Jump to content


The General Election


Recommended Posts


I'm curious if Hillary will come out publicly against the actions Obama took today to send more troops into Iraq. Let's not forget that just 2 weeks ago Hillary said we should never send troops into Iraq ever again. And people wonder why we should trust her judgment.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/middleeast/obama-troops-iraq.html?_r=0

 

 

 

Ya, it was a dumb statement. She can't predict what will happen in the future.

Link to comment

 

 

I wonder if Trump raised his hand.

 

 

Here's an article from June. Trump supposedly became a Christian very recently. How convenient for that to coincide with his run for President.

 

 

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump is now a born-again Christian, an evangelical leader says, but a top campaign aide declined to comment on that revelation on Sunday.

 

"He did accept a relationship with Christ," James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, said in a radio interview with on Pennsylvania pastor Michael Anthony's "Godfactor" taped Tuesday. "I know the person who led him to Christ, and that's fairly recent."

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/26/politics/donald-trump-james-dobson-baby-christian/index.html

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

I'm curious if Hillary will come out publicly against the actions Obama took today to send more troops into Iraq. Let's not forget that just 2 weeks ago Hillary said we should never send troops into Iraq ever again. And people wonder why we should trust her judgment.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/middleeast/obama-troops-iraq.html?_r=0

 

 

 

Ya, it was a dumb statement. She can't predict what will happen in the future.

 

 

It was totally dumb and naive for someone that claims to be competent on foreign affairs. I get that Trump says a lot of dumb things, but this comment from Hillary is scarier than many things he has said. She has shut the door on ground troops no matter what could happen. Given all the other failures she had as SOS, I don't see how anyone would feel comfortable with her as commander-in-chief.

Link to comment

At first I wondered what the big deal was about making a :P face during an interview.

 

Then I saw the video. That was really something.

 

I don't want to make it out to be something important when it's not that substantive to begin with. But, yeah, it was really....something.

 

...and now my foot's in my mouth because I thought you were talking about the tongue-wag, dudeguyy. I was almost starting to say I don't think it's fair to compare that to the Aleppo moment.

 

 

Yikes. This isn't blanking. This is not knowing. And for a guy who's been happy to present himself as a presidential candidate and present a foreign policy platform, this should be thoroughly disqualifying. That's "I can see Russia from my house" and "In Alaska, we have magazines".

Link to comment

What a hard head.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/donald-trump-debate-reaction/index.html

 

 

 

When Trump was told Tuesday that he should do some things differently, he responded that his approach is what his base likes.

Another challenge: There are a large number of voices -- sometimes disparate -- in Trump's orbit. Two advisers said that played a big role in what they saw as Trump's lack of a laser focus on the debate and his belief beforehand that he didn't need to rely on traditional prep.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

I don't see how anyone would feel comfortable with her as commander-in-chief.

 

 

Because that would mean that Donald Trump is not commander-in-chief.

 

 

And given how bad she has been, I think many are willing to take their chances with him. When it comes to foreign policy, we have no great choices. We have someone with no foreign policy experience but believes protecting our national security and growing our military is important, and another who has foreign policy experience in which she showed horrible judgment time and again.

Link to comment

It really raises an interesting question, Zoogs. I wonder how many people would be comfortable with a candidate that made their main (re: only) focus the economy, eschewing foreign policy as a result. I always kind of felt that way about Bernie myself. I preferred Clinton's experience with foreign policy. But it's undeniable that millions of people were absolutely fired up by Sanders, even if he wasn't well-versed in foreign policy or strategic military decision-making.

I wonder if Johnson attracts some of those people. He and Sanders are both distinctly anti-interventionist, if for somewhat different reasons. I think Johnson's primary motive is to save money in so doing, whereas Bernie was compelled by fiscal and humanitarian motives.

As for Trump, should it not bother us that someone so close to the Oval Office apparently has 0 threshold for any kind of criticism? I think that played into the two debate prep factions-- the ones that let Trump be Trump probably didn't want to enrage him by making him do anything unpleasant.

I mean, POTUS is probably the most scrutinized job on the planet. Every decision is under a microscope, all the time. And this guy's complaining about mean commercials.

Link to comment

 

 

I don't see how anyone would feel comfortable with her as commander-in-chief.

 

 

Because that would mean that Donald Trump is not commander-in-chief.

 

 

And given how bad she has been, I think many are willing to take their chances with him. When it comes to foreign policy, we have no great choices. We have someone with no foreign policy experience but believes protecting our national security and growing our military is important, and another who has foreign policy experience in which she showed horrible judgment time and again.

 

I agree Clinton's FP can be scrutinized... But did you miss the debate?

 

That other guy lied about a war he wasn't even involved in for like 5 straight minutes and said blowing a foreign vessel out of the water for an unwanted gesture wouldn't lead to war.

Link to comment

OMG.....I get home from work and turn on the TV.

 

Next comes on an add from Great America Pact that is doing a poll they explain how important it is to elect Trump... So call now and tell us who won the debate. Press one for Trump and Two for Hillary.

 

So.....they can't win a scientific polls so they are making up their own?

 

Wow.

 

They've done well in many "scientific" polls over the past month, including after the commander-in-chief forum a couple weeks back. Let's also realize that these "Scientific" polls are also skewed and weighted. Many are predicting the same turnout model for Dems as in 2008, if not a better turnout model for Dems (in the 2-say contests). Who honestly believes that Hillary has the same level of enthusiasm that Obama had in 2012? Past performance can serve as a guide, but that must conditions in the current environment must also be factored in. There is no enthusiasm for Hillary. She's lucky to get 1000 people to an event. Today they scheduled an event to attract millennials in New Hampshire, and she had Bernie with her so they could talk about what government freebies they would give out, and the crowd consisted of 90% older white people in their 50s and 60s, and a small segment of true millennials were hand-picked to come in. Obama had both the enthusiasm and get out the vote edge. Hillary will have to rely on her get out the vote operation to overcome Trump's enthusiasm.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...