The General Election

[Moiraine]

I don't quite get a kick out of that.

 

Not sure why anyone would. I mean, I thought it was kind of cool Obama won Omaha, but it never entered my mind to think "those poor Republicans there must feel really stupid and like losers now. How do they even wake up and go to work anymore?"

[NM11046]

I'm with Zoogs here - (and you can't assume we all live in Nebraska). I too hold out great hope for Omaha district to repeat it's Dem support in 2016. It makes a bold statement.

[NM11046]

Atbone95 - I don't know that it's sh**ty but it's nonsensical and illogical. Maybe all 3. I can give you that. It suppose it can be sh**ty for you to think that way, even if it's completely nonsensical, illogical and weird.

 

I'm guessing most of us here like Nebraska and Nebraskans in general regardless of whether we're Republican, Independent, or Democrat. I doubt many are bothered at all to vote for the person who doesn't win Nebraska's electoral votes. I don't know why anyone would care about "losing" in their state. That's just weird. It's also something that bothers me about politics. This isn't a sport where voting for the winner should make you feel good. You should vote your conscience and not be upset by the rest.

 

Also, I think a lot less of us are Democrat than you realize. Most of the posters on here who aren't Republican are Independent. There are also some who are Republican who aren't voting for Trump.

 

Personally, I'm seriosuly considering moving to a state that's more conservative than Nebraska. I don't know why that would have any effect on someone unless they're from a super liberal state and think it will be a culture shock to live in a conservative state, because they're ignorant. (I'm sure the same is true for some in conservative states thinking of moving to liberal states but it's equally weird to me).

 

The truth is, Democrats, Republicans and Independents aren't that different from each other.

Moraine what state is more conservative than Nebraska

[AR Husker Fan]

It's amazing how this election is revealing how character-deficient are some of our elected officials...

 

 

[knapplc]

There's too much truth in this to be funny.

 

[TGHusker]

Boy Knapp, how long did it take you to type that?? You could have thrown the Clinton Foundation in there at least once. But regardless, all of the Trump lines are valid.

 

I still say Trump is reckless, crude, inept, arrogant, crass, inexperienced, carnal, dangerous, and has a demeanor not fitting for the office. Hillary is corrupt. Our vote or non-vote is to pick between those character traits.

[ZRod]

 

Atbone95 - I don't know that it's sh**ty but it's nonsensical and illogical. Maybe all 3. I can give you that. It suppose it can be sh**ty for you to think that way, even if it's completely nonsensical, illogical and weird.

I'm guessing most of us here like Nebraska and Nebraskans in general regardless of whether we're Republican, Independent, or Democrat. I doubt many are bothered at all to vote for the person who doesn't win Nebraska's electoral votes. I don't know why anyone would care about "losing" in their state. That's just weird. It's also something that bothers me about politics. This isn't a sport where voting for the winner should make you feel good. You should vote your conscience and not be upset by the rest.

Also, I think a lot less of us are Democrat than you realize. Most of the posters on here who aren't Republican are Independent. There are also some who are Republican who aren't voting for Trump.

Personally, I'm seriosuly considering moving to a state that's more conservative than Nebraska. I don't know why that would have any effect on someone unless they're from a super liberal state and think it will be a culture shock to live in a conservative state, because they're ignorant. (I'm sure the same is true for some in conservative states thinking of moving to liberal states but it's equally weird to me).

The truth is, Democrats, Republicans and Independents aren't that different from each other.

 

Moraine what state is more conservative than Nebraska

Wyoming!

[Atbone95]

The blind faith, Knapp. It's golden. You realize "emails" are plural, and there are 50,000 of them, right?

 

Is Trump a perfect candidate? No. I voted for Kasich in the primary. But America has never seen the level of corruption at our highest office that Hillary would bring, ever.

 

What do I see in Trump? I see a smart businessman (and if you hit me with "but he bankrupted", I might come through the computer and slap you - the man is worth more than any of us could ever dream to be). I see a leader who's whole life, his entire success, has centered around being a figurehead at the top who just hires the smartest people money can buy around him, and let's them run free. I honestly see a candidate who isn't steeped in filth, who at least gives America a shot to feel like some semblance of our own opinion matter - not the "private opinions" that are common in Washington.

 

Hillary Clinton is infamous for not having plans. She got called on it in a debate and pivoted to Russia. Trump has concrete plans - you don't take over as CEO and not.

 

To expand on some things: Trump did not admit sexual assault. Speaking about murder doesn't mean you're guilty of murder. If you think sexual assault claims just "come out" 20 days before an election, when if these women really wanted to press charges they could have gotten money out of one of the world's richest men years ago, you're delusional imo. His comments were disgusting. He did not sexually assault them. He's had two of the accusers trials already go to court and be thrown out. Again, educate yourself.

 

I'm not one of the blind Donald Trump supporters, please believe that. And I know there are pro's to Hillary that I would acknowledge as well. I just don't understand (and am very disappointed) how blind politics has become. I think the perfect example is Knapp. You act like the emails aren't a big deal, or maybe you buy into the fact that they aren't real.

