2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
InfiniteBoredom said:
The Clintons' foreign policy is best described in one sentence from Bill, 'failing is not failure, failing to try is a failure'
Click to expand...

Nope. Failing is failure. It's the difference between safely completing a tightrope walk between two skyscrapers....... and being scraped off the pavement.

I can understand why he would think that though. Since liberal failures, and more often successes, result in other people going splat! which is probably not so keenly felt. It's the price of nobility.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ntons-answers-on-her-paid-speeches-dont-work/

In a Thursday op-ed headlined "Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts," the New York Times editorial board gets to the heart of why Hillary Clinton's insistence that she will release her paid speech transcripts when everyone else in the race does makes no sense.

They write:

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”

The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries ...

... Her conditioning her releases on what the Republicans might or might not do is mystifying. Republicans make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money.

Yes, yes yes. Also, yes.

Clinton — as the Times piece helpfully notes — has run through a series of bad answers about why she gave the speeches and why she is now unwilling to authorize the release of the transcripts of them. She has migrated from some sort of convoluted citing of Sept. 11, 2001 and her work as New York's senator to justify her speech-giving on Wall Street to her current position, which amounts to "I won't do it unless everyone else does it."

The problem inherent in that point is that everyone else doesn't do it. No one else in this race has earned millions of dollars from speeches to Wall Street banks and investment firms. No one else was paid $675,000 for a series of speeches to Goldman Sachs. And, no one else in the race is trying to make the case that despite their financial ties to Wall Street that they are best positioned to hold that industry accountable for its practices.

Only Clinton.

Those are the facts. Clinton isn't being held to a different standard on the release of her paid speech transcripts. She's being held to a standard commensurate with her place in the race (the front-runner), her emphasis on her resume during the campaign and her message that she is the best equipped to address the economic inequality rampant in the country today.

Politicians don't get to pick and choose the parts of their biography that are fair game. If Clinton can run on her experience as a senator from New York and as the nation's top diplomat, then it is entirely fair for people to raise questions about what she was doing just prior to running for president. Like giving paid speeches.
Click to expand...
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The Clintons' foreign policy is best described in one sentence from Bill, 'failing is not failure, failing to try is a failure'.

They basically believe in promoting American democracy and policing the world by using military force if necessary. It's a pattern. Black Hawk Down, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya. Now you can argue whether or not that's wise, but it's too simplistic to say that's neocon.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Kosovo does anyone remember when Hilary said she landed under sniper fire and well.....


And to think Bernie supports are worried about health care, Hillary loves it
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/03/the_tall_tale_of_tuzla.html
 
Kaos said:
And that's how you get Trump claiming this is fixed and then running as an independent.
Click to expand...

Not sure how true it is but Andy Dean said on Maher a few weeks ago that registration for running as an independent has finished and write-ins aren't allowed in quite a few states so that isn't a viable option for Trump/Bernie.
 
Kaos said:
And that's how you get Trump claiming this is fixed and then running as an independent.
Click to expand...
Probably too late at this stage.

He can make damage though by saying to his voters to not vote on main election (or vote for Hillary).
 
Revan said:
Probably too late at this stage.

He can make damage though by saying to his voters to not vote on main election (or vote for Hillary).
Click to expand...

No even after the convention he can still make it onto most ballots - and as we have seen from his twitter outbursts he can generate a lot of campaign coverage at not a huge cost... certainly enough to severely damage the republicans and "lyin ted" and lets be honest if he is independent I suspect his rhetoric will go up several notches rather than be dialled back.

An official trump republican candidacy may lead to defeat in the presidential elections (well so the polls say but personally I think he would be the strongest candidate they can put up) but at least the party could be united on the other election... An independent trump could lead to massive losses in all elections and the implosion of the party.

Tough choice but perhaps the best thing for the Republican party is to go with the Don and live to fight another day
 
A Trump independent run would cost them the Presidency, but then again, a Cruz win would cost them the Presidency too. What would really hurt from a Trump independent run, however, would be the entire downstream ballot for the Republicans - they could lose the House and Senate if Trump supporters stay away or protest. And if they lose the Senate, they could see several liberal justices join the Supreme Court with ease in the next few years.

