2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

K-9

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if that Townhall has any impact on Polling numbers..

If anything it showed a total lack of preparation from Trump - He was utterly unable to answer any question with anything that made sense..

Here's an example where both Trump and Clinton were asked basically the same question - "What are you going to do about Veterans Mental Health/Sucide rates.





To be honest Lauer should never get a serious interview gig again for letting him away with utter tripe like that, but regardless of that and regardless of whether you agree/disagree with the Clinton reply at least it was a reply.

Trumps answer was essentially "Thanks for the question , now I'm going to completely ignore it and tell you how great I think I am"

If someone like Anderson Cooper chases him down on that kind of reply during the Presidential debates he could and should be in real trouble.

* Quotes are from this article

Do it too much and it could be seen as badgering, so a moderator can't go after him too much. That's an advantage Trump has, he speaks so much vague gibberish you can't challenge it every time, quite clever actually!

K-9

Mod:

Ye can start a thread on the emails if ye want, I'll move over recent related posts later.

The military debate might be best suited for the Is America in decline thread.

Amerika

Akrasia wrote: »

Hillary is same old... What is Trump.

....

.....

......

Seriously. What policies will Trump implement.

You are literally voting for the mystery box.

Trump says he has a plan, but says it's a secret. Then he says he wants to get all the generals to tell him their plans and he'll then decide which is the best plan.

This is Joseph Smith levels of blatant con artistry

What would Trump have to do or say before you agree that he's a fraud? Give me any answer what so ever, and there's a good chance he's already done or said it.

How many times have I answered this question, or ones similar to it? Well, one more time won’t hurt, I guess. Trump’s stances, and what he will attempt to implement/achieve, have always been on the right issues... immigration, southern wall, regulation, trade, healthcare reform, taxes and jobs. Sure there has been much to desire in the way he articulated his goals, and he's shown some inconsistencies, but they have remained his focus throughout the election. That is good enough for me!

Want more details... then go here.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Now my turn... and I’m confident you will also oblige me. Seriously, what policies will Hillary Clinton implement that makes her sooooo much the better choice?

eire4

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, and it is functionally weaker than it has been in decades. Dangerously so, given the role that it is called upon to fulfill globally.

Who exactly is it that is calling on the US to act on a global scale?
I would contend that the US's military presence in so many countries around the world is about its own designs on power and an ability to control wealth for those who benefit from such in the US be it the many military contractors, defense industry companies and many US multi national corporations.

eire4

glued wrote: »

What's dangerous here is that the mainstream media seem to be highlighting Trumps misgivings much more than Hilary's terrible record as a politician.

The US have a choice between two awful candidates. One has no idea what she's doing and has made mistake after mistake in her political career and the other is a guy who has proven he has no idea what he's doing.

To be fair the US has more then 2 choices but the system is so corrupt and broken that the corporate corrupted Democratic and Republican parties with the help of a compliant MSM make sure the American people think there are not alternatives to the cartel on power in the US which the Republicans and Democrats hold.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump, who has frequently praised (former KGB and Lubyanka prison torture fame) Vladimir Putin as a strong leader, now challenges US foreign policies on pro-Kremlin, Russian state owned TV broadcast in Russian and English. It appears that the Trump-Putin bromance knows no bounds. And when Trump tries to claim he will be a Reagan-like president, Trump must have forgotten to read that part of US history called the Cold War, where USA and USSR were bitter enemies, and Reagan challenged the USSR in an arms race that doubled the federal deficit, and came close to war.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin.

President Modi, PM Theresa May, PM Enda Kenny, PM Alexis Tsipras, General Sisi, President Putin & Chancellor Merkel all have points of interest with candidate Trump. They all share a common determination to create a better society and eradicate terrorism. Once constant is his ability to reach out to divisive political leaders in an age when institutions have failed the people. So in reply to your post Trump's admiration from Putin is actually complimentary.

gosplan

Amerika wrote: »

How many times have I answered this question, or ones similar to it? Well, one more time won’t hurt, I guess. Trump’s stances, and what he will attempt to implement/achieve, have always been on the right issues... immigration, southern wall, regulation, trade, healthcare reform, taxes and jobs. Sure there has been much to desire in the way he articulated his goals, and he's shown some inconsistencies, but they have remained his focus throughout the election. That is good enough for me!

