"Just walk away slowly kids, the bus will be here in a minute. Come here now, that's not a rain puddle". These are the words of my mother when there was a drunk ranting like trumpanzee at the bus stop. He is definately on some narcotic.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
"Just walk away slowly kids, the bus will be here in a minute. Come here now, that's not a rain puddle". These are the words of my mother when there was a drunk ranting like trumpanzee at the bus stop. He is definately on some narcotic.
I'd expect another big trend towards Hillary in the next couple of weeks before the polls tighten again as we get to election day.
This means Trump will simply run out of time to pull ahead. Even after her worst two weeks in September Clinton was just about winning the race.
It seems to me that whenever Trump gets close there is a collective freak out in thr country and Clinton pulls ahead again.
Perhaps the best thing for Hillary is that the race stays close for another month.
The next debate is massive as he won't have enough time to change the momentum and narrative before the election if he flops in the Town Hall.
Also, early voting has started in various states so she will have a leg up well before many of the remaining debates.
Not really. There is no meaningful difference between winning 2% or 14% with his current strategy. He is an empty protest candidate and after this election he’ll be forgotten. He tried to appeal to both sides by using one catch-phrase (“Get the government out of my pocket and out of my bed-room = socially liberal, fiscally conservative”) and he has absolutely nothing else to offer. I don’t care about these Aleppo/foreign leader slips, because they are meaningless. The problem is, that he struggles to say anything informative /meaningful/convincing at all. He tried to play it nice towards Trump/Hillary, so he doesn’t spook swing voter. I understand why he went down this road, but if you offer so little, you better don’t look like an idiot most of the time. Heck, even Weld managed to look better and he hardly said anything.
In the end this candidacy won’t help the libertarian/classical-liberal cause at all. He had the chance to broaden the libertarian base but failed to mobilize anyone. You don’t create enthusiasm by being uncontroversial and uncritical. When he talked to liberal audiences he only said *I am socially liberal AND I SMOKE POT! Oh I am also fiscally conservative, but don’t worry about that* and to conservative voters it was the other way around. That is just incredible frustrating.
Even a monkey would be more qualified than Trump, while Hillary is pretty much on the wrong end on every single issue. I struggle to find a single issue, where she isn’t clueless. So, not being a stupendously warmongering idiot and having some level of economic common sense, makes him a more qualified candidate than the other two jokers will ever be. That makes it even more infuriating. Hard to blame anyone for not taking him seriously
Last edited:
He will evicerate the first amendment if elected. And it's very unlike the second amendment folks will give a shit, I doubt they know it's in the constitution. First amendment is for my gun, second amendment is for my second gun and so on.Yeah, that's the one, it's brilliant. Sorry, i'm on my phone so couldn't easily quote the actual source. My favourite part of it all was this line......
Fair play to Hannity though, at least he admitted he's full of shit and not a real journalist. Kellyanne Conway (Trump's campaign manager) was even funnier though, the stupid bitch said she was upset and didn't think it was the medias responsibility to fact-check things and print the truth.
You honestly couldn't make this all up.
It becomes clearer everyday that if he is elected we will have a shitstorm that will engulf the globe.
I suspect Kellyanne is starting to get increasingly frustrated with Trump's ADD narcissism and penchant for extemporaneously doing whatever the feck he wants. Apparently, the General who is embedded with Trump (Flynn) seems to be sticking his beak into all sorts of campaign affairs and there is growing discord among the disparate cabal of random charlatans advising Trump to where someone of them are beginning to provide juicy leaks about the campaign.
When did Megyn Kelly turn face?
That's a metric tonne of bullshit right there and hopefully it's you being hyperbolic. If this is the case with you then I fear that it is YOU that is clueless.
We have had enough shite and lies over the last few months and it is time to be serious. I get you don't like Hillary but suck that shit up because this is serious and there is only one candidate that is even close to being viable. feck her emails and feck the Clinton foundation. Let's take a good look at the trump family and the man himself. It maybe unfortunate for republicans but they still have a band of lunatics in the senate and the house who will most likely be doing the same thing on Inauguration Day with the first woman president that they did with the first black president. A vote for Trump/Johnson/Stein is a vote for careless leadership to the detriment of all of us. Hillary may not be you're cup of tea but to deny her qualifications for this job because of non scandals is foolish and downright ignorant.
She will not run for a second term and hopefully a ticket of Warren/Newsom in 2020 will destroy the facist GOP and force them to come back to reality.
At least Cruz is somewhat rational and good at sticking to talking points and previously agreed to political strategy.
Yeah, I agree, you can clearly see her frustration and agitation at having to answer questions about his lies or BS.