This is perhaps what Sanders' biggest legacy could be if he doesn't win the nomination - getting the young to not become disheartened and vote downballot, both this year and the mid-terms. It could well be the first time in ages (ever?) that the SCOTUS would lean left.
 
He won't run independent. Even a cheap-ish campaign cost about 100-200m (paperworks, offices, staffs etc...). No reason to spend his money if he can screw Lyin' Ted for free using his Twitter.
 
Revan said:
Probably too late at this stage.

He can make damage though by saying to his voters to not vote on main election (or vote for Hillary).
Click to expand...

In some states he can still register on the ballot as an indie, but he'll have no chance of winning. He certainly is capable of killing the GOPs presidential campaign if hes not their man.

Fun times ahead
 
berbatrick said:


I'm sure the tax avoiders are quaking in their boots at the prospect of a Clinton presidency
http://www.theguardian.com/business...-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton
Trump and Clinton share Delaware tax 'loophole' address with 285,000 firms
Click to expand...

That top article is 15 years old ffs. Funny quote from it though:

"The DLC is trying to bring some fresh ideas to Medicare and to dealing with the uninsured," says Lifson, whose company is listed as a member of the DLC's policy roundtable. "It builds on changes that are taking place in the marketplace, rather than turning everything on its head [like] Hillary Care." Lifson frankly endorses the DLC as a counterweight to "populists ... at the other end of the party."
Click to expand...

Entertaining twist in the final paragraph of the Guardian article as well.
 
Ubik said:
That top article is 15 years old ffs. Funny quote from it though:
Click to expand...

Hillary abandoned her own healthcare, and has said it will "never ever come to pass", so we can assume they are in complete agreement these days.
 
Btw it looks like Kasich has finally arrived as Trump has finally given him a nickname. ' 1 for 38 Kasich'. :lol:

That's the whole Kasich for Trump's Veep angle gone.
 
berbatrick said:
Hillary abandoned her own healthcare, and has said it will "never ever come to pass", so we can assume they are in complete agreement these days.
Click to expand...
She's in agreement with Barry now. The modern Democratic party is Obama's, not Bill Clinton's. The DLC doesn't even exist any longer.
 
Ubik said:
She's in agreement with Barry now. The modern Democratic party is Obama's, not Bill Clinton's. The DLC doesn't even exist any longer.
Click to expand...


Appropriately:
On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week.[4] On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.
Click to expand...
 
If I were Trump, I'd be living in Indiana for the next week, doing 3 or more campaign appearances a day and throwing millions into advertising. Since its winner takes all, its really the final chance for Cruz and Kasich to derail him as the numbers will begin to look ridiculously lopsided if he takes all 57 delegates.
 
Not sure Kasich got the memo yet...

 
:lol: Cruz and Kasich are going to get skewered on cable news for colluding instead of running for themselves. Advantage Trump
 
Cruz is giving hilarious explanation for his and Kasich colluding. The press are giving him a hard time as usual.
 
Red Dreams said:
that does not mean he should not do his best to represent us until the convention.
Click to expand...
The question on fundraising/spending is interesting at this point. I agree that he's got every right to continue to the convention, I just question the point a little - if you consider that he outspent Hillary by 2-1 in New York and still got soundly beaten, you wonder if all those dollars donated in good faith could be better placed elsewhere rather than pursuing the mirage of his nomination.

Imagine instead that he switched his focus to furthering his political revolution by actually funding/campaigning for downballot Democrats/Indies that he can identify with. Given the most potent argument against his candidacy remains "you'll never get any of this passed", surely it should be his number one priority to address that? Rather than attacking the presumptive nominee of his adopted party and turning yet more of his supporters against her. It's very possible that someone standing on an evolved/broader version of Bernie's platform could be the nominee in a few cycles, but you need the people to be in Congress first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.