2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The media has a role to inform the people what we have here is 19th century yellow journalism. Editorials nitpicking and cross examining irrelevant pieces of information. Trump is not a seasoned politician and the media are trying to force him from the race by highlighting his bad points. Hillary has been given a free card to present a picture that is inherently untrue. Her policies
as Secretary of State have cost lives, mainly Arab & African lives.

She didn't have any policies as SoS. If you want someone to hate, hate Obama.

TheDoctor

I think we need the first debate to have something new to talk about

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

And what will President Trump do in his first week in office?

President Obama decided to govern by Executive Orders. The problem with that is if you govern by executive orders, then the next President can come in and overturn them.

So in week one Trump can negate the Paris Agreement on greenhouse-gas emissions. He can restart exploration of the Keystone pipeline. He can get really tough on the Iran agreement. He can suspend the Syrian refugee program. He can direct the Commerce Department to bring trade cases against China. He can go back to following our immigration laws and declare anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation, and act accordingly. He can curtail H-1B visas which are taking away skilled jobs from Americans. And he can ban anybody from countries experiencing problems with the exportation of terrorism such as Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia from coming into the country until our vetting system is greatly improved.

So when you objected to Obama governing by executive order, it was only because you disagreed with his policies? I thought you had an issue with the use of executive orders itself.

So will Republicans get all bent out of shape when Trump issues an executive order, the way they do now?

All sound pretty good to me.

If that's true, I feel sorry for you. Because you believe in isolationism. The US didn't become great by isolating itself from the world.

Brian?

TheDoctor wrote: »

I think we need the first debate to have something new to talk about

I agree. We're going in circles.

alchemist33

Brian? wrote: »

She didn't have any policies as SoS. If you want someone to hate, hate Obama.

Oh, i think we can take that as read.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

All things are possible, my dear.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mo-brooks-hillary-clinton-impeachment

A presidential impeachment on their first day of office is not. I know it's granting this nonsense far too much attention, but in order to impeach a president, you first have to have that president inaugurated, and then the impeachment process works it's way slowly through house and then it's referred to the senate for debate there. It's not a one-day affair by any measure.

Brian?

alastair wrote: »

A presidential impeachment on their first day of office is not. I know it's granting this nonsense far too much attention, but in order to impeach a president, you first have to have that president inaugurated, and then the impeachment process works it's way slowly through house and then it's referred to the senate for debate there. It's not a one-day affair by any measure.

You should know better than to rely on facts. It's all about feelings now. We're in a post-factual world. If Amerika feels Hillary can be impeached on day one, who are you to tell him how to feel? You monster.

/sarcasm

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

She didn't have any policies as SoS. If you want someone to hate, hate Obama.

Incorrect she was strongly infavour of the necons and their interventionism. She does not have a policy about that region. All she can say is Trump is a hateful individual. Washington needs better policies Trumps' got them running towards the exit doors. I hear

[url][/url]

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Incorrect she was strongly infavour of the necons and their interventionism. She does not have a policy about that region. All she can say is Trump is a hateful individual. Washington needs better policies Trumps' got them running towards the exit doors. I hear

[url][/url]

If you think Hillary had policies ad Sos, you have a very poor understanding of how a cabinet works.

What policies does Trump have for the middle east apart from bombing the **** out of it, families included. I'm paraphrasing.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

President Obama decided to govern by Executive Orders.

This is a very misleading statement and was not based upon fact. Thus far Obama has 249 EOs, compared to GW Bush's 291, and no place near the Republican (beloved) Ronald Reagan's 381. If Donald Trump is elected and sworn-in 20 January 2017, odds are the Republicans will still control both Houses of US Congress, and if so, during the first two years of his term he will probably not use as many EOs as Obama or GW Bush, and certainly not as many as Reagan.

Amerika wrote: »

And what will President Trump do in his first week in office?