She was awesome the entire time she was arguing with Trump after he insulted her. Her show was just one giant hit on him every single night. Then It's obvious some of her colleagues and probably Ailes had a word with her, she met with Trump and had a BS interview and she then started to tow the line. However, then out of nowhere Trump brought up the incident with her again and you could see she just had enough and she went rogue again. Then Ailes got the boot from Fox and since then she has been pretty much reporting stuff as she sees it.
She occasionally had a bout of conscience.
Please be true. Really, really want this to be true. The only problem is though, even if super-juicy stuff comes out, the Trump voters will still see it as media conspiracy
I can't vote for anyone, so don't worry. I also prefer her compared to Trump, simply because he is worse/more dangerous. Everything I can say about Hillary also applies to Trump; just multiplied by 100. It is just boring to talk about someone who struggles to articulate a single coherent idea.
That said I really can’t think of a single policy field, where Clinton proposes good ideas.
Economic (+trade, fiscal) policy? No. FP? No. Environmental policy? No. Social policy? No. Reform of the criminal justice system? No. Immigration reform? No, because not credible at all. Homeland security/intelligence agencies? No. Energy? No. Reforms that strengthen democracy and transparency? No.
Even if you ignore all the scandals and just focus on her plans, she would still be a horrible candidate.
How serious is violating the US embargo? Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek/Vanity Fair has a cover story today about the Cheeto doing just that back in 98 while he was also running for president with the Reform Party.
Of course it's not going to stick with his voters, but I'd imagine there'd be some legal blowback.
Of course it's not going to stick with his voters, but I'd imagine there'd be some legal blowback.
Very interesting. Looking forward to hearing how his campaign respond. They haven't responded so far to MSNBC's request for a statement.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/us-e...iolated-cuba-trade-embargo-newsweek-says.html
Can you name some examples of where she is wrong. Perhaps the major ones in your mind.
They love the crystal meth in New Mexico.
So this + the Cuba story = there will likely be no positive news cycle for him during next week leading into the VP debate and possibly even into the town hall. If Kaine and Clinton deliver sound performances then they'll have the wind behind their back going into the final 2 weeks of the campaign.
Clinton can actually be looking at 08 margin if the stars align (of course, until Guccifer 2.0/Russia/WikiLeaks orchestrate another batch of mail release)
Nothing wrong with her ideas in my opinion. She knows and has a track record of the role of government in improving our lives not excluding people. We all have different point of views but the advancement of the people we can all agree on. Conservatism in it nature excludes progress based on the notion that what's mine is mine. Right wing conservatism is nothing more than facism in my opinion. An ideology of hate, exclusion and misinformation. Not that it matters though, the American electorate don't seem to realize that there is a far more important branch of government that has been running the show with a less then 20% approval rating since 2010. Want to see people's lives improve, don't vote republican, it's as easy as that. Want to see you're families future secured, hold Democrates to their word. You want to see progress, vote and support an independent candidate after you have done you're research so they don't have to suckle on the two party teat.
It is getting clear to me that the United States as we know it will never be the country they say they are or can be without a total shift in the public conscious on profit, greed, consumption and government for all.
@senorgregster
I think it is easier to do it the other way around. What are her best ideas?
I think it is easier to do it the other way around. What are her best ideas?
In this I'll defend Hillary using Bill since she enthusaistically took the same positions when he was in power.
Bill Clinton in 1996 pledged to "ended welfare as we know it."
I'm quoting selectively from here, but there are indisputable facts:
This is one of the most significant reforms to reduce federal govt spending. More than the dollar outlay it was the fact that a Democrat could target their core voter constituency that made it so groundbreaking. Bill Clinton also had a deal with Gingrich to privatise Social Security but it was put on hold indefinitely when Monica Lewinsky broke. Together they would have had a more dramatic impact on FDR's state than Reagan.
Till 1992 Democratic opposition to NAFTA meant that free trade remained a partisan issue. Bill Clinton's support for free trade allowed it to become a consensus issue till recently. No-one other than a Democrat who was truly believed in the benefits of free trade could have managed that.
Bill Clinton passed the Balanced Budget act; this was the symbolic culmination of 50 years of effort to restrict the state. Again, it moved the concept of deficit spending vs balanced budgets from a party partisan issue to a "common sense" position. Bush II's tax cuts were the only thing he has that can compare favourably with Clinton's record.
These would be why I cast my vote for her:
Woman's right to access reproductive health care without involvement of government
Several gun control policies including closing loopholes at shows
Forging alliances overseas instead of going it alone
Close tax loopholes for corporations and high earners
Cut taxes on middle class
Raise min wage
Build on ACA
Invest in clean energy
1) You got me right with the first one. That’s a good idea and she seems to have credibility on this issue. Women’s rights is probably the one policy field where she could achieve meaningful progress.