Want more details... then go here.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Now my turn... and I’m confident you will also oblige me. Seriously, what policies will Hillary Clinton implement that makes her sooooo much the better choice?

The problem is he doesn't seem to know much about 'the right issues'.

There's editing errors on the link you sent too.

His team can't edit a webpage right. He's fired 2 campaign managers in the last few months. A lot of what he says is just incorrect. He's massively hypocritical.

He's so clearly not up to running things. I mean it's really really obvious.

Is the fact that he's just talking about immigration and the economy enough? Really, just that he's discussing these things.

I get that this is a campaign where people are voting against rather than for but I've no idea how someone can look at trump as a good option on his own merits.

It's really blindness.

gosplan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

President Modi, PM Theresa May, PM Enda Kenny, PM Alexis Tsipras, General Sisi, President Putin & Chancellor Merkel all have points of interest with candidate Trump. They all share a common determination to create a better society and eradicate terrorism. Once constant is his ability to reach out to divisive political leaders in an age when institutions have failed the people. So in reply to your post Trump's admiration from Putin is actually complimentary.

Constant?

Did he have one political meeting with a foreign leader after which one of them lied about whatever was said and basically both parties became more entrenched?

How is that constant ability??

Jesus!

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

How many times have I answered this question, or ones similar to it? Well, one more time won’t hurt, I guess. Trump’s stances, and what he will attempt to implement/achieve, have always been on the right issues... immigration, southern wall, regulation, trade, healthcare reform, taxes and jobs. Sure there has been much to desire in the way he articulated his goals, and he's shown some inconsistencies, but they have remained his focus throughout the election. That is good enough for me!

Want more details... then go here.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Now my turn... and I’m confident you will also oblige me. Seriously, what policies will Hillary Clinton implement that makes her sooooo much the better choice?

Even after this post, still precisely zero times. A buzz word is not a policy. "Regulation" is not a policy. "Immigration" is not a policy. "Trade" is not a policy. "Taxes and jobs" is not a policy. "Healthcare reform" is not a policy.

"Dear America, I will fix sh*t with magic. All the sh*t. You name a buzzword, I'll fix it. With the fixing skills that will fix it."

Now, go vote for me.

KingBrian2

Back in the olden days they used to just have a Minister of War or secretary of war. That would suit Trump down to the ground. Someone who could assess a situation and round up the best Generals, Colonels & Admirals and have them work with him to launch combat missions against the world's enemies like North Korea.

Should Clinton be elected she may have to call Trump's assistance to rally the troops to an offensive. He is already performing two tasks at the same time. Continuing with his business & going on campaign. I'd say the average American does not have to focus on the daily job of Presidential politics.

PopePalpatine

Blame Truman, the position of Secretary of War was abolished in 1947 (during his first term) and the Secretary of Defense now serves that office's purpose.

KingBrian2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Blame Truman, the position of Secretary of War was abolished in 1947 (during his first term) and the Secretary of Defense now serves that office's purpose.

Didn't stop the wars. Infact even more were to come.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Back in the olden days they used to just have a Minister of War or secretary of war. That would suit Trump down to the ground. Someone who could assess a situation and round up the best Generals, Colonels & Admirals and have them work with him to launch combat missions against the world's enemies like North Korea.

What do you think the secretary of defence does?

Should Clinton be elected she may have to call Trump's assistance to rally the troops to an offensive. He is already performing two tasks at the same time. Continuing with his business & going on campaign. I'd say the average American does not have to focus on the daily job of Presidential politics.

Why would Clinton have to call on Trump? She would be the commander in chief.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

What do you think the secretary of defence does?



Why would Clinton have to call on Trump? She would be the commander in chief.

Delegation.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

What do you think the secretary of defence does?