Amerika wrote: »

So in week one Trump can negate the Paris Agreement on greenhouse-gas emissions. He can restart exploration of the Keystone pipeline. He can get really tough on the Iran agreement. He can suspend the Syrian refugee program. He can direct the Commerce Department to bring trade cases against China. He can go back to following our immigration laws and declare anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation, and act accordingly. He can curtail H-1B visas which are taking away skilled jobs from Americans. And he can ban anybody from countries experiencing problems with the exportation of terrorism such as Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia from coming into the country until our vetting system is greatly improved.

Amerika wrote: »

So in week one Trump can...

Now let me get this right, in "week one" Trump will do all the things that you list? Someone with ZERO governance experience, ZERO US diplomacy experience, and ZERO preparation for CIC in "week one" will address all the things in your list? Do you really believe this statement? Is it practical given Trump's experience ZEROS? Even 2-term VP Joe Biden or Ronald Reagan could not do this in "week one," and Biden and Reagan were lightyears ahead of Trump in relevant job experiences to get the job done.

Amerika wrote: »

He can curtail H-1B visas which are taking away skilled jobs from Americans.

Perhaps he could consult with First Lady Melania Trump regarding her visa status when she 1st came to the US to work?

hatrickpatrick

The Clinton-Combetta-Reddit story is struggling to make it into the mainstream US news (of course) but it's now made it to Fox News and IBTimes, the latter of which can tend to be a catalyst for viral news stories... If any of this verifies, she's f*cked.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/09/20/paul-combetta-it-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-tips

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hillary-clintons-tech-specialist-who-deleted-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-tips-1582223

How long does the House Intelligence Committee generally take to produce a report?

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

If you think Hillary had policies ad Sos, you have a very poor understanding of how a cabinet works.

What policies does Trump have for the middle east apart from bombing the **** out of it, families included. I'm paraphrasing.

Hillary has frustrated efforts to conduct peaceful relations with foreign powers. Interesting Trump stands for traditional American values of free trade recognizing that free trade can improve relations with Russia & Syria. The TTIP which I don't know the intimate details about is universally disliked across Europe and Clinton benefits enormously from this. It opens Europe up to exploitation under current policies.

Manic Moran

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, that's about the most succinct and accurate summary of this presidential race that I've seen. I am honestly at a loss to see how someone could support either of them.[/quote]
Over three hundred million people in this country... And these are the best two we put forward. Think about that.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary has frustrated efforts to conduct peaceful relations with foreign powers. Interesting Trump stands for traditional American values of free trade recognizing that free trade can improve relations with Russia & Syria. The TTIP which I don't know the intimate details about is universally disliked across Europe and Clinton benefits enormously from this. It opens Europe up to exploitation under current policies.

Nice swerve. What are Trump's policis for the middle east apart from "bomb the ****" out of ISIS, including women and children. Riddle me that horse.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Interesting Trump stands for traditional American values of free trade recognizing that free trade can improve relations with Russia & Syria.

"Free trade" results in products and services going to the least expensive and less regulated nations where ROI was the greatest for investors. This means taking jobs away from America where labour costs were higher and regulations greater. To what extent does this "free trade" argument contradict what Trump said he would do when elected to office about Apple, Carrier Air, Ford, and other US corporations that currently exercise "free trade" by having parts made in foreign nations where labour costs and regulations are less? How can you challenge "free trade" by these US corporations, while at the same time encouraging "free trade" with "Russia & Syria?" Don't you see the contradiction? Is this your personal position, or Donald Trump's position, or both?

B0jangles

Babby Trump appears to be trying to out-Trump his own father:

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/778209202095415296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Reminder: The source he is quoting is literally running Trump's campaign.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

"Free trade" results in products and services going to the least expensive and less regulated nations where ROI was the greatest for investors. This means taking jobs away from America where labour costs were higher and regulations greater. To what extent does this "free trade" argument contradict what Trump said he would do when elected to office about Apple, Carrier Air, Ford, and other US corporations that currently exercise "free trade" by having parts made in foreign nations where labour costs and regulations are less? How can you challenge "free trade" by these US corporations, while at the same time encouraging "free trade" with "Russia & Syria?" Don't you see the contradiction? Is this your personal position, or Donald Trump's position, or both?