2) Closing some gun-loopholes might sounds good, but the reality is, that everything but a major reform is symbol-politics. It won’t solve anything.
3) Some alliances make sense. No doubt about that. Yet Hillary will (ab)use alliances to create more confrontation and tension and I don’t see any benefits of that at all. The reality is all us presidents would work in the current alliance system (which is hardly perfect…..). Her FP is horrible, but you might find single issues in her policy in SEA, where her ideas make sense.
4) She has zero credibility to create a fairer or better tax-code. All candidates talk about closing loopholes. To achieve anything meaningful, you’d have to simplify it. If anything, she’d go in the opposite direction. She certainly didn’t champion a comprehensive corporate tax code reform. At the same time she already said, that she fancies to make a tax deal with multi-nationals to bring back their untaxed money. That is nothing but a huge tax cut for companies. It also doesn’t match with her left-wing “tax the rich” rhetoric that she adopted recently.
5) Everybody says, that they want to reduce taxes for the middle class. Empty campaign promises, especially, when you also promise to increase expenditures. It doesn’t fit together with a balanced budget.
6) Raising the minimum wage on a national level is a horrible idea, because it just violates any economic logic. Either it is inefficient or hurts the economy of an area. The minimum wage isn’t even a good tool to address low-paid employment anyway.
7) The biggest issue of American social security system is that it is unsustainable. She has no interest to address this issue one way or the other (raise taxes vs. cut benefit). It is too divisive to discuss the ACA. No interest in doing that.
8) I guess she does that while promoting fracking and handing out subsidies to the gas, oil and coal industry. Her presidency will be another 4 years wasted when it comes to climate change.
1- Self explanatory.
2- I think most rational people would conclude that closing loopholes at gun shows and placing people on the no-fly list on the no-buy gun list is good public policy.
3. Most rational people, especially those with any background in International Politics (as in they actually work in the field) would support the idea of building strong multilateral alliances based on similar shared values, norms, and rules, as opposed to the US winging it and going it alone. Its a simple concept that speaks for itself.
4- This depends on what your views are on taxes. If you are in the Sanders camp, she is speaking your language in terms of funding social projects by closing the carried interest loophole and raising taxes on the wealthy. Few non-Republicans would take issue with any of that.
5.- Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget by doing just that during his time in office and Hillary is proposing virtually the same approach.
6.- This again depends on who you ask. People on both sides of the debate will obviously produce their own selective research to validate their view.
7. The ACA is pretty self explanatory. Its law and getting rid of it would unwind coverage for millions who have jumped on board over the past few years. She wants to fix and expand it, which is the right approach in the absence of single payer.
8. I'd imagine her term will be a continuation of the current policy - the realization that climate change is a problem and that steps need to be taken to mitigate future damage, continued pro-green energy policies balanced with economic benefits of fossil fuels, especially Shale and LNG development
Last edited:
Free in state tuition for families that make less than 85k, (eventually 120k by 2021).
So she is terrible because of you're perception of nearly every politician over the last fourty years.
So you are basically trashing her because she couldn't get 99% of elected officials couldn't achieve for decades before she has even taken high office.By the way, your view on raising the minimum wage is fecking trash and any economist outside of the conservative bubble will tell you so. Read this and comment please, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isaac...llary-clinton-i-take-it-back_b_12220124.html?
I wouldn't make statements about what economists generally think to other economists, if one is not an economist themselves (if not by degree, then at least in some practical sense or by experience/independent study). Unless you want to be walking evidence of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_e9vyBJWi3mNpwzj
I'm actually torn on this one. I think it is going to have unintended consequences and we'll see tuition rates increase as schools milk the system. I'd like to see all tuition paid for by government but with an additional lifetime federal tax (e.g. an extra 0.5%) for those who take advantage of it. The current system is nonsense.
Another problem is Congress will almost certainly not be on board in terms of revising tax policy to soak the rich, which would obviously be problematic to this sort of thing seeing the light of day. It would've worked in Obama's first two years when he had a Dem congress.
Pretty much disagree on most of your points. For #8, I believe she wants to do away with subsidies on gas/oil/coal. Have you heard otherwise?
Is it a "make 85,001 , tough luck", situation?
I'd imagine it will be pro-rated accordingly up to a certain point.
If Hillary Clinton is the bringer of tax code simplification or corporate income tax increases I will be surprised. She's just the right combo of "willing to introduce new tax breaks to stimulate demand" (see child care) and yet engaged with corporate interests to make sure that by the end of 4 years the only changes will have been the introduction of a few dozen minor new rules.
Surely too late for him to recover there though. Obama won by more or less 6% there in 2012.
- Status