The General Election

[TGHusker]

 

I didn't know that only liberal sources are allowed on HB. I've not seen you drill other posters who routinely post from Vox, Huffington, Politico etc.

Many of my posts from conservative sights such as Newsmax have links to the original news articles.

 

In that regards, no one would consider Bob Woodward of the liberal Washington Post to be a conservative. He calls it a scandal. Attached is his interview video wt Fox News (oh no conservative so I guess Bob was lying)

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/23/bob_woodward_on_clinton_foundation_it_is_corrupt_she_didnt_answer_the_question.html

 

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward tells the Fox News Sunday panel that the Clinton Foundation is "corrupt" and that Hillary Clinton has not answered for it.

 

 

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Then there are the allegations about the Clinton Foundation and pay to play, which I asked Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she turned into an attack on the Trump Foundation.

 

But, Bob, I want to go back to the conversation I was having with Robby Mook before. When -- when you see what seems to be clear evidence that Clinton Foundation donors were being treated differently than non-donors in terms of access, when you see this new -- new revelation about the $12 million deal between Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are voters right to be troubled by this?

 

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: I -- yes, it's a -- it’s corrupt. It's -- it’s a scandal. And she didn't answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. You know, I mean, you can't just say it's unsavory. But there's no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.

 

But the election isn't going to be decided on that. I mean Karl was making the point about this, I'm not going to observe the result of the election. I mean that's -- that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they're not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And -- and to focus on that, I think, is wrong. I think the issue is, what's going to be the aftermath of this campaign.

Vox is a liberal website? I thought it was pretty neutral. When did it get the "liberal" label?

 

Same with Politico. The accusations that it's "liberal" come from the Trump supporters who don't like that it skewers their candidate.

 

 

 

Regarding Woodward & the "scandal," still not convinced. "Access" is only a concern when it gains something for the person paying. Morocco made a $12 million donation and Bill Clinton spoke at their forum. That's an exorbitant speaking fee, but what tangible benefit did they receive from that donation?

 

If all we can find is Bill speaking there, it's not a scandal.

 

Knapp, I'm not going to get into an argument wt you regarding individual websites "political labels'. I respect you too much and frankly I agree wt you more often than not as demonstrated by the times I've quoted you. We do agree that 'infowars, Brietbart, and some others are not to be trusted or to be considered news sources. I think conservative/liberal labeling is on a personal perceived sliding scale. Just two thoughts: There are others on HB who have commented before on how Vox has moved from moderate to more liberal as time has gone on. I do like many of the things on Vox quoted by you and others. Politico has a pretty obvious bent towards the left. It is not center moderate. Newsmax, which I quote a lot has an owner/editor, Christopher Ruddy, who was called on the carpet by conservatives for contributing to the Clinton Foundation. It posts probably as many negative Trump articles as Hillary neg articles.

 

My original post above from World Mag - the conservative site - had this strongly anti Trump, very thoughtful opinion article today from its editor - declaring Trump to be unfit for office - which I agree wt - see link below. I have expressed many times how unfit both candidates are and have stood by my view that neither are worthy of my vote. I have posted negative articles on both. Honestly, many have said Trump voters have their head in the sand(overlooking great personal flaws and ineptness) for standing with him. I think most are doing it on very pragmatic grounds - supreme court, immigration, jobs or some other 'single' issue. Yet I agree wt the article below, if we cannot trust Trump's wt word regarding his wives, how can we trust him with his word about the SC or any other issue. However, I think Hillary voters have the same issue. Ignoring to our great peril her corruptness. From the selling of the Lincoln Bedroom and other things during Bill's terms to the smoke that is around the Clinton Foundation, to too many issues not originating from a great right wing conspiracy - they shouldn't be trusted anywhere near the WH. Voters on both sides have been placed between a rock and a hard place. I feel as much for those who'd prefer Bernie as I do those who preferred any of the other Rep candidates. I think those voting for Hillary also are holding their nose and voting for her for pragmatic reasons. I'm trying to be consistent and by saying neither is worthy of my vote. I'll vote 3rd party or write in. I know you finally came out in favor of voting for Hillary. I respect the fact that it is not because you think she is worthy of your vote but that Trump is such a disaster that he is even less worthy. The discussion on this thread leans primarily anti-trump - and he is worthy of every negative comment posted including mine. But to balance it out, Hillary is worthy of every negative post as well. In the long run, it may not matter. I truly expect Hillary to win the election and the country will be worse off because of it and because the repubs failed to provide a valid alternative.

