whole was and remains beyond ridiculous.

I'm no big fan of hers, but Clinton as first lady did get the Family Medical Leave Act which provided health care for service veterans and their families, and perhaps even more importantly, the Children's Health Insurance Programme which cut the rate of uninsured children in the USA in half and today provides for over 8,000,000 children in the US who need health care for various illnesses. I'd consider that as having a little more of a lasting impact, to be honest.

On I agree. The point is what's she's remembered for. It's wrong. But it's the reality.

InTheTrees

Butters1979 wrote: »

On I agree. The point is what's she's remembered for. It's wrong. But it's the reality.

Its also reality that if trump is elected twenty million american's will lose health care.

Not to mention trumps plan to privatize old age pensions.

Butters1979

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its also reality that if trump is elected twenty million american's will lose health care.

Not to mention trumps plan to privatize old age pensions.

Sorry I know you typed legibly but all I read was 'Whaaaaahh'

Here's an argument. Maybe twenty million Americans should pay for their own health care instead of expecting everyone else to.

Samaris

Butters1979 wrote: »

Sorry I know you typed legibly but all I read was 'Whaaaaahh'

Here's an argument. Maybe twenty million Americans should pay for their own health care instead of expecting everyone else to.

Hm. Let's hope the schooling system doesn't go the same way then, or others may suffer the same affliction to their literacy.

Junkyard Tom

Whichever one of the two rotters is elected is probably going to cause more refugees pouring out of the Middle East into Europe. Shitbird is talking about the 'bad deal' with Iran (like they'd any choice) and Shitehawk has never known a war or sanctions she didn't get thrill out of.

meepins

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh I do get you, but the thing is... seemingly almost every politician who was telling the country how awful he was during the primaries have now turned around and endorsed him once the presidential election cycle began.

Career politicians are snakes. Who knew?

Among voters, I've seen people who identify Republican go from despising him during the primaries now either claiming 'at least better than Clinton' and in some instances claiming he would be a great president, or at least very good one. Once the primaries are out the window, so is ideology in place of the letter beside the name.

Great, they've rejected the mass media narrative and chosen nationalism over globalism. Good for them.

Again very hyperbolic on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the US break up during my lifetime if this incredibly huge issue does not get resolved. It's a disconnect with logic and rationality to such an extent that I cannot see a logical or rational solution being reached.

I actually agree with you that secession is a possibility but for different reasons obviously.

If I were a higher up in the GOP, I think I'd rather take a loss on this one, focus on sanity, get someone with a solid capacity to 'present' themselves like Paul Ryan prepped up, and win a landslide in 2020.

Those people tried their best to sabotage Trump and they got blown out. Hopefully Trump ruthlessly cleans house.

As someone who identifies closer with the democrats (not to say I'm particularly fond of them on the whole, mind) and despises what the GOP has turned to represent in the last several years

They have pretty much become the same party so I don't get this at all.

I could almost say the same about a Trump victory. Except for the fact that Donald Trump winning the election is the best thing (from their perspective) that could possibly ever happen to Islamic terrorist groups and the likes.

Is this a 'if you kill your enemies they win' post?
Have these terrorist groups ever had it better thanks to this current US admin? Getting weapons sent to them and as the US destroys countries move their jihad to the heart of Europe in amongst the resultant migrant waves.

TLDR; the US is kind f***ed either way, short term and long.

learn_more

Sand wrote: »

Its a matter of public record given hacks of the DNC emails that Clinton was the party's candidate, and Sanders definitely was not.

That's very interesting. How did the DNC force votes for Hillary. Whip type of thing was it ?

Edit: I don't see the problem with the DNC having a preferred candidate?

Butters1979

..

iLikeWaffles

With all the talk going on about the better candidate I can't help but think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVMXKJLdn_U

Outlaw Pete

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/780593158820429824

Samaris

meepins wrote: »

Those people tried their best to sabotage Trump and they got blown out. Hopefully Trump ruthlessly cleans house.

Well, his original idea was to replace them with his children, so I wonder how that would turn out. He mostly wants to ruthlessly clean out the media of anyone who will say anything mean about him. Isn't that a good start to a presidency.

learn_more wrote: »

That's very interesting. How did the DNC force votes for Hillary. Whip type of thing was it ?

Edit: I don't see the problem with the DNC having a preferred candidate?

Having a prefered candidate, no, it's quite natural. However, the DNC shouldn't really, under the American system, even contemplate sabotaging one in favour of another. The RNC did it with Trump as well, although I honestly can understand why.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/780593158820429824

Oh god, won't someone sit that poor guy down and get him some help. Julian Assange has been steadily losing his mind for months (I'm not just saying that, people who have met him have talked about what isolation and basically imprisonment are doing to him, and while he was never a particularly lovely person by all accounts, no-one deserves their meltdown to be this public or their work to be so spectacularly destroyed by their marbles leaking out their ears.

Anyone who will tell you with a straight face that one American politician "destroyed" another country (or their own) is either suffering from blind hatred or blind ideology.

Christy42

Butters1979 wrote: »

Sorry I know you typed legibly but all I read was 'Whaaaaahh'

Here's an argument. Maybe twenty million Americans should pay for their own health care instead of expecting everyone else to.

Sorry all I read from your post was **** you if you were born in a poor family and get sick.

Here's an argument. Maybe people who get every advantage, all the connections and the best educators, should treat others who didn't get all those advantages with a bit of human decency?

Does anyone seriously think Trump would be able to afford healthcare if his dad wasn't rich. He was bought in to a top university and still came out unable to construct a proper sentence.

Imagine how much he would have struggled in life without all those business advisors, connections and free capital that he got from his family?

wes

Butters1979 wrote: »

Here's an argument. Maybe twenty million Americans should pay for their own health care instead of expecting everyone else to.

So let people die, because there poor basically. Pretty disgusting attitude in this day and age.

Penn

wes wrote: »

So let people die, because there poor basically. Pretty disgusting attitude in this day and age.

I wonder what happens when people can't afford to pay for their healthcare?

Oh that's right, the costs for treatment and insurance goes up for everyone else to compensate for those who can't pay which means other people end up paying for it anyway through their medical bills & insurances rather than regulated taxes. Only difference is, more poor people are dead.

Hooray!