Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 27, 2016, 05:30:56 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97448 Posts in 2328 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2016 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] Print
Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 96035 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1450 on: September 18, 2016, 12:42:54 AM »

If Hilliary gets the Dem States and the Dem Leaning States she has 272 electoral right now, even if Trump gets all the Undecided plus all the Rep and Rep Leaning States.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1451 on: September 18, 2016, 01:04:37 AM »

If Hilliary gets the Dem States and the Dem Leaning States she has 272 electoral right now, even if Trump gets all the Undecided plus all the Rep and Rep Leaning States.


Agreed. I don't think she will though. We've had Mexican delegates come here from Chicago. The president of the Migrants' Clubs of Zacatecas stated that his numbers were,  they have 800,000 illegals registered with the migrants club associated to Zacatecas (from all states, just referring to the ones from Zacatecas), and that of those 800K, that 1.6 million family members (anchor babies, etc.), also depended on them for money (that they were asking from the government here in Zac).

What was interesting, and I quote, "of all the people we have, 20% still live in poverty (hence asking for money), and that 80% have now attained middle class status in the United States."

The Latinos there in the States, are not as friendly to other latinos as one might think, and very well may be the nail in Hillary's coffin because they don't want to risk the jobs they have gained, to other Mexicans. There is very much a rift. I think it will cost the Dems blue states.

Additionally, of the swing states reported right now: http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-election-toss-up-states

They have AZ listed as a swing state. I don't think it will be. If Trump picks up AZ, CO (almost always blue and has had a huge swing in the polls recently), NV - those aren't that hard to win for Trump. On the Eastern seaboard, obviously Florida is key - lots of upset White people, but also a lot of Cubans and Blacks. I do feel confident that Trump will win PA and VA. NC is a guess, but to say, that if Trump picks up AZ, NV, and CO, with the addition of PA, VA, NC, and FL, he'll have 282 as the map sits right now. Clinton can have OH, MI, WI and IA, and still will only get 250. Florida and NC are what Trump needs to win.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 01:18:43 AM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13938


« Reply #1452 on: September 18, 2016, 02:07:50 AM »

National polls don't matter because it's not a national vote. Also, there will be epic levels of fraud and alterations.

Delving deeper, we know that many Sander's voters won't actually jump ship. I think the actual number is closer to 30% (one in three voters for Sanders) Which means, 10 million voters will either vote for Trump, Stein, or Johnson. If we assign half to Stein, and split the rest between Trump and Johnson, here what it looks like in closing:

Trump - 63,500,000
Clinton - 55,640,000
Stein - 5,469,000 (counting her .5 million from 2012)
Johnson - 3,775,000 (counting the 1.27 mil he had from 2012)

I stated that Trump would get 52% of the vote. With 63.5 million and a voter turnout of 128 million, he'd have to be at 66.56 million (well within what he could reach with Sanders bailouts).

I stated that Hillary would be at 44% of the vote or 56.32 million voters of 128 million. Based on Barracks numbers of 66,000,000 in 2012, and a 1/3 to 1/2 of Sander's voters jumping ship, the empress could easily find herself 15 million votes short, putting her as low as 51,000,000, well within the target I have proposed.

Needless to say, these aren't electoral college votes, nor are they swing state votes.

1. Most Latinos already reside in Blue states, BUT.... they aren't interested in seeing other Mexicans other than their immediate family come and take their jobs.
2. States that have been blue could go red because of this, with purple states having an even higher turnover.
3. Trump won't get the Black vote, but at 12%-15% (19 million votes) of the population, and most based in Blue states, he doesn't need it.

Basically what I've come up with.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6033


« Reply #1453 on: September 18, 2016, 10:57:22 AM »

is this possible??? or incorrect? 

 shocked shocked shocked grin grin grin

http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1454 on: September 18, 2016, 02:43:52 PM »

Of course you're correct. Soros and electronic voting. # million illegals voting in California is child's play compared to changing the number electronically. No physical count, nada.

National polls don't matter because it's not a national vote. Also, there will be epic levels of fraud and alterations.

Delving deeper, we know that many Sander's voters won't actually jump ship. I think the actual number is closer to 30% (one in three voters for Sanders) Which means, 10 million voters will either vote for Trump, Stein, or Johnson. If we assign half to Stein, and split the rest between Trump and Johnson, here what it looks like in closing:

Trump - 63,500,000
Clinton - 55,640,000
Stein - 5,469,000 (counting her .5 million from 2012)
Johnson - 3,775,000 (counting the 1.27 mil he had from 2012)

I stated that Trump would get 52% of the vote. With 63.5 million and a voter turnout of 128 million, he'd have to be at 66.56 million (well within what he could reach with Sanders bailouts).

I stated that Hillary would be at 44% of the vote or 56.32 million voters of 128 million. Based on Barracks numbers of 66,000,000 in 2012, and a 1/3 to 1/2 of Sander's voters jumping ship, the empress could easily find herself 15 million votes short, putting her as low as 51,000,000, well within the target I have proposed.

Needless to say, these aren't electoral college votes, nor are they swing state votes.

1. Most Latinos already reside in Blue states, BUT.... they aren't interested in seeing other Mexicans other than their immediate family come and take their jobs.
2. States that have been blue could go red because of this, with purple states having an even higher turnover.
3. Trump won't get the Black vote, but at 12%-15% (19 million votes) of the population, and most based in Blue states, he doesn't need it.

Basically what I've come up with.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8245


« Reply #1455 on: September 18, 2016, 04:17:38 PM »

Barack Obama's publicist called Obama a Kenyan until a week after he announced for President.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146622/Barack-Obama-Kenyan-born-2007-according-literary-agency--months-announcing-bid-U-S-presidency.html

Michelle Obama called Barack a Kenyan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E96lAHygeIU&app=desktop   (Approx 2:00 mark)

Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager Admits 2008 Birther Link
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/

https://www.americarisingpac.org/video-new-ad-reminds-south-carolina-voters-about-clintons-history-of-shameful-rhetoric/
----------------------------------

What I never understood about the birther question:  If a woman from Kansas gives birth somewhere else, traveling abroad, did the kid just lose his US citizenship?  Did she lose hers?  Are they now citizens, mother and child, of different countries?  I don't think so. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8245


« Reply #1456 on: September 18, 2016, 04:25:23 PM »


Yes it's possible!