 

Trump: egotistic, inexperience, inept, carnal -- Trump's ineptness may be offset if he has quality people around him. Regardless of his success in business, he hasn't shown he is capable of being successful in governance - if his lack of focus, multiple campaign mgrs. is a sign of what to expect if he were elected. He probably won't get un into a war on purpose, but he could by accident by offending some foreign leader. Some have said that Trump is still moldable with the right people around him. Again, by his campaign he is proving to be as moldable as a concrete brick. He doesn't listen to reason, stay on message, or remain presidential. Very ADHD of him. Very arrogant of him.

 

Hillary: calculating, Power hungry, corrupt, evil (I'm not calling her the devil or a witch personally - just that corruption is an evil cancer that spreads and spoils many). Hillary will maintain the status quo and push more to the left. She may make foreign leaders comfortable but with the Clinton's history, what does she/they get in return. I'm concern about the attitude, tone they set for the office. Bill didn't not honor the Oval Office as it became the Oral office. Hillary's lack of judgment regarding security issues (emails, etc - even mentioning the 4 minute gap in the debate last week was concerning - 4 min between president's order to launch nukes to the time they are actually launched- I've heard that is a breach of security as well. Loose lips sink ships! ), The use of power for their own personal comfort and benefit could deeply hurt this nation.

 

 

A good summary about both from the article below: “Trump is generally reckless and Clinton generally ruthless.

 

Here is the article from World Mag that does a good job of explaining why Trump is unfit and why evangelicals are making a mistake in supporting him:

https://world.wng.org/2016/10/unfit_for_power

 

Partial quote

We’ve seen how the problems go beyond politics. Many corporations profit not by producing better products but by influencing regulators. Equality of law and opportunity disappears as protected groups have their way. Two-thirds of Americans have come to believe that our leaders are corrupt. Democrats may have chosen Bernie Sanders if their party leaders had played fair. A plurality of Republicans voted for Trump’s combination of anti-establishment noise with claims that bringing back good old days would be easy.

After the July Republican and Democratic conventions, I noted that “Trump is generally reckless and Clinton generally ruthless. … Trump is a proud adulterer. Clinton is a proud pro-abortionist. Since character counts, both will almost certainly be presidential failures. … Let’s not rush the process. We have three more months (and three presidential debates) in which to see how these two candidates operate under extreme pressure. We should consider third party candidates as well. This is not a year for early voting.”

We’ve been reluctant to applaud those who call for a definitive no on Trump because, as our republic has turned imperial, it needs the vigorous shaking that Trump supporters would provide, even as their candidate has faltered. Scholar Angelo Codevilla put it graphically concerning both Trump and Sanders voters: “Because this majority sees no one in the political mainstream who shares their concerns, because it lacks confidence that the system can be fixed, it is eager to empower whoever might flush the system and its denizens with something like an ungentle enema.”

WHAT’S CHANGED NOW? Ken Rizer, a military man serving in the Iowa House of Representatives, summarized the videotape’s impact: “Given this recent release, I have decided I can't in good conscience vote for [Trump]. As a base commander, I aggressively prosecuted Airmen who sexually assaulted women. As the father of two college-aged women, I know too well the challenges they're facing daily in regards to groping, lewd conduct, etc. Trump’s comments reveal an arrogant lack of character.”

[TGHusker]

 

If the pendulum swings too far towards the Democrats in this election I guarantee they'll screw it up and the market will "correct" itself in the mid-terms.

Oh...I totally agree with this. Both parties have been in this situation before.

 

Actually, the long term hope for the Republicans is not what they wan to hear right now. Hillary has won. It would take an epic crazy thing for her to lose right now and I personally expect them to at least lose the Senate.....if it gets crazy they may lose the House too.

 

The absolute worst case scenario for the long term health of a conservative movement is if Trump and Republicans lose a very close election. That will somehow give them the idea that what has happened in this election is some how acceptable and all they have to do is tweak something here and there and they will be back to winning elections. That is NOT the idea they should have.

 

They need to be totally destroyed in this election so there is absolutely no question in their minds that things need to change in a major way. AND, this change mentality needs to be drilled into the voters in the party.

 

I really don't like the idea of Hillary being President with the Dems controlling congress. But, I think that's a short term view of what needs to happen. Right now, I think conservatives need to examine what they are doing with the long term view.

