The General Election

[zoogs]

Which is fine - I trust his ability to surround himself with a better team than Hillary.

This trust is a little fascinating, given his record, don't you think? What's his record, as a candidate, of choosing people he calls "the best", surrounding himself with them, and then listening to them?

 

I'll give you the theory that he will solely appoint accomplished Republican-friendly cabinet members and SCOTUS justices who aren't as unskilled as he is.

 

But how do you think his administration will be run? And by whom? A vindictive, policy-incoherent man with no attention towards actual policy? A revolving door of Lewandowskis, Manaforts, Bannons and Conways?

 

And how on earth do you say it's Hillary who surrounds herself with yes-men lapdogs? You'd need to acknowledge, in a facts-based discussion, that her Cabinet and SCOTUS appointees would be highly capable, if disagreeable people. She has the entire record of her campaign to back that up.

 

I can go find the video, but everyone who watched should remember that.

Yeah, do find the video so we can discuss it. I don't know how likely immigration reform will be accomplished -- it's been tough to get going in the past decade-plus -- but it does appear both to be a priority, and fairly well articulated on her part.

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-fi-immigration-policy-impact-20161030-story.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/15/compare-candidates-clinton-vs-trump-immigration/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-clinton-immigration-plans/

 

I happen to like his plans.

I'll keep that in mind. We can't get into every policy debate at the moment, but stick around and take part in some of the ones that happen here. I'm always game for a policy discussion. I'll pick one for starters, since I recall Marco Rubio not having any of Trump's vague statements about healthcare in a debate. And I remember his performance in the third debate, where he insisted that achieve competition -- a dubious claim given the extent of his specific proposals -- and everything will fall into place automatically, giving everybody the best, cheapest healthcare. An even more dubious claim. Specifically, he talked about existing mandates continuing to be in effect without any government requirements.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/10/save-our-bodies/505478/

http://crfb.org/blogs/analysis-donald-trumps-health-care-plan

 

I also maintain Trump did not (commit) sexual assault.

Apart from the troubling dismissal of every alleged victim to have come forth, here's what I find worrying.

 

What do you think is sexual assault? Grabbing a woman who didn't ask for it and kissing her? That surely is. Leveraging your power and status to ignore consent? Surely is. Walking in on naked Miss Teen America contestants? Surely is. I've tried to limit the examples here to solely what he has, specifically, boasted about actually doing.

[knapplc]

What do you think is sexual assault? Grabbing a woman who didn't ask for it and kissing her? That surely is. Leveraging your power and status to ignore consent? Surely is. Walking in on naked Miss Teen America contestants? Surely is. I've tried to limit the examples here to solely what he has, specifically, boasted about actually doing.

This is, perhaps, the most troubling thing about anyone who openly admits they'll vote for Trump. You've only listed the things he's said he's done.

[NM11046]

Just look at the advisors he has latched onto and we could assume would be involved in his administration in some way: Guiliani, Gingrich, Christie. Not exactly considered cream of the respected crop, and he has said his kids would be on short lists .. you know because of all the experience they have with public service and government.

[Atbone95]

 

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

 

 

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

 

You're right, meeting privately with the AG a week before your ruling is fine. Appointing special prosecutors to the case who are friends of the Clintons and who have emailed the campaign new "heads up" emails any time the FBI/DOJ has a new development, that's fine.

 

Please read: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmACZACqADXAFl

[Landlord]

 

What do you think is sexual assault? Grabbing a woman who didn't ask for it and kissing her? That surely is. Leveraging your power and status to ignore consent? Surely is. Walking in on naked Miss Teen America contestants? Surely is. I've tried to limit the examples here to solely what he has, specifically, boasted about actually doing.

This is, perhaps, the most troubling thing about anyone who openly admits they'll vote for Trump. You've only listed the things he's said he's done.

 

 

And then claimed he didn't do based on the argument that the women aren't pretty enough.

[Atbone95]

Just look at the advisors he has latched onto and we could assume would be involved in his administration in some way: Guiliani, Gingrich, Christie. Not exactly considered cream of the respected crop, and he has said his kids would be on short lists .. you know because of all the experience they have with public service and government.

We have a lot of people with a LOT of experience in public service/gov't in Washington right now, and it would seem they've ground things into a halt. Time to drain the swamp. (Man I really love that that line has popped up).

[funhusker]

I voted for Kasich in the primaries also, Atbone.

 

And I have zero hesitation about casting a vote for Clinton on Tuesday.

 

Most of us here aren't "blind Hillary supporters". We have a long list of reasons, just like you.

[knapplc]

Trump's cabinet choices are... odd. To put it nicely.

 

During a Thursday, August 4, appearance on Florida’s The Chat, the Republican presidential nominee, 70, explained why Ivanka could potentially earn a spot among his political counsel.

 

"I can tell you everybody would say, 'Put Ivanka in! Put Ivanka in!' You know that, right?” he told journalist Angelica Savage. “She’s very popular, she’s done very well.”

 

After he sang the praises of his eldest daughter (he also shares 22-year-old Tiffany with ex-wife Marla Maples), he told Savage that she could be a valuable asset on his cabinet as well. The 44-year-old broadcaster, who once reigned as Miss Florida when Trump was still associated with the Miss USA pageant, used to work for the Trump Organization.

 

[zoogs]

 

Just look at the advisors he has latched onto and we could assume would be involved in his administration in some way: Guiliani, Gingrich, Christie. Not exactly considered cream of the respected crop, and he has said his kids would be on short lists .. you know because of all the experience they have with public service and government.

We have a lot of people with a LOT of experience in public service/gov't in Washington right now, and it would seem they've ground things into a halt. Time to drain the swamp. (Man I really love that that line has popped up).