"Trump saw a 16.5 percentage-point increase in backing from African-American voters in a Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll, up from 3.1 percent on Sept. 10 to 19.6 percent through Friday. Meanwhile, the same poll showed Clinton’s support among that group plummeting from 90.4 percent on Sept. 10 to 71.4 percent."

That's a 35 point swing.  Undecideds may break for Clinton but the magic is gone in terms of unanimity, enthusiasm and turnout.  There is no offsetting gain for Clinton with whites or anyone else.  Solid liberals are lukewarm on Clinton.

Bill Clinton's magic to help her is gone too, lost his voice, 'd*cking b*mbos' and the fact that the policies he used to grow the economy were Gingrich's, opposite of what HRC supports now.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 04:28:15 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6033


« Reply #1457 on: September 19, 2016, 06:59:27 AM »

May come down to debates.  Clinton and the moderators will certainly do their best to bait Trump and bring out the worst.  No one can be confident we will not see him give them their wish:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440149/donald-trump-electoral-math-no-path-270-despite-momentum

If only KaliFORicator where still in play. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1458 on: September 19, 2016, 07:31:53 AM »

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/debate-rules-set-hillary-donors/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8245


« Reply #1459 on: September 19, 2016, 09:29:55 AM »

If Hilliary gets the Dem States and the Dem Leaning States she has 272 electoral right now, even if Trump gets all the Undecided plus all the Rep and Rep Leaning States.

Trump will not win this in any kind of a tie or close vote.   He needs to build on the momentum he earned recently and defeat her.  Voting for Trump can't come with shame or embarrassment.  He needs to look and act ready to govern from now until the end of his Presidency.  Anything short of that and he loses.  There will be one or two gaffes.  They need to be corrected quickly.  And there will be mud slung.  He needs to play the part of a great President ready to lead, all day, everyday.  If he wins nationwide by 3-4 points or more, much more, there won't be an electoral vote question.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1460 on: September 19, 2016, 09:59:18 AM »

If Hilliary gets the Dem States and the Dem Leaning States she has 272 electoral right now, even if Trump gets all the Undecided plus all the Rep and Rep Leaning States.

Trump will not win this in any kind of a tie or close vote.   He needs to build on the momentum he earned recently and defeat her.  Voting for Trump can't come with shame or embarrassment.  He needs to look and act ready to govern from now until the end of his Presidency.  Anything short of that and he loses.  There will be one or two gaffes.  They need to be corrected quickly.  And there will be mud slung.  He needs to play the part of a great President ready to lead, all day, everyday.  If he wins nationwide by 3-4 points or more, much more, there won't be an electoral vote question.

100% agreed. It needs to be obvious, so much so, that it would cause a national calamity if he isn't elected. Even then, I'm not sure that someone (who that would be, is a good question), wouldn't alter the vote count. In fact, being that we're asking that, who exactly is in charge of insuring votes aren't rigged, are by citizens, and have been counted correctly. What is their method of doing so and the proof required?

« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 02:23:49 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1461 on: September 19, 2016, 02:31:15 PM »

In regard to the post I just made, I came across this link: http://www.wanttoknow.info/votingproblems , which makes some extraordinary claims, such as:

1. 80% of all U.S. votes (not just electronic) are counted by these two: Diebold and ES&S.
2. The president of Diebold and a vice president of ES&S are brothers.


What is amazing to me, is that many of the links contained in the page, now turn up 404 error messages that the pages no longer exist.

If these claims are true, it is amazing to me, that electronic votes, that have no physical proof, that are in the hands of two brothers, who hand out management positions to convicted felons, are allowed anywhere near counting the voices of any American. I'll see what else I can find, but I have to say, some of the deleted links come from widely read newspapers or even the Diebold site itself.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1462 on: September 19, 2016, 04:17:01 PM »

This is excellent work DDF.  Please post in on the SEIU/Electoral fraud thread as well as here.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1463 on: September 19, 2016, 04:40:57 PM »

This is excellent work DDF.  Please post in on the SEIU/Electoral fraud thread as well as here.


Tailwags Guru. In fact, before I post anything else, I need to read the entire SEIU thread to make sure that I'm not replicating anything. I've already turned up some things, but want to make sure that I'm not just regurgitating something that someone else here has posted.

The search function here on the forum only returns three instances of Diebold, zero instances of Premier Election Solutions, and likewise, zero for ESS or (Election Systems and Software). In liue of reading the entire thread, I am going to go with the search results that it isn't widely discussed, though Bigdog has mentioned it here at least once. I will see if I can find his article as well.

The thread started primarily with ACORN fraud as you all know.

Diebold, now know as Premier Election Solutions, is notoriously tight lipped about their operations.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 10:54:19 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1464 on: September 19, 2016, 11:21:20 PM »

Excellent DDF.

==============


By Robert M. Gates
Sept. 16, 2016 6:23 p.m. ET
1285 COMMENTS

You wouldn’t know it from the presidential campaigns, but the first serious crisis to face our new president most likely will be international. The list of possibilities is long—longer than it was eight years ago.

Here is the world the new president will inherit at noon on January 20—a range of challenges for which neither candidate has offered new strategies or paths forward.

Every aspect of our relationship with China is becoming more challenging. In addition to Chinese cyberspying and theft of intellectual property, many American businesses in China are encountering an increasingly hostile environment. China’s nationalist determination unilaterally to assert sovereignty over disputed waters and islands in the East and South China Seas is steadily increasing the risk of military confrontation.

Most worrying, given their historic bad blood, escalation of a confrontation between China and Japan could be very dangerous. As a treaty partner of Japan, we would be obligated to help Tokyo. China intends to challenge the U.S. for regional dominance in East Asia over the long term, but the new president could quickly face a Chinese military challenge over disputed islands and freedom of navigation.

Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner.

On this most complex challenge, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has said or done much to give anyone confidence. All we really know is Mr. Trump’s intention to launch a trade war with a country holding over $1 trillion in U.S. debt and the largest market for many U.S. companies; and Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she helped to craft and the failure of which would hand China an easy political and economic win.