Well since Hillary supports TTIP and Trump has no position on it. We will have to wait and see. He sees no future in the EU which I thoroughly disagree with but then again I don't agree with all his policies. To date his is purely been interested in areas he knows most well, namely China and America's massive trade deficit. The sanctions of Russia & Syria harms the world and this is very much the policy of Mrs Clinton.

ancapailldorcha

B0jangles wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=7751474381637324&tid=ss_tw

https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold/status/778240825817964544

Please try to add some context and info about the articles rather than just dumping them. Thanks.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well since Hillary supports TTIP and Trump has no position on it. We will have to wait and see. He sees no future in the EU which I thoroughly disagree with but then again I don't agree with all his policies. To date his is purely been interested in areas he knows most well, namely China and America's massive trade deficit. The sanctions of Russia & Syria harms the world and this is very much the policy of Mrs Clinton.

None of which answers the question: how can you say Trump is for free trade while he is threatening protectionist tax hikes on companies that produce outside the US?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

So when you objected to Obama governing by executive order, it was only because you disagreed with his policies? I thought you had an issue with the use of executive orders itself.

So will Republicans get all bent out of shape when Trump issues an executive order, the way they do now?

Actually, I dislike Executive Orders that essentially create law. If you look back I think you will see I said numerous times that if Obama is allowed to get away with it, every president afterward will utilize the same tactics… and should. That the time to stop it was then, and not when the office changes political party. That Obama was setting dangerous precedent. It should be the role of Congress to push back against a president if he oversteps his authority. And if they don’t it will continue. But what I don’t want is for a Congress to push back against a Republican president and give a Democratic president a pass.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

A presidential impeachment on their first day of office is not. I know it's granting this nonsense far too much attention, but in order to impeach a president, you first have to have that president inaugurated, and then the impeachment process works it's way slowly through house and then it's referred to the senate for debate there. It's not a one-day affair by any measure.

Semantics, schmantics. The process for impeachment can start on day one.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

This is a very misleading statement and was not based upon fact. Thus far Obama has 249 EOs, compared to GW Bush's 291, and no place near the Republican (beloved) Ronald Reagan's 381. If Donald Trump is elected and sworn-in 20 January 2017, odds are the Republicans will still control both Houses of US Congress, and if so, during the first two years of his term he will probably not use as many EOs as Obama or GW Bush, and certainly not as many as Reagan.

You and I have gone how many rounds on this already... That it's the quality of the EO's that matter, not the quantity?

Now let me get this right, in "week one" Trump will do all the things that you list? Someone with ZERO governance experience, ZERO US diplomacy experience, and ZERO preparation for CIC in "week one" will address all the things in your list? Do you really believe this statement? Is it practical given Trump's experience ZEROS? Even 2-term VP Joe Biden or Ronald Reagan could not do this in "week one," and Biden and Reagan were lightyears ahead of Trump in relevant job experiences to get the job done.

I said he 'can.' And you can quote me on that.

You don't think he and his transition team will just be sitting around for over two months sipping champagne, do you?

Perhaps he could consult with First Lady Melania Trump regarding her visa status when she 1st came to the US to work?

Perhaps, but if I had a wife that looked like Melania I'd think there would be better things to do than sit around discussing visa statuses.

Isn't it rich... the only person the Left has any concern about a visa status is Melania Trump.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Please dont post full articles without comment.

B0jangles

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Please try to add some context and info about the articles rather than just dumping them. Thanks.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Please dont post full articles without comment.

Ok, message thoroughly received.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Semantics, schmantics. The process for impeachment can start on day one.