Why would Clinton have to call on Trump? She would be the commander in chief.

Delegation.

Delegation? Why would the command in chief delegate to a private citizen? What about the joint chiefs?

PopePalpatine

Brian? wrote: »

Delegation? Why would the command in chief delegate to a private citizen? What about the joint chiefs?

Don't you know, women don't have the balls for war! :rolleyes:

learn_more

Can't believe the gaff Hillary made today. Bit worrying that she doesn't have the wits to keep her mouth shut when things are going for her.

ebbsy

learn_more wrote: »

Can't believe the gaff Hillary made today. Bit worrying that she doesn't have the wits to keep her mouth shut when things are going for her.

Exactly what Trump wants. Drag it down into the gutter. That's where he is at his best.

Manach

Well according to CNN a Democratic source that did not want to be named stated that the only item wrong with her speach was the use of the term "half" - which perhaps displays an interesting way to run a campaign.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Back in the olden days they used to just have a Minister of War or secretary of war. That would suit Trump down to the ground. Someone who could assess a situation and round up the best Generals, Colonels & Admirals and have them work with him to launch combat missions against the world's enemies like North Korea.

Ah, the olden days of the end of WWII when we restructured our Modern Military?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

Suggesting we just go and attack the DPRK "cos they're the bad guy" is misguided to say the least. But thats for another place, post that in the military forum and see how far that goes. The short version is casualties in the millions and debts in the trillions. Their military is dated but not a dud; the terrain is a nightmare for any ground war and there are indeterminate numbers of tunnels and bunkers running throughout the whole country. In terms of manpower alone they about match the US, the amount of resources it would take to engage in theater would require a complete change to our military doctrine. Not to mention the population for one reason or other is caught between brainwashed and subjugated and skeptical of the regime and there is no telling what their response would be to an intervention. They could bolster their ranks in an invasion scenario by a couple million souls. The last time we tried to predict the indigenous response before a conflict, we were gravely mistaken. And no, nuclear is not a real option, for a lot of reasons - and not just because it vastly defeats any original purpose of thinking of them as the bad guy in the first place.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=659

Should Clinton be elected she may have to call Trump's assistance to rally the troops to an offensive. He is already performing two tasks at the same time. Continuing with his business & going on campaign. I'd say the average American does not have to focus on the daily job of Presidential politics.

Why in the world would she have to call a real estate mogul to get the military to do anything? That makes no sense, unless you assume our military is a mob of undisciplined rednecks that would ignore the chain of command. They invaded Iraq for Bush, didn't they? His anecdotal "multitasking" of running a business and a campaign is comical, it's done all the time. Hillary still runs her foundation and I imagine does plenty else. To say he's running his business though like he's getting up at 4 every morning to bake bread though, vs. what's really happening is the business is offloaded to execs and once in a while he is asked to sign something or appear in court for one of the numerous lawsuits against him.

learn_more

ebbsy wrote: »

Exactly what Trump wants. Drag it down into the gutter. That's where he is at his best.

I know. Doesn't she have a multitude of media advisor's to instruct her not to go there. If I were her advisor, I would say let him hang himself.

And your right, dragging it down to the gutter is exactly where he does best. It's no wonder his advisor's have said to him - well it's going well for you to get the nomination, so, as you were.

Hillary doesn't seem to have any innate media savy whatsoever.

Overheal

Well, she doesn't spend much time on social media, like some other candidates, so while its cringeworthy im not surprised she looks like an uncool soccer mom half the time

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/07/18/punchlines-pokemon-colbert-conan-politics/87244282/

That was the subject of many a reactionary vine.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Ah, the olden days of the end of WWII when we restructured our Modern Military?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