Then there is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, now routinely challenging the U.S. and its allies. How to count the ways. There was the armed seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea; Moscow’s military support of the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine; overt and covert intimidation of the Baltic states; the dispatch of fighter and bomber aircraft to avert the defeat of Syria’s Assad; sales of sophisticated weaponry to Iran.

There is Russia’s luring the U.S. secretary of state into believing that a cease-fire in Syria is just around the corner—if only the U.S. would do more, or less, depending on the issue; the cyberattacks on the U.S., including possible attempts to influence the U.S. presidential election; and covert efforts to aggravate division and weakness with the European Union and inside European countries. And there is the dangerously close buzzing of U.S. Navy ships in the Baltic Sea and close encounters with U.S. military aircraft in international airspace.

The only thing longer than the list of hostile Russian actions abroad is the list of repressive actions inside Russia to stifle dissent and strengthen Mr. Putin’s security services-run state. Mr. Putin will continue to behave aggressively until confronted and stopped.

No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War, so the challenge is to confront and stop Mr. Putin’s aggressions while pursuing cooperation on international challenges that can only be addressed successfully if Russia is at the table—from terrorism to climate change, from the Syrian conflict to nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. Again, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump has expressed any views on how they would deal with Mr. Putin (although Mr. Trump’s expressions of admiration for the man and his authoritarian regime are naive and irresponsible).

North Korea and Iran are sworn enemies of the U.S. North Korean potentate Kim Jong Un is building more nuclear weapons for his arsenal even as he develops ballistic missiles that now, or very soon, can reach all of our allies (and U.S. military forces) in Asia. During the first term of the next president these missiles will be able to reach the U.S. mainland.

On his good days, Kim Jong Un appears to outsiders as a cartoonish megalomaniac; on his bad days, he seems to yearn for a Gotterdammerung finale in which a perishing North Korea takes a lot of Asians and Americans with it. Or is he simply continuing to pursue a strategy designed to preserve his rule and North Korea’s independence through nuclear blackmail? The new U.S. president could face an early North Korean provocation against the South, the Japanese or us, and for sure will be confronted by a long-term strategic nuclear threat to our allies and to America.

Regarding Iran, whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S. Iranian naval challenges to U.S. warship operations in the Persian Gulf have nearly doubled over the last year. Iran will do all it can to embarrass the U.S.—such as allowing Russian planes to use Iranian airfields to attack the Syrian opposition and testing ballistic missiles—even as it strives to eject us from the entire region. Our new president had best be prepared for an early test of U.S. resolve in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s continuing regional subversion.

While Mrs. Clinton gave a speech on Iran over a year ago, she has since offered no inkling of her views and has said little about North Korea. Mr. Trump has said nary a word on the challenge posed by either country.

Both candidates have spelled out how they would deal with ISIS, and terrorism more broadly, but their approach in essence sounds like what President Obama is doing now—with more ideological fervor and some additional starch. Neither has addressed what the broader U.S. strategy should be toward a Middle East in flames, from Syria to Iraq to Libya, and where Gulf Arab states worry about their own stability amid growing doubts they can rely on the U.S.; both Egypt and Turkey are ruled by increasingly authoritarian strongmen; and an Israeli-Palestinian conflict further from resolution than ever.

Mr. Trump has suggested we should walk away from the region and hope for the best. This is a dangerous approach oblivious to the reality that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East. Mrs. Clinton has ruled out putting U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria “ever again.” That is a politically driven categorical declaration of a sort no president (or candidate) should make, and it raises the question whether she would pull out the 5,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. She has expressed no new ideas to deal with the boiling caldron that is today’s Middle East.

Each of these challenges may require the use of the American military, the most powerful the world has ever seen. The president commands some two million men and women in uniform, and every previous president would attest that the decision to put those lives at risk is the weightiest burden of office. Yet neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military, the use of military force, the criteria they would apply before sending that force into battle, or broader questions of peace and war. Based on what each candidate has said and done, who can we trust with the lives of young Americans in uniform?

Both candidates have a credibility problem in foreign affairs. Mrs. Clinton was the senior-most advocate for using the U.S. military to bring ill-fated regime change in Libya and, further, failed to anticipate the chaos that would follow—the same failure she and other Democrats hung around the neck of the Bush 43 administration in post-Saddam Iraq. She was for trade agreements before she turned against them in this election campaign, just as she voted for the Iraq war in 2003 and then, several years later—in her first campaign for president—opposed the troop surge there. She has much-discussed credibility issues apart from national security, but these also influence foreign perceptions of reliability and trust.

When it comes to credibility problems, though, Donald Trump is in a league of his own. He has expressed support for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico; for torturing suspected terrorists and killing their families; for Mr. Putin’s dictatorial leadership and for Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent successes against terrorism. He also has said he is for using defense spending by NATO allies as the litmus test on whether the U.S. will keep its treaty commitments to them; for withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, South Korea and Japan and for the latter two developing nuclear weapons—a highly destabilizing prospect.

Mr. Trump has been cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons. He has a record of insults to servicemen, their families and the military, which he called a “disaster.” He has declared our senior military leaders “reduced to rubble” and “embarrassing our country” and has suggested that, if elected, he will purge them—an unprecedented and unconscionable threat. As of late, he appears to be rethinking some of these positions but he has yet to learn that when a president shoots off his mouth, there are no do-overs.

Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own—such as his claim that he knows more about ISIS than America’s generals. He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations.

All of the presidents I served were strong personalities with strongly held views about the world. But each surrounded himself with independent-minded, knowledgeable and experienced advisers who would tell the president what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. Sometimes presidents would take their advice, sometimes not. But they always listened.

The world we confront is too perilous and too complex to have as president a man who believes he, and he alone, has all the answers and has no need to listen to anyone. In domestic affairs, there are many checks on what a president can do; in national security there are few constraints. A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.

I understand the broad anger and frustration against political leaders in both parties. I have written about my disgust as secretary of defense as I watched politicians repeatedly place re-election above the nation’s best interests. Polls make clear that most Americans are dissatisfied with the two major party candidates for president. But as I used to say in the Pentagon, we are where we are—not where we might wish to be. We have to make a decision. Perhaps the debates, if the candidates focus on substance rather than personal attacks, will clarify the choice.