Not what was being suggested though, was it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amerika
and first president to be impeached on day one of their presidency.

Overheal

Trump supporters will ignore this entirely, or think it's "good business" to perform nonprofit charity fraud

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/donald-trump-charity-revelations/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_7e7bde107f5a11e6bf8e470556fe0b22

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Not what was being suggested though, was it?

Oh bother. I think most here, if they were honest, knew what I meant. But I'll give you a win on this, nonetheless.

ancapailldorcha

Raise the standard of posting please.

TheDoctor

B0jangles wrote: »

Babby Trump appears to be trying to out-Trump his own father:

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/778209202095415296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Reminder: The source he is quoting is literally running Trump's campaign.

The hell did I just read

Overheal

TheDoctor wrote: »

The hell did I just read

An editorial based on anecdotes that loosely cites "statistics" which in one case is a 2011 news article citing an indefinite timeframe of police reports, which itself doesn't link to any study or source or record.

Ya read some bullsh!t.

alastair

Overheal wrote: »

An editorial based on anecdotes that loosely cites "statistics" which in one case is a 2011 news article citing an indefinite timeframe of police reports, which itself doesn't link to any study or source or record.

Ya read some bullsh!t.

Bull**** from the (sadly) Dublin born Anne-Marie Waters, who has a long line of Islamophobic cant behind her, along with a rapid journey through a rogues gallery of associations.

http://www.irr.org.uk/news/sharia-watch-uk-and-the-metamorphosis-of-anne-marie-waters/

Sofa Spud

... and it's from Breitbart, so need to understand the context of factual reporting being not applicable - click bait for the alt:right...

Inquitus

How does Trump avoid becoming fatally unstuck in the debates, an hour plus, one on one, with Hillary surely can't play well given his lack of substance and bluster. It was easy to bluster for 2 hours sharing the stage with 10 GOP Candidates, this clearly a completely different ballgame, the moderators will push him for answers and surely not let him away with the sort of performances he put out in the GOP debates? It's hard to see how he can get past 3 debates without swaying a number of undecideds the wrong way, or is he really Mr Teflon and no blunders on prime time national TV can dent his ambitions, thoughts? I fully expect the debates to be his undoing, if there were none it looks like a coin flip at best.

Rjd2

Inquitus wrote: »

How does Trump avoid becoming fatally unstuck in the debates, an hour plus, one on one, with Hillary surely can't play well given his lack of substance and bluster. It was easy to bluster for 2 hours sharing the stage with 10 GOP Candidates, this clearly a completely different ballgame, the moderators will push him for answers and surely not let him away with the sort of performances he put out in the GOP debates? It's hard to see how he can get past 3 debates without swaying a number of undecideds the wrong way, or is he really Mr Teflon and no blunders on prime time national TV can dent his ambitions, thoughts? I fully expect the debates to be his undoing, if there were none it looks like a coin flip at best.

He struggled towards the end of the debate cycle when Cruz and Rubio pinned him down, but both of those guys especially Cruz are very unlikable thus not much damage was done. He had to much momentum anyhow before Cruz and Rubio finally copped on that they needed to go hard after him, this time however he is still behind in the polls and Hilary won't stink of the desperation of Cruz and Rubio also.

However yep you are right, I have no clue how he survives the first 2 debates, he will try and turn this into a playground fight, but Hilary swerves that and turns it into an indepth policy debate he is ****ed.

The third debate is on Fox so he may survive that, but the damage will be done by then. I think he should have pushed to have Johnson on stage, as that would have taken some of the focus off him and Johnson is better at talking to the left and is hurting Hilary more than him.

I wouldn't be shocked if he refuses to do anymore debates after the first one, claiming media bias or some bollocks.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Isn't it rich... the only person the Left has any concern about a visa status is Melania Trump.

The "Left" label is a terribly oversimplistic, nominal either/or dichotomy that is "Yugely" misleading and lacking utility in the real world of politics, especially when observing the highly diverse political behaviour of independents, who outnumber either party registrations.