 

This is like firing an accomplished football coach who has a losing season and replacing him with someone who doesn't know what he's doing at all.

 

The 0-8 Cleveland Browns fire their HC today and have two choices to replace him. Charlie Weiss is one. That guy who does a lot of Madden youtube videos is the other. You're the GM; pick one.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

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

 

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

You're right, meeting privately with the AG a week before your ruling is fine. Appointing special prosecutors to the case who are friends of the Clintons and who have emailed the campaign new "heads up" emails any time the FBI/DOJ has a new development, that's fine.

 

Please read: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmACZACqADXAFl

I think knapp's post went over your head. I'm pretty sure he believes Clinton is corrupt, and is pointing out that Trump probably is guilty of sexual assault.

[knapplc]

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

You're right, meeting privately with the AG a week before your ruling is fine. Appointing special prosecutors to the case who are friends of the Clintons and who have emailed the campaign new "heads up" emails any time the FBI/DOJ has a new development, that's fine.

 

Please read: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmACZACqADXAFl

 

 

Do you believe that these kinds of emails, this kind of disclosure/corruption, is limited solely to Hillary Clinton? Do you believe Rubio, Kasich, Christie, Gingrich, Paul, or any of the leaders of either party, are corruption-free?

 

Let's ignore the provenance of these emails and the fact that they could be faked. Let's take them at face value - evidence of corruption within the Clinton political machine.

 

How pollyannish do you have to be in your world outlook to think this kind of thing is limited to Hillary?

 

If you aren't, and are grounded in reality enough to realize this happens with every politician at this level, why would this knowledge affect your vote?

[Danny Bateman]

 

This whole thread has some great stuff going this morning. I love AtBone's ability to stay here and have a conversation, even if he's getting virtually no support and I disagree with almost everything he says. I'm glad we can have a reasonable discussion about this stuff.

 

I'd add only two things:

 

1. AtBone's assertion that there was a FBI/DOJ insider feeding them email updates is flatly wrong, because that was publicly available information about a civil case, not the FBI/DOJ one. They weren't being fed anything that any of us couldn't have looked up ourselves. Wikileaks can parade around as champion of transparency all they want, but the fact that Assange simply funnels whatever arrives at his door postmarked from Russia should tell you all you need to know about their agenda. They're not truly impartial.

 

2. Perhaps the victims of Trump's advances didn't come forward because of money? Did we ever consider that perhaps the fact that the bold-faced lied to the American people about never actually doing any of what he said he did was enough to motivate them to speak out against him? This is one of those things that is more important that money.

 

Other than that, carry on.

[Atbone95]

 

 

Just look at the advisors he has latched onto and we could assume would be involved in his administration in some way: Guiliani, Gingrich, Christie. Not exactly considered cream of the respected crop, and he has said his kids would be on short lists .. you know because of all the experience they have with public service and government.

We have a lot of people with a LOT of experience in public service/gov't in Washington right now, and it would seem they've ground things into a halt. Time to drain the swamp. (Man I really love that that line has popped up).

 

This is like firing an accomplished football coach who has a losing season and replacing him with someone who doesn't know what he's doing at all.

 

The 0-8 Cleveland Browns fire their HC today and have two choices to replace him. Charlie Weiss is one. That guy who does a lot of Madden youtube videos is the other. You're the GM; pick one.

 

Like firing a 9-win coach to hire a perennial bottom dweller coach with a losing career record? Seems to be working out well

[Atbone95]

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

You're right, meeting privately with the AG a week before your ruling is fine. Appointing special prosecutors to the case who are friends of the Clintons and who have emailed the campaign new "heads up" emails any time the FBI/DOJ has a new development, that's fine.

 

Please read: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmACZACqADXAFl

 

 

Do you believe that these kinds of emails, this kind of disclosure/corruption, is limited solely to Hillary Clinton? Do you believe Rubio, Kasich, Christie, Gingrich, Paul, or any of the leaders of either party, are corruption-free?

 

Let's ignore the provenance of these emails and the fact that they could be faked. Let's take them at face value - evidence of corruption within the Clinton political machine.

 

How pollyannish do you have to be in your world outlook to think this kind of thing is limited to Hillary?

 

If you aren't, and are grounded in reality enough to realize this happens with every politician at this level, why would this knowledge affect your vote?

 

Because Donald is not a career politician, and he does not nor will he take a dime from big business to influence his leadership should he be elected.

[Atbone95]

 

This whole thread has some great stuff going this morning. I love AtBone's ability to stay here and have a conversation, even if he's getting virtually no support and I disagree with almost everything he says. I'm glad we can have a reasonable discussion about this stuff.

 

I'd add only two things:

 

1. AtBone's assertion that there was a FBI/DOJ insider feeding them email updates is flatly wrong, because that was publicly available information about a civil case, not the FBI/DOJ one. They weren't being fed anything that any of us couldn't have looked up ourselves. Wikileaks can parade around as champion of transparency all they want, but the fact that Assange simply funnels whatever arrives at his door postmarked from Russia should tell you all you need to know about their agenda. They're not truly impartial.

 

2. Perhaps the victims of Trump's advances didn't come forward because of money? Did we ever consider that perhaps the fact that the bold-faced lied to the American people about never actually doing any of what he said he did was enough to motivate them to speak out against him? This is one of those things that is more important that money.

 

Other than that, carry on.

The fact the emails come from Russia is a conspiracy theory. It is just as valid as the most recent conspiracy that the FBI is leaking the emails themselves via WikiLeaks over anger of being blocked by the DOJ.

 

Both most likely wrong. Both equally valid statements.