Mrs. Clinton has time before the election to address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East—and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote—including me.

At least on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Gates served eight presidents over 50 years, most recently as secretary of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13938


« Reply #1465 on: September 20, 2016, 11:57:15 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaqGBF9nUb8

#Invalid YouTube Link#

Trump=Al Czervik
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6033


« Reply #1466 on: September 20, 2016, 03:09:20 PM »

The opinions of Robert Gates are certainly interesting and valuable.
One opinion I notice is remarkably absent is his assessment of Bama who is supposedly so thoughtful and deliberate?

Bama was at the helm for 8 yrs while the international situation has become more complex .  He hasn't helped from my armchair.

So what say Gates?

So WHO does he think would have been able to do anything about it?



« Last Edit: September 20, 2016, 03:42:04 PM by ccp » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8245


« Reply #1467 on: September 20, 2016, 04:45:18 PM »

ccp,  Your post reminds me that I wrote this, this morning, and it didn't post.  (I am getting filtered out of posting on the forum by McDonald's wifi!)  It looks like our views overlap considerably.
------------------------------------------------------
My comments on Gates opinions:

Gates hates Trump but this is no ringing endorsement of Hillary.

First of his criticisms of Trump is the wall: "He [Trump] has expressed support for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico".  Yes he has.  The Secretary of Defense opposes border security?  He has a better plan?  If so, mum's the word.  Didn't even enforce the last border fence act passed by congress and signed by a previous President he served.  This is not his department?

Defeating TPP is a political, economic win for China?  Maybe true if TPP was a trade agreement.  What about all the clauses giving up American sovereignty.  We don't know Gates' values and vision in this regard, but they probably don't match mine.  He did happily agree to serve on under Pres Obama and has rarely, openly differed with him, even in his profit-seeking tell-all.

"Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner."

Or to put it differently, more of the same, the status quo, the unwillingness or inability to confront a rival and potential enemy that has led to where we are now.  Are we satisfied with where we are now, China in expansionary mode, America in retreat?  Wasting our money on a readiness that everyone knows we are unwilling to use.

North Korea:  The establishment, diplomatic status quo, America walking softly has led us to where we are, NK ready to reach the US mainland with nuclear warheads shortly.  Under their non-provocation doctrine previously we wouldn't have missile defense either.  That came from a President willing to poke the eye of the adversary's position.  There is an upside risk that in dealing tougher with the Chinese, Trump could get China to shut down the NK threat so we don't have to.  There is also the risk he sets off nuclear war.  No one wants that - ever - but I would rather have it now than after our adversaries pass up our capabilities and defeat us.

Iran:  While Gates pretends to speak out candidly - to sell books - he tapdances around what a historic failure this Iran agreement is.  Trump doesn't.  He has been right about it all along, the cash payments, the wrongful removal of sanctions, the support of terrorism and the path to Iran becoming a nuclear power UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.  In this regard alone, Trump looks clairvoyant and Gates looks either ignorant or afraid to speak out his former boss.

Gates: "whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S. Iranian naval challenges to U.S. warship operations in the Persian Gulf have nearly doubled over the last year."

WHAT VALUE DID IT BRING? (the Iran agreement)  Gates in this regard (and TPP/sovereignty) is part of the establishment potentially getting kicked out.  When Bush/Cheney failed to take out Iran's nuclear sites militarily, Iran gained 8 years of nuclear weapons progress.  Under Obama's agreement, they gained financing and legitimacy.  Trump would at least stop sending them cash.

Gates refers to "the boiling caldron that is today’s Middle East."  Exactly right.  That is HIS legacy.  He should own it, tell us where the last 8 years went wrong, against his advice, or STFU and go quietly away as others take a turn at this.

One problem with evaluating these two candidates is that their words unlikely describe how they will govern, lead the military or handle conflicts.  Trump speaks sometimes as a dove, wants to sit out some conflicts in the Middle East.  Except when he says destroy ISIS, bring back water boarding etc.  He probably won't sit still while threats to the US are forming in the region.  Hillary served as a so-called hawk in a dove administration, now courts the anti-war Bernie vote.  Build bridges here instead - for them to blow up.  Trump isn't going to sit still while Russia or the Caliphate take over the Middle East, nor is Hillary going to put hawk or dove ideologies ahead of the immense opportunities to buy and sell favors around the world.

[Gates on Trump] "a man who believes he, and he alone, has all the answers and has no need to listen to anyone. In domestic affairs, there are many checks on what a president can do; in national security there are few constraints. A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America."

'I alone' sounded awkward when I've heard Trump say something like that.  What he obviously meant is that in the job at the top, you are alone.  Some advisers say invade, others urge restraint, one person makes the final decision.  It's lonely at the top in my business of one, probably more so to be a wartime President.  Shoot from the hip is exactly what Hillary did in Libya.  She gained Obama's go-ahead without winning his support.  Never took it to Congress AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, never planned for the aftermath.  Now Pres. Obama considers it his biggest failure, her mission.  Yet they keep scratching each other's back.

As Gates states or implies, lots of past Presidents had political bravado and a lack of detailed knowledge of military details and the dangers around the world before getting elected.  Then we elevate one of them to Commander in Chief and each transforms into a President with enormous responsibilities in their own way, think Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter.  That Trump won't seek out military advice from the best experts he can call together, that he will make strategic, war starting or response decisions all alone without consulting with Generals or advisers is buffoonery.

Totally missing in the microscope of this former defense secretary is what kind of country are you defending.  One candidate seeks American strength and greatness.  The other seeks to neuter us down to rest-of-the-world mediocrity.  Military strength is tied to economic strength, among other things.  Even the Soviets and the PRC know that.  Yet Gates limits his analysis to assuming those factors are equal or irrelevant, maybe above his pay grade.  He is wrong to ignore that.