Melania Trump is not "the only person" that politically savvy voters and observers of this election have examined in terms of problematic visa status. Other examples exist and have been reported by numerous sources that are of concern like the 200 illegal Polish construction workers ("Polish Brigade") used by Donald Trump to build Trump Tower in New York. Or Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach Florida (in addition to other Trump properties about the country) where "The club has sought H-2B visas for low-skilled, low-wage workers such as cooks, wait staff and housekeepers," rather than employing American citizens to do the same work. Trump speaks out of both sides of his mouth, condemning H-2B visa system in the US, threatening to deport 11 million illegals, while at the same time hiring illegal foreign workers or those on H-2B visas when it financially profits him.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Isn't it rich... the only person the Left has any concern about a visa status is Melania Trump.

You know that it is brought up to show Trump's hypocrisy on the matter right? So no it isn't a bit rich for the left to point it out given there is no serious concern over her visa status. If you want to know something that is rich then look no further than the fact that the right doesn't seem interested at all.

There aren't big campaigns to get her deported.

conditioned games

Christy42 wrote: »

Amerika wrote: »

Isn't it rich... the only person the Left has any concern about a visa status is Melania Trump.

You know that it is brought up to show Trump's hypocrisy on the matter right? So no it isn't a bit rich for the left to point it out given there is no serious concern over her visa status. If you want to know something that is rich then look no further than the fact that the right doesn't seem interested at all.

There aren't big campaigns to get her deported.

Melanie Trump went through the process and acquired her visa legally. 11 million illegals didn't go through that same legal process but you want to threat them the same?

Amerika

conditioned games wrote: »

Melanie Trump went through the process and acquired her visa legally. 11 million illegals didn't go through that same legal process but you want to threat them the same?

No, they want to treat Melania more harshly. She's married to a republican, ya know.

Mr.Micro

Inquitus wrote: »

How does Trump avoid becoming fatally unstuck in the debates, an hour plus, one on one, with Hillary surely can't play well given his lack of substance and bluster. It was easy to bluster for 2 hours sharing the stage with 10 GOP Candidates, this clearly a completely different ballgame, the moderators will push him for answers and surely not let him away with the sort of performances he put out in the GOP debates? It's hard to see how he can get past 3 debates without swaying a number of undecideds the wrong way, or is he really Mr Teflon and no blunders on prime time national TV can dent his ambitions, thoughts? I fully expect the debates to be his undoing, if there were none it looks like a coin flip at best.

Despite all the odds and his gaffes, he is still there. It will be interesting to see how it pans out come the debates.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

No, they want to treat Melania more harshly. She's married to a republican, ya know.

She didn't marry a Republican though. She married a Democrat.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

She didn't marry a Republican though. She married a Democrat.

Democrat, Republican, comme ci, comme ça. Either way she's married to the money.

Christy42

conditioned games wrote: »

Melanie Trump went through the process and acquired her visa legally. 11 million illegals didn't go through that same legal process but you want to threat them the same?

Other examples of this which are mentioned above my post.

Plus it is good to check these things. The Trump's don't have a reputation of always doing things properly.

About the debates. Trump could win them as they may well be judged based on what people expect. We have people on here shouting from the rooftops whenever he goes 5 minutes without saying something offensive.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Democrat, Republican, comme ci, comme ça. Either way she's married to the money.

Dunno why you believe that matters to the left. Wasn't the accusation against Kerry that he was a 'leftist', and he married into money too. In fact I seem to recall that this was more of an obsession with right-wing commentators.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

Dunno why you believe that matters to the left. Wasn't the accusation against Kerry that he was a 'leftist', and he married into money too. In fact I seem to recall that this was more of an obsession with right-wing commentators.

It was a joke. And the problem with Kerry was he utilized the fortune, through marriage, of the late Representative John Heinz III (R) to advance his political democratic career.

gosplan

Wow.