 

Agree. There needs to be a huge 'reset'. I was thinking of a Kasich/Rubio ticket Older, more experience, moderate guy on top, appealing Hispanic up and comer as VP - how that would have been so much more appealing than the current ticket and the dem ticket.

[zoogs]

The Democrats are poised to lose Congress in 2018 already, for two reasons: a GOP-friendly 2018 cycle in the Senate, and 2010 redistricting.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this all might get affected by party realignment, however. What will the Republican party even look like by 2018? Same for the other side.

[knapplc]

The 2010 redistricting needs to be fixed. Gerrymandering is undemocratic. It's our fault we let these districts get so messed up, but it's criminal how they've sliced & diced America into little enclaves that they can control and entrench themselves in power.

[Landlord]

Vox is a liberal website? I thought it was pretty neutral. When did it get the "liberal" label?

 

 

 

When it wasn't conservative, duh.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Vox is a liberal website? I thought it was pretty neutral. When did it get the "liberal" label?

 

 

 

When it wasn't conservative, duh.

 

I read a lot of Vox articles because I can find some on the site that is well researched and with links to their sources...etc. Many times I find their articles to be very fair.

 

However, following them on twitter is a completely different story. They literally send dozens of tweets out a day on their articles with head lines that, if that's all I was looking at, I would assume they are a very liberal site. I personally think they are doing their site a very bad disservice for doing that.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I am going to be absolutely shocked if Iowa goes Trump. I always laughed when I lived there because they put themselves out as a very conservative state. But....they almost always vote for the Democrats for President.

 

With the village idiot as the Republican nominee, I just can't see them falling for that crap.

[knapplc]

Interesting development here, especially considering Powell's recent comments about Hillary name-dropping him in the email issue.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting development here, especially considering Powell's recent comments about Hillary name-dropping him in the email issue.

 

That actually doesn't surprise me. The name dropping thing was more of a situation where he needed to correct what she was trying to say.

 

However, I can not see Drumpf being someone he would have any desire to be associated with. So, if he is going to vote for someone, it's going to be Hillary.

 

If I'm surprised at anything on this, it's that he announced it publicly.

[TGHusker]

Interesting development here, especially considering Powell's recent comments about Hillary name-dropping him in the email issue.

 

No surprise, he came out for Obama as well previously. I see no way he would consider Trump.

[zoogs]

I can easily see Iowa going for Trump. They're neck-and-neck in current projections on aggregate, and while ostensibly there are enough never-Trumpers, there are also enough of them who will abstain for Trump to win a close contest and 6 electoral votes.

[Moiraine]

"What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria,"

 

"You're not fighting Syria anymore, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.

 

 

Trump obviously.

 

So, the way the United States picks which group of civilian-murderers to attack should be based on whether there are nukes behind them? And we should be scared to help anyone Russia is bullying or attacking because they have nukes? I guess that's why he wants to disband NATO, so we don't have to help face them. We're fine with letting Russia do what they want to Europeans but go batsh#t crazy about ISIS. Because Russia has nukes. Great foreign policy there. You've just telegraphed to Putin that he can get away with anything and you'll let him.

 

Russia and Syria bombed civilians. They bombed a damn U.N. convoy. If we help them we have to condone that and put our name on it. No thanks.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-world-war-iii-syria/index.html

[admo]

Voted

 

Make sure y'all vote!

 

 

 

 

(Unless you don't want to make America great again )

[mrandyk]

 

 

I am going to be absolutely shocked if Iowa goes Trump. I always laughed when I lived there because they put themselves out as a very conservative state. But....they almost always vote for the Democrats for President.

 

With the village idiot as the Republican nominee, I just can't see them falling for that crap.

 

Six out of the last seven presidential elections they were Blue. No way Trump beats that history.

[zoogs]

Let's take a look at some of the real ongoing efforts at electioneering:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/elections/voter-id-laws.html

 

To Barry Burden, who directs the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, such episodes mirror a growing, worrisome use of election rules as tools to win elections, not run them fairly.

 

“When competition filters into making the rules themselves, it’s a recipe for disaster,” he said.

1. Indiana: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/

 

2. Florida: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/florida-secretary-of-state-voting-case/

 

3. NC, Georgia, Virginia: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Federal-appeals-court-rejects-request-by-North-9983306.php

 

More on the topic, generally; coverage comes from:

- Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

- PBS Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/unprecedented-number-of-restrictive-voting-laws-being-introduced/

 

There has to be a better way to go about this.