Suggesting we just go and attack the DPRK "cos they're the bad guy" is misguided to say the least. But thats for another place, post that in the military forum and see how far that goes. The short version is casualties in the millions and debts in the trillions. Their military is dated but not a dud; the terrain is a nightmare for any ground war and there are indeterminate numbers of tunnels and bunkers running throughout the whole country. In terms of manpower alone they about match the US, the amount of resources it would take to engage in theater would require a complete change to our military doctrine. Not to mention the population for one reason or other is caught between brainwashed and subjugated and skeptical of the regime and there is no telling what their response would be to an intervention. They could bolster their ranks in an invasion scenario by a couple million souls. The last time we tried to predict the indigenous response before a conflict, we were gravely mistaken. And no, nuclear is not a real option, for a lot of reasons - and not just because it vastly defeats any original purpose of thinking of them as the bad guy in the first place.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=659



Why in the world would she have to call a real estate mogul to get the military to do anything? That makes no sense, unless you assume our military is a mob of undisciplined rednecks that would ignore the chain of command. They invaded Iraq for Bush, didn't they? His anecdotal "multitasking" of running a business and a campaign is comical, it's done all the time. Hillary still runs her foundation and I imagine does plenty else. To say he's running his business though like he's getting up at 4 every morning to bake bread though, vs. what's really happening is the business is offloaded to execs and once in a while he is asked to sign something or appear in court for one of the numerous lawsuits against him.

I did not say of that but by all means continue your rhetoric. The record shows that Hillary has been in Congress for decades and during that time America has declined in standing around the world and the American people have suffered great indignities and hardship.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I did not say of that but by all means continue your rhetoric. The record shows that Hillary has been in Congress for decades and during that time America has declined in standing around the world and the American people have suffered great indignities and hardship.

What decades?

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I did not say of that but by all means continue your rhetoric. The record shows that Hillary has been in Congress for decades and during that time America has declined in standing around the world and the American people have suffered great indignities and hardship.

I believe it was mentioned here earlier but perhaps you would benefit from a more in-depth read here:

http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/econ439/2014/02/03/distinguishing-correlation-causation-key-critical-thinking/



Do lemons affect rates of road fatalities?

As an aside, Hillary Clinton's record only shows she had ever been in congress for 8 years. I suggest basic self-fact-checking before you pass off statements as factual in the future. Of those 8 years, Bush was in office for all of them. What indignities and hardships are we discussing, here?

Overheal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Don't you know, women don't have the balls for war! :rolleyes:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-daily-show-launches-its-own-version-of-extreme-vetting-of-trump-supporters/

Overheal

gosplan

Good article about Trumps base, his appeal, and the disenfranchisement of so many Americans from political elites.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/jd-vance-hillbilly-elegy-donald-trump-us-white-poor-working-class

FA Hayek

Seems Hilary is rowing back on her deplorable statement. To be honest, if you want to appear to be above your opponent and its not hard to be above Trump in this regard here then calling his voters deplorable is just the height of ignorance. Then again it is Hillary who seems to think she has a birth right to the White House.

I remember Romney mad a comment 4 years ago about how 47% of the electorate would never vote for him and the media outcry was something else. Now Hillary is calling around the same amount of the electorate deplorable and there does not seem to be the same reaction? Funny that!

K-9

She called out the alt right before and many Republicans supported her on that.

The candidate who makes the least mistakes and puts their foot in it the least will win it, Hillary is way ahead on that front so far.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Discussion on Hillary's health, or general candidates health if it goes that way, goes here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057646593#

K-9

See post above as to why 3 posts got deleted. Use the thread set up for the health discussion please.

Count Dooku

Do they have somebody, except Sanders, to replace Hillary?
https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/775093724363784192

Overheal

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do they have somebody, except Sanders, to replace Hillary?
https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/775093724363784192

Grain of salt from that tweet,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shuster#Career

AbusesToilets

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do they have somebody, except Sanders, to replace Hillary?
https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/775093724363784192

Biden could slide in there pretty easily tbh.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Biden could slide in there pretty easily tbh.

Indeed, Biden could win by a landslide if for some reason Hillary should withdraw. Who would be more qualified for president than the current VP, when compared to Trump with ZERO qualifications in governance, US diplomacy, and CIC? The only thing Trump and the GOP would have to play with is Biden gaffes, which even he laughs at.

K-9

He brings up the Clinton enthusiasm gap further down which is a good point. If Trump goes too hard on her it could energise her base, sorry for using that phrase!