• Verified by DKIM keys (unique identifiers on emails to prove authenticity) - EVERYTHING I'M ABOUT TO TYPE IS TRUE
• Clinton being fed debate questions 3+ times
• Clinton campaign organizing violence at Trump rallies
• Clinton/Podesta involved in sending/investing in uranium to Russia
• Admittance to skirting the justice system via friends in the DoJ
• Google execs feeding Hillary cash/planes/voter data
• George Soros owned voting machines in the United States
• Rigging primaries so Bernie would lose
• Pay-to-play visits with the secretary of state
• Secretly selling arms to the Middle East - yes, she actually armed ISIS
• Suppression of her husband's actual sexual assault victims (in-text, talk of "shutting them up")
• Wishing more mass-shooters were white, because it gives Trump less ammo
• The only connection of Donald Trump to Russia is an elaborate scheme Hillary concocted that has been outed and shamed
• Offering better trade deals to Ecuador for the ensurance of cutting Julian Assange's email (they did)

The list goes on man. In a factual argument, you can not deny what I just listed, and that's maybe a percent of it. If you're actually curious, you could spend time researching the candidate and see what you're getting before you brush it off as "emails".

[QMany]

I still say Trump is reckless, crude, inept, arrogant, crass, inexperienced, carnal, dangerous, and has a demeanor not fitting for the office. Hillary is corrupt. Our vote or non-vote is to pick between those character traits.

I think you can add corrupt to Trump's list as well.

[knapplc]

I'm not one of the blind Donald Trump supporters

 

 

[zoogs]

No. I voted for Kasich in the primary.

See, now that's an incredibly level-headed choice. And very hard to square with the current one.

 

I see a leader who's whole life, his entire success, has centered around being a figurehead at the top who just hires the smartest people money can buy around him

So we're not dealing in generalities, who are these people? Who are the people you'll expect him to surround himself as President? And don't just say "the smartest."

 

The foreign policy experts who almost uniformly condemn him from both sides of the aisle? The economists who are blistering in their rejection of his competency? I'm happy to provide links, but you should be familiar with both of these if you've followed this campaign.

 

Hillary Clinton is infamous for not having plans.

She's infamous for being detail-oriented to a fault. For what does she "not have a plan"? She has an entire career of dedicated attention to policy behind her. You're free to browse her website and read through her volumes of lack of plan. You'll find that they're not vague or lacking, whether or not you agree with them.

 

Trump has concrete plans

In what policy has Trump demonstrated a plan? And don't ask the public to take it all on faith.

 

Tax policy? Mosul? Syria? "Build a wall and let Mexico pay for it?" "Clean coal"? Healthcare? NATO? Paid family leave? What?

 

Please, go demonstrate Trump's policy expertise. You'll find it's a fact that his grasp on policy is not respected. Across the aisle.

 

To expand on some things: Trump did not admit sexual assault. Speaking about murder doesn't mean you're guilty of murder.

Good god, man. Support Trump if you like; many decent people do -- but don't turn yourself into this in the process.

 

Trump is the unapologetic avatar of a culture that promotes sexual harrassment and assault. Educate yourself. If you support him, you support him in spite of this.

 

And speaking of educating yourself, you need to sever this link you have between "factual argument" and "right-wing radio swill." I'm sorry, but screaming George Soros and Pay to Play is the latter.

[Atbone95]

 

I'm not one of the blind Donald Trump supporters

 

 

 

And this is level of dialogue HIllary supporters typically respond with when being presented with facts.

[knapplc]

I am not a Hillary supporter. Someone who claims to know the facts should know that.

[Atbone95]

 

 

So we're not dealing in generalities, who are these people? Who are the people you'll expect him to surround himself as President? And don't just say "the smartest."

 

The foreign policy experts who almost uniformly condemn him from both sides of the aisle? The economists who are blistering in their rejection of his competency? I'm happy to provide links, but you should be familiar with both of these if you've followed this campaign.

 

The Cabinet Members he has listed as potential candidates. The Supreme Court justices (20+) he has named on his list to consider appointments. You're attacking his policy, which is great!! That should be what an election is about. You disagree with his economic/foreign policy. That doesn't deal with who he appoints to his Cabinet, who will actually be making the decisions. As a Trump supporter, I think it's pretty clear Trump just wants a title and he'll let everyone else take of the rest. Which is fine - I trust his ability to surround himself with a better team than Hillary. Hillary has shown a true affinity for surrounding herself with lapdogs who follow any order she makes.

 

 

 

 

She's infamous for being detail-oriented to a fault. For what does she "not have a plan"?

 

3rd debate, she was called out in front of America for criticizing Trump's immigration reform and not having a plan she would be willing to share in return. On live television. I can go find the video, but everyone who watched should remember that.

 

 

 

In what policy has Trump demonstrated a plan? And don't ask the public to take it all on faith.

 

There is zero need to take anything on faith. Donald has been very open about his plans - immigration, national defense, Russia, ISIS, economy, healthcare. He's shared them all. You don't have to like them - again, that should be your basis for an election. I happen to like his plans.

 

 

 

Trump is the unapologetic avatar of a culture that promotes sexual harrassment and assault. Educate yourself. If you support him, you support him in spite of this.

 

Did you miss where I condemned his speech? It was disgusting. I also maintain Trump did not, nor has he ever been convicted, of sexual assault.

 

 

 

And speaking of educating yourself, you need to sever this link you have between "factual argument" and "right-wing radio swill." I'm sorry, but screaming George Soros and Pay to Play is the latter.

 

 

While I appreciate your concern, I am very educated on the topic, and both of the statements that you called into question are factual. George Soros owns US voting machines that will be used next week, and Hillary Clinton accepted money through the Clinton Foundation to meet with foreign dignitaries.

[knapplc]

I am very educated on the topic

 

 

George Soros owns US voting machines. No. This is so thoroughly debunked as to be comical.

 

 

 

Trump did not, nor has he ever been convicted, of sexual assault.

 

 

Clinton has never been convicted of corruption. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