Every four years we take the risk of elevating someone to the level of Commander in Chief or leader of the free world as we used to call it before Obama.  If Gates thinks only he knows better than the eight Presidents he served and better than the two now running, then he can run.  For the rest of us, the choice is down to two people.  Choose wisely.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6033


« Reply #1468 on: September 20, 2016, 04:53:23 PM »

"Each of these challenges may require the use of the American military, the most powerful the world has ever seen. The president commands some two million men and women in uniform, and every previous president would attest that the decision to put those lives at risk is the weightiest burden of office. Yet neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military, the use of military force, the criteria they would apply before sending that force into battle, or broader questions of peace and war. Based on what each candidate has said and done, who can we trust with the lives of young Americans in uniform?"

Well Trump DARED to simply ask what about nucs?

And what did he get for this?

Mocked!!!  I am sure Gates was one of them doing the mocking.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8245


« Reply #1469 on: September 21, 2016, 06:28:57 AM »

Clinton down 6, Trump up 6, 12 point move.
http://jpupdates.com/2016/09/20/jewish-support-for-clinton-drops-in-ny/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6033


« Reply #1470 on: September 21, 2016, 07:52:54 AM »

"Clinton down 6, Trump up 6, 12 point move."

Wow I am shocked  shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked but happy to see this.   grin  grin grin grin grin grin

I am curious as to why this is happening ?? (if hopefully really true).  Maybe God and country IS STILL more important than the Democrat Party .


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1471 on: September 21, 2016, 01:12:00 PM »

http://www.wsj.com/articles/its-still-clintons-race-to-lose-1474413142

It’s Still Clinton’s Race to Lose
Only 38% of likely voters think Donald Trump is ‘qualified’ for the presidency.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1472 on: September 21, 2016, 10:27:17 PM »

I've told you guys that Mexicans are actively working against Trump.

here you have the most famous singer in the entire history of Mexico, who took the time to make a video expressly supporting Hillary.

If you think this hasn't been heard by 80% of the Latino community here, and there you're crazy.

People here will understand enough Spanish to get the just of it.

https://www.facebook.com/PuroZacatecasSax/videos/1314173215310012/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 10:47:10 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1473 on: September 22, 2016, 10:49:47 AM »

I thought Mexico/Mexicans didn't believe in meddling in other people's internal affairs , , ,  tongue

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6033


« Reply #1474 on: September 22, 2016, 06:15:52 PM »

Everyone expects Trump to blow his stack in the debates .  If he can get Shrillery to do this that would be very wise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/clinton-why-arent-i-50-points-ahead-of-trump/2016/09/21/d9142b3e-8072-11e6-9578-558cc125c7ba_video.html

Doesn't this make one think that if this were a different time or a different day she would not be the type to take political enemies in a back room and put a bullet in their head?

She is inherently evil.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1475 on: September 22, 2016, 09:09:47 PM »

 cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1476 on: September 23, 2016, 09:01:18 AM »

I thought Mexico/Mexicans didn't believe in meddling in other people's internal affairs , , ,  tongue



Almost. They don't believe in having people meddle in their affairs. I was at base one day, talking about starting a private military company here with some brothers of mine. One of them told me, "we can't, because we are a nation of peace," vis-à-vis, we can't have something where we would be involving ourselves in another country's affairs, but they'll sure do it this way.

Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1477 on: September 23, 2016, 11:22:04 AM »

"Almost. They don't believe in having people meddle in their affairs."

 smiley
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1478 on: September 23, 2016, 11:42:22 AM »

"Almost. They don't believe in having people meddle in their affairs."

 smiley

I'll be the first to admit, the hypocrisy stings. Americans flags I have seen while here (other than at the American embassy)? Zero. They'll through you out with out so much as a court date, for the offense.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6033


« Reply #1479 on: September 23, 2016, 08:29:49 PM »

I am not sure why we keep having to see people in an audience at these debates.  They are distracting and serve no purpose.
As for Cuban I don't know exactly what he thinks Clinton is going to do for him.  He probably thinks he should be CTO at the WH:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/donald-trump-troll-mark-cuban-well-positioned-1st-173502454--abc-news-topstories.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1480 on: September 23, 2016, 09:53:08 PM »

Interesting implications here on many levels:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/22/hillary-clintons-new-colder-cold-war-russia-putin-election/

I suspect she will be making a play on Monday night along this line-- to show Trump's ignorance, to continue to add to her "bromance" line of attack (with mention of his not meeting with President of Ukraine) to ask if he bombs the hell out of ISIS as promised, won't that help the Russian-Iranian axis, etc etc

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37767


« Reply #1481 on: September 24, 2016, 03:21:40 PM »

second post

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/donald-trump-bill-clinton-gennifer-flowers-presidential-debate
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8245


« Reply #1482 on: September 25, 2016, 01:33:43 PM »

I have been out, traveling in the Boundary Waters.  In the RCP polls with no toss ups, Hillary clinton losing momentum now has 272 electoral votes with 270 needed.  Latest poll in PA has her up by only 2.  Losing Pennsylvania would change everything.  Debate tomorrow?

Trump needs Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, must win.

Clinton must-win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia.

Both must win their must wins plus a little more from the true toss ups to get over the top.

5 Trump paths to victory:  http://www.weeklystandard.com/electoral-mapmaking/article/2004500
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 491


« Reply #1483 on: September 26, 2016, 12:14:06 PM »

      Critical Points for Donald Trump


      1. Uniting the White Conservative and Latino votes. - While recognizing that Blacks are also Americans and just as important as any other demographic, the majority of Americans are either Caucasian or Latino, and while there are critical differences between their respective subcultures, the have much in common.

      • Both are traditional and prone to being religious.

      Trump would be wise to focus on the fact that the traditional values of the country are under attack, and while he shouldn't mention it (the following) specifically, Mexico just had a huge march against same sex marriage and many Latinos are very conservative. It could be reasoned that Trump will be attacked for taking this stance, but he is already. With the LGBT community already siding primarily with the Left, he is over-tasked with winning their votes. Aside from that, the LGBT's comprise roughyl 3-4% of the population; whereas, Latinos account for approximately 17% of the population, with the bulk being either in the southwest and Florida. Additionally, both are groups that will presumably have a very high voter turnout this election. If Trump focuses on family values, the importance of religion, the high percentage of Latino veterans (who are immensely patriotic, but who also lean left much of the time) and of not losing one's traditional background, he won't generate any additional heat that hasn't already been generated, and it will resonate with the Latino community, and been seen as a strength. It will also cast off much of the "racist Trump Brand," because he will be engaging the Latinos directly with this point and the following points concerning Latinos.