The whole charity thing seems s bit of s mess.

It kind of makes me believe the theory that Trump wasn't serious about running initially and never expected to get this far.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

It was a joke. And the problem with Kerry was he utilized the fortune, through marriage, of the late Representative John Heinz III (R) to advance his political democratic career.

Where is the problem, exactly?

httpete

Christy42 wrote: »

Other examples of this which are mentioned above my post.

Plus it is good to check these things. The Trump's don't have a reputation of always doing things properly.

About the debates. Trump could win them as they may well be judged based on what people expect. We have people on here shouting from the rooftops whenever he goes 5 minutes without saying something offensive.

I don't know why people act somewhat surprised that Trump may win the debates. Some people on Reddit act as if Clinton will destroy him in the debates, it makes no sense at all.

Trump blew all the other Republican candidates out of the water in the earlier debates and many of those would be much more polished speakers than Clinton. He is an extremely proficient communicator whereas Clinton comes across terribly any time she speaks. I really can't see how she has any chance against Trump who is liable to say anything, putting her on the defensive. Trump is a far better performer in front of the camera. I don't agree with a lot of his policies but I would shocked if didn't easily win the debates.

K-9

gosplan wrote: »

Wow.

The whole charity thing seems s bit of s mess.

It kind of makes me believe the theory that Trump wasn't serious about running initially and never expected to get this far.

It has been reported by NPR that he hasn't donated anything since 08.

I think we can all hazard a guess as to why he's so reluctant to release his tax returns. Either he brags too much, which isn't really a surprise to anybody or it's a good old fashioned case of fur coat, no knickers!

NPR also reported that his last visit to a black church didn't go down so well! Trump being Trump had to go on TV and pretend everything went swimmingly, well hopefully that is the case and he isn't really that self deluded! It was a bit of a disaster.

The preacher/moderator told him to stop making political speeches about Hillary as that was what was agreed previously and Trump agreed respectfully. Then on TV the next morning he said the moderator couldn't control the audience, which of course loved him.

NPR had the recording of a perfectly calm moderator who also admonished the crowd for booing Trump. In his eyes, those boots weren't for him, they were for the moderator.

I've known a couple of Walter Mitty characters like that before, they tell so many lies they actually end up believing them.

alastair

httpete wrote: »

I don't know why people act somewhat surprised that Trump may win the debates. Some people on Reddit act as if Clinton will destroy him in the debates, it makes no sense at all.

Trump blew all the other Republican candidates out of the water in the earlier debates and many of those would be much more polished speakers than Clinton. He is an extremely proficient communicator whereas Clinton comes across terribly any time she speaks. I really can't see how she has any chance against Trump who is liable to say anything, putting her on the defensive. Trump is a far better performer in front of the camera. I don't agree with a lot of his policies but I would shocked if didn't easily win the debates.

YMMV.

The Republican debates were just a circus of platitudes and insults. The next three are teasing out policy, with proper moderation. Clinton is at her best on policy wonk material, and Trump is hopeless. Even the disinterested will pick up on the gap of ability between them. I've no expectation of his doing any way well.

K-9

httpete wrote: »

I don't know why people act somewhat surprised that Trump may win the debates. Some people on Reddit act as if Clinton will destroy him in the debates, it makes no sense at all.

Trump blew all the other Republican candidates out of the water in the earlier debates and many of those would be much more polished speakers than Clinton. He is an extremely proficient communicator whereas Clinton comes across terribly any time she speaks. I really can't see how she has any chance against Trump who is liable to say anything, putting her on the defensive. Trump is a far better performer in front of the camera. I don't agree with a lot of his policies but I would shocked if didn't easily win the debates.

The difference this time is it's 1 vs.1 so it won't be so effective. Clinton hasn't really treated to Trump and that had her leading the polls by a considerable margin. Her reacting and the pneumonia thing cost her last week.