Biden would be an inspired choice and a no brainer Tbh.

Suryavarman

I don't see anything wrong with Clinton's statement that half of Trump's supporters are deplorables. A candidate can't be as openly racist and sexist as Trump is without large numbers of his supporters being equally as lowbrow as he is.

K-9

She'd already dealt with it last week though and many Republicans agreed with her. I don't think there was any need to double down on it.

Will be interesting to see how the campaign team react, Trump has made it so easy for her so far.

Black Swan

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with Clinton's statement that half of Trump's supporters are deplorables. A candidate can't be as openly racist and sexist as Trump is without large numbers of his supporters being equally as lowbrow as he is.

Methinks it was a classic political faux pas made by Hillary Clinton to directly attack Donald Trump's supporters with such a "deplorables" categorisation, especially when her campaign and DNC had an all Americans inclusiveness theme, rather than the campaign divisiveness attributed to Trump. She could lose many independents that have been undecided. She apologised after, but the damage had been done.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with Clinton's statement that half of Trump's supporters are deplorables. A candidate can't be as openly racist and sexist as Trump is without large numbers of his supporters being equally as lowbrow as he is.

Hillary Clinton is saying she will not be a president for all Americans.

Christy42

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with Clinton's statement that half of Trump's supporters are deplorables. A candidate can't be as openly racist and sexist as Trump is without large numbers of his supporters being equally as lowbrow as he is.

It is a bad move strategically. Makes you seem unwilling to compromise and stops a lot of Trump supporters from thinking about leaving.

TheDoctor

Ah she only said half of them were bad.

Same way Trump said not all Mexicans coming into the US were bringing drugs and were rapists.

Amerika

I think it was a strategic move on Hillary’s part. The email scandals have been gaining momentum. Anything to draw attention away from scandal talk and pause the momentum. And she’s confident her allies in the media will make sure the basket full of deplorables comment will be forgotten within a week.

Billy86

TheDoctor wrote: »

Ah she only said half of them were bad.

Same way Trump said not all Mexicans coming into the US were bringing drugs and were rapists.

While this is true, getting into the gutter with the bigots and trolls littered throughout Trump's fanbase isn't a great idea; there's nothing to gain in terms of optics. She also could have made the point a lot better than she did in terms of phrasing if she was intent on saying it, in my opinion.

Amerika

Didn’t take the Trump campaign long to capitalize on Hillary’s 'deplorables' comment.

TheDoctor

"She's after hard working people like you."


Sounds like that ad just called the hard working people racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic

Amerika

Apparently the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, as some in Congress are mighty pissed.

Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and Trey Gowdy, head of the Benghazi committee had no idea until they read it in the New York Times that the contractor (Platte River Networks, the Colorado contractor hired by Clinton to handle her email system) who destroyed Hillary Clinton's emails and backups while they were under a congressional subpoena, had received immunity from the Justice Department… and then still refused to answer some questions from the FBI.

Seems the FBI and the Justice Department now has some splainin to do before the House Oversight Committee this week.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

Indeed, Biden could win by a landslide if for some reason Hillary should withdraw. Who would be more qualified for president than the current VP, when compared to Trump with ZERO qualifications in governance, US diplomacy, and CIC? The only thing Trump and the GOP would have to play with is Biden gaffes, which even he laughs at.

In addition, whatever one's view on Obama and his policies, his administration has been fairly scandal free. Certainly on a personal level.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

In addition, whatever one's view on Obama and his policies, his administration has been fairly scandal free. Certainly on a personal level.

Also... Several market indicators like the Dow Industrial Average have made massive improvements since the 2008 Great Recession at the end of the GW Bush administration, when it lost half its value and fell into the 6000's. Now 18000 or above. It's a poor and gross indicator of economic success, yet it's a highly visible one. Although the administration in office has little to do with economic prosperity, they often get criticism or credit for failed or successful outcomes, and historically the party administration with a successful economy gets re-elected per the old political cliché "It's the economy stupid."