      • While poverty does exist in both groups, the bulk are middle class and live decent lives, due to the jobs they hold.

      The fact of the matter is, many Latinos in the States do not want to help Mexicans come to the States, legally or otherwise. In fact, many Mexicans in Mexico (the bulk of Latino immigrants being Mexican), have stated that "the worst enemy of a Mexican, is another Mexican," which to them means, that people that are of Mexican decent in the States, don't want more Mexicans going to the United States to ruin the life that people of Mexican decent have found for themselves there, and it is overwhelmingly true. The problem with the 14th amendment allowing for the creation of anchor babies is something that the White conservatives want addressed desperately, but the Latinos do as well, because in the end, nobody wants to lose their job or money to someone else. Suggesting a fix for the decades standing problem would also allow for Trump to flaunt his prowess in political terms where every other politician has failed. This odd topic is a key in uniting the two groups. Trump can only win points by championing this cause. It will give the Whites the closure of the border they want by remedying the 14th amendment, but also protect the hard won lifestyles of the Latinos in the States, who also want the problem fixed, in order to secure their own future.

      There is another important saying in Mexican culture used directly against Latinos in the States which is "no son de aquí, ni de allá," - "they are not from here, nor from there," which is a point that many Latinos in the States take to heart. If Trump invites them to the table by addressing them, they will feel included. They know they are not welcome in Mexico oftentimes, and also know, that to go back to Mexico (even if they are dual citizens), will only result in an insecure future and bleak financial opportunities. Trump needs to capitalize on this. Again, it can only help him, and unfortunately for the Left, they've already labeled Trump as a racist, which may well prove to be the genius of Trump, in that, the Left has nothing any more disparaging with which to label Trump. He can only win at this point.

      • Focusing heavily on Mexican law in terms immigration and voter ID

      The hypocrisy is so thick, that it cannot be denied, and so Trump is virtually immune to being accused of being racist in this regard, and in fact, this too, is something that will resonate with Latinos, if played as an acceptance of their own logical brilliance. The conservative Whites of course agree part and parcel. Establishing voter ID and enforcing immigration law, exactly as it is done in Mexico can only unite the two, betting heavily on the fact and anchoring with, no one wants to lose their job, security, or country.
      [/list]

      2. Winning the Black votes that can be won. - People wrongly conclude that there is such a thing as "the Black vote." Trump also needs to realize this. Just as there is a huge rift between conservatives and liberals, there are also rifts in the black community. The Black Lives Matter movement, while vocal, and even rampant in social media, fails some important points.


      • Decades of failed leftist policies leaving every major Democratic spot in the country in poverty and ruin; Chicago, Detroit, New York, Cleveland, or any other major metropolitan area. These are failures that Trump has spoken of previously and that he needs to continue attacking, because it is something that attacks Clinton and her ilk and is defenseless. The idea that in Flint, Michigan, people cannot even safely drink water in their homes, whilst under decades of Democratic rule, is also defenseless. There are television stations that are already seeking ways to "fact check" Trump while the debate is televised. We already know that they lean Left, if not blatantly so, so Trump needs to attack them in ways they cannot defend. Failed Democratic policy is a perfect component of that.

      • The absence of the American dream is something that every poverty stricken area has seen. In every instance, every metropolitan area was a hub of industry, that has long since left. Trump, being a business man, can capitalize on this, but will certainly be attacked with the fact that he himself, has sent jobs out of the country. He can easily defend this with him completing his duty of maximizing profits for his company, and no one can fault him for that. he can also maintain that now that it is his duty to defend the American people, he can fulfill his duty because unlike Clinton, he actually has experience creating industry. Clinton will no doubt bring up the fact that he has seen bankruptcy numerous times, but Trump, to his credit, has many more successes than failures and can easily cast this off. Creating industry, while it will not win every Black vote, will certainly interest the Blacks that do in fact, want a better life and that know it won't happen with welfare. An important point here, is that the ones on welfare, that for generations have made a living from it, who do not want to work, will vote for the only person that they think will continue to provide for them. If one can plant a seed, that a truly better life through subsidized education and work programs coupled with job opportunities can be sold to them; thereby, increasing their earning potential and status, they may well be brought into the fold that way, and also, is defenseless by democrats, as they have "had the left on the plantation for decades."  

      3. White Liberals and Millennials. - This is by far the most troublesome group to win over, due to the fact that they aren't yet old enough to really understand finances on their own, as many of them may still live at home, while attending universities, or be so driven by their flawed, failed and hypocritical philosophy, that winning votes from them will be almost impossible. They don't know enough to be bought, and the ones that do, have been indoctrinated for years, oftentimes, after being sucessful by the same capitalist and "racist" system they hate, which well may be their Achilles heel.

      • Millennial activism versus real life opportunity needs to be pointed out, and needs to be done so aggressively. In every instance, every voice coming from Hollywood or the wealthy Leftist elite, used the capitalist model to achieve their wealth, whether they created it themselves or had it inherited, in the case of many established Liberal Elitists. This is a point that should not be lost. The millennials are themselves, but to what end? Do they really want all the hard work they put into their degrees to go to someone else? If that is the case, why wait? They should be told to leave their homes, their schools, their cars, and give them to someone less fortunate than themselves. No one will do this, and even if they would, it would be in such insignificant numbers that it would be irrelevant. They are working for their own successes and they need to be reminded of that. They also need to be reminded of that fact that a great many Leftist politicians made vast fortunes off of the very ideologies that they claim to hate, which is, the State taking advantage of people? How do people in a life of "public service" wind up being millionaires? Trump doesn't suffer from this baggage.

         
      • Liberal Elitists and the Indoctrinated Left - is the one group of people that Trump cannot win, BUT HE CAN drive many of them to other parties, pointing out the DNC corruption that exists, and that cheated their own voice. He can ask why it is, that the cheated aren't being represented in the debates, and fuel their just indignation with the established politicians from the Left, who stated that the liberals knew that the DNC favored Clinton, making it ok to cheat him in the primaries. He can also attack their ethics, of whether they really will support someone who so clearly worked against "the will of the people?"

      Clinton will undoubtedly attack Trump's "basket of deplorables," claiming them to be a group of racists, hellbent on "making America White again." Trump needs to counter that with the assertion that every American matters, and that claiming that one group matters more than another group is a tactic of division, because by definition, one is stating that another American doesn't matter... as much, and that focus should be thrust upon how to elevate the status of every American that wants to elevate their status, rather than color and division. Trump should also drive home the fact, that Clinton hasn't been campaigning for herself, and if she can't even do that, how can she run a country? She is almost never seen in public and cannot even attend her own fundraising events, even when she isn't "sick."

      Clinton will also attack the fact that Trump hasn't released his tax returns. I am certain that this is something that Trump strategists have thought out more than many have at the moment, but stating that it isn't a legal requirement would come across as weak and disingenuous. He should deflect on this one, and point out any one of the numerous flaws with Clinton selling plutonium to Russia and their fortune they have access to in the Clinton Foundation, also pointing out, that any relevant information has been filed with the IRS in accordance to law, unlike the Clintons hiding funds in their foundation.

      The debate tonight will be interesting.

      [/list]
      « Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 12:41:53 PM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 37767


      « Reply #1484 on: September 26, 2016, 05:24:35 PM »

      https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/next-supreme-court-justice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid&utm_content=090816f&utm_campaign=scalia
      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 491


      « Reply #1485 on: September 26, 2016, 08:05:57 PM »

      For the record, they're broadcasting the debate live, here in Spanish, on national television.

      Edit:

      The debate just ended. I took a lot of notes. Mexican television is stating that Donald Trump wasn't prepared and that Clinton was. There were 102.7 thousand online viewers plus the television audience.

      I think Trump killed it. The "mistake" remark by Clinton was a coffin nail, as was her initiating the Iran nuclear deal.

      Verdict? Points?

      « Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 09:43:29 PM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      ccp
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 6033


      « Reply #1486 on: September 26, 2016, 10:53:10 PM »

      I thought is was about even, though Holt was certainly tougher on Trump by far - not unexpected.  I thought Trump held his own.

      He did wipe that shit eating grin off her face a few times.  The liberal grin, the sarcastic grin.........

      I also though Trump missed a great opportunity when Clinton claimed that our foreign friends can count on her to keep her word.

      He could have simply said "well a majority of Americans think your dishonest and with good reason, why should our allies trust you."

      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 491


      « Reply #1487 on: September 26, 2016, 10:59:33 PM »

      I thought is was about even, though Holt was certainly tougher on Trump by far - not unexpected.  I thought Trump held his own.

      He did wipe that shit eating grin off her face a few times.  The liberal grin, the sarcastic grin.........

      I also though Trump missed a great opportunity when Clinton claimed that our foreign friends can count on her to keep her word.

      He could have simply said "well a majority of Americans think your dishonest and with good reason, why should our allies trust you."



      AWESOME POINT. I actually accumulate these gems and send them to people that generate articles. My wife working in the news, I'm actually starting to understand how news and media work. This is a GREAT point.
      Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 37767


      « Reply #1488 on: Today at 08:22:25 AM »

      Though the chattering class is scoring is for Hillary, and certainly Trump missed many opportunities (and got dinged a few times e.g. birther) I think Trump did fine on the meta issues.  I suspect when the first post debate polls come out (Saturday) once again will be confounded that his polls went up , , , I hope and pray.
      Logged
      ccp
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 6033


      « Reply #1489 on: Today at 09:19:50 AM »

      "Though the chattering class is scoring is for Hillary, and certainly Trump missed many opportunities (and got dinged a few times e.g. birther) I think Trump did fine on the meta issues.  I suspect when the first post debate polls come out (Saturday) once again will be confounded that his polls went up , , , I hope and pray."

      CNN and MSNBC people were all cheerful and happy and beaming from ear to ear last night after the debate so sure she knocked him out.  Or so they would like to set the story line and have the "impressionables" believe.

      I think they are in for a shock when the find out otherwise.  Just my got.
      The birther issue is not an issue for most .   The Left is drumming this up like anyone cares.



      Logged
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 37767


      « Reply #1490 on: Today at 09:29:11 AM »

      http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/27/trump-clinton-debate-was-an-embarrassment-for-everyone/
      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 491


      « Reply #1491 on: Today at 10:31:50 AM »


      I'm voting for Johnson - This is why:

      1. I loathe everything about Clinton; her hypocrisy, her lies, her failures, her coverups, the way she treats good people that have served all parties for decades (Billy Dale, Travelgate, destroying the life of a man that was just doing his job for 30+ years), and more than anything, the fact that she left Americans of all colors to die, alone, never returning to see their families again, and though I've never known what it is to serve the American flag, I know what it is to serve and watch your brothers die. I've seen it, and I'm not alone.

      2. It would seem that Trump would be the obvious answer, but he failed too. He completely abandoned the coverup involved between Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Comey and who knows who else, in the debate last night. We sit around talking about BLM and every other thing under the sun, only to have a political outsider, have the chance to throttle people that trounce not just the Flag, but the laws that flag represent, in front of the American people, and Trump didn't even mention it. If that isn't classism and representation of the Elitist class, I don't know what is.

      3. Gary Johnson - There are things that I don't like about him; his stance on immigration, the fact that he sticks his tongue out on national TV and didn't know where Aleppo is, but there are things I don't like even more than that, namely, a career politician who lies and holds herself to be above the law, and someone that has the chance to call Clinton and everyone else involved in it, in front of the nation, and failed to do so, when it's never been more necessary to do so. It is the single largest coverup known to the public, in the entire history of the United States. If you can support that, without even considering a person that has started his own business, created numerous jobs (just as Trump has), and actually had the wherewithal to climb Mount Everest as a human, maybe you should reconsider.

      I would never be so arrogant as to tell you what to do with your vote, or that I know better than you, because we all have the right to vote and all have our own experiences, but as for me, I cannot support someone who claims to be against everything that is wrong with America, actually has the chance to rip the curtains off of it in front of the American public, and doesn't even broach the subject.

      In closing, I'll add, I've guarded generals and heads of State, and I have to say, that the only people I've never trusted, are brothers I've had that couldn't be faithful to their own wives, and I'm not referring to someone that has made a mistake, but to someone who actively shows a pattern of distrust and lacking loyalty, because if your significant other, the one that should matter most to you, can't trust you, how can anyone else? Johnson - that's where this vote is going.
      « Last Edit: Today at 10:37:06 AM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      ccp
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 6033


      « Reply #1492 on: Today at 10:37:34 AM »

       "It would seem that Trump would be the obvious answer, but he failed too. He completely abandoned the coverup involved between Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Comey and who knows who else, in the debate last night."

       I don't know why he didn't bring this up.   Perhaps he knows this will be made into just another "conspiracy" theory and mocked by the Left.
      Perhaps he will in coming debates or on campaign trail.

      I dunno.
      Logged
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 491


      « Reply #1493 on: Today at 11:03:27 AM »

      "It would seem that Trump would be the obvious answer, but he failed too. He completely abandoned the coverup involved between Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Comey and who knows who else, in the debate last night."

       I don't know why he didn't bring this up.   Perhaps he knows this will be made into just another "conspiracy" theory and mocked by the Left.
      Perhaps he will in coming debates or on campaign trail.

      I dunno.

      If only it was a "conspiracy theory." We all know it's not. People don't plead the 5th over "conspiracy theories." People don't smash Blackberries with hammers over "conspiracy theories," and honest candidates sure as hell don't just give the guilty a pass.

      I am certain there are people here that are smarter than I am. I'm sure of it. I do have to say though, there has been one thing that has never failed me, so long as I have exercised it correctly, and that is, doing my best to be a man of principle, and judging myself as harshly as possible. I would never dream of suggesting what others should do, but I know what I am going to do, and this is why. I'll admit, there is much that I don't like about Gary Johnson, but he by far, lacks any of the serious character flaws demonstrated by Clinton and Trump.

      Funny, I'm going to law school here, and there are two primary types of felonies - felonies which are of "action," (which mean that one committed an act) and felonies that are of "omission," which means one failed to do that which is required. Trump not calling out the entire Obama, Lynch, Clinton, Comey deal, which is not even bringing to bear Holder and the weapons that he sent here, that we have encountered, into question. If that isn't omission, I don't know what is.
      « Last Edit: Today at 11:10:15 AM by DDF » Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      DDF
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 491


      « Reply #1494 on: Today at 12:44:30 PM »

      In fairness to Trump, he isn't a seasoned debater, and I have to examine more of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Johnson supports, before I make up my mind.

      Trump would do well to pull the covers on Clinton, because I am certain that I am not the only one thinking this.
      Logged

      It's all a matter of perspective.
      DougMacG
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 8245


      « Reply #1495 on: Today at 01:01:02 PM »

      Though the chattering class is scoring is for Hillary, and certainly Trump missed many opportunities (and got dinged a few times e.g. birther) I think Trump did fine on the meta issues.  I suspect when the first post debate polls come out (Saturday) once again will be confounded that his polls went up , , , I hope and pray.

      Right.  Tom Brokaw said Trump didn't win any new voters and Bob Scheiffer said Hillary didn't win any new voters.  Millenials are right to be disillusioned.

      The missed opportunities are what stand out to us.  He failed to defend capitalism, he missed key points on birther, that questioning it isn't racist and that Obama's publicist was calling him a Kenyan, besides that Hillary started it.

      Some of us earlier mentioned that at this point in the campaign it would be nice if the nominee understood and could defend capitalism and free enterprise.

      From my point of view Trump wasted his economic case on mostly hollow trade arguments.  Within that, he landed a truth that has to do with consumption-based versus income tax based nations.  (I will expand on that elsewhere.)  But those trade arguments poll at about 65% and Hillary couldn't argue back having herself taken Bernie's position.  They both looked bad but Trump did land some punches.  30 years and you haven't made it better.

      On the omissions, stay tuned.  Of course key points of attack were missed, partly by the steering in the questions.  This one needs to be hammered home:

      Hillary is running on her husbands good economic record while running against all of his policies that worked for him.  THE REAL GROWTH UNDER CLINTON CAME WHEN HE CHANGED COURSE.  See a previous post, WAGE GROWTH under Bill Clinton was EIGHT TIMES HIGHER after enacting supply side policies with Newt and the Republicans in the last years of his Presidency than they were in the first years when partisan Bill Clinton with a Democratic House and Senate raised taxes and pursued government healthcare.

      Trump is running against both parties and all politicians.  This is not an ordinary political year.

      He called her out for the results of the last TEN YEARS, not just the Obama Presidency.  Forgive me but this is an ad nauseum point of mine, that the Democrats took power in Washington 2 years before the Obama Presidency.  Hillary and Barack were the de facto majority leaders of Congress in Washington in the lead up and DURING THE CRASH.  The financial collapse wasn't caused by tax rate cuts.  Economic growth came out of that.  The collapse came from Democratic policies, namely CRAp, that yes Republican signed onto.  And it came as a consequence to the notice in Nov 2006 that voters gave investors that TAX RATE CUTS WERE ENDING.

      Logged
      DougMacG
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 8245


      « Reply #1496 on: Today at 03:19:01 PM »

      "The last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place."

         - Hillary Rodham Clinton in Debate 1, Sept. 2016


      I agree.
      Logged
      ccp
      Power User
      ***
      Posts: 6033


      « Reply #1497 on: Today at 04:53:53 PM »

      There is something very fishy about this question.  It is almost like if there is a question of cheating would Trump just move on and accept the results:

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/27/nbc-news-ask-donald-trump-twice-starting-civil-war/
      Logged
      Crafty_Dog
      Administrator
      Power User
      *****
      Posts: 37767


      « Reply #1498 on: Today at 05:09:18 PM »

      They want to forestall him from complaining about dirty tricks, rigging the vote, stuffing the ballot box, etc. 

      This question may well prove to be a big warning flag of serious cheating to come.
      Logged
      Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] Print 
      « previous next »
      Jump to:  

      Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!