Jump to content


The General Election

Moiraine

By Moiraine,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts




HuskerNation1 All Conference

HuskerNation1

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bnil, at some point, you've got to acknowledge that perhaps Trump is just plain worse than Clinton.

 

It's not some biased trend; that's remarkably similar to what we're hearing from Trump himself regarding the media. It's just he's the far worse candidate offering far more to criticize.

 

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk.

 

Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much.

 

Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results.

 

Both are poor candidates, but it's plain as day that one is definitively worse than the other. No one wants Hillary in office but it's very clear that Trump is grossly unfit for office at any level, let alone POTUS. It's not even a risk with Trump. There is absolutely no way that a Trump presidency would be anything but detrimental to the American people. He needs to be defeated and defeated soundly. If you can't see this then you must be entirely removed from logic.

 

 

And that is YOUR opinion, and I know a few others on this tiny board we post on. I know just as many non-political individuals that I work with as well as some of my friends that fear Hillary more than Trump as they believe Trump says some of the things he does as part of his TV personality. When you look at Trump's proposals (outside of the Muslim ban), which proposals are you most concerned with? Securing our border? Removing unfair trade deals? Increase the child tax credit? Not starting more wars like Iraq?

 

Calling an entire race of people rapists is because of his TV personality? Calling global warming a hoax created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive is part of his TV personality? Having not one clue what is happening in the world and blaming stuff that happened 12 years ago on Obama is part of his TV personality? The man is a complete and utter dipsh*t. There simply is no defending him using reason or logic.

 

 

Falling asleep at the wheel when requests have been made for a year in Benghazi for additional security is acceptable? And then lying to the families as to why their loves ones were killed is acceptable? How about trashing females who were victimized by her husband's sexual addiction? Or perhaps dodging questions about wiping her server clean ("you mean with a cloth" stated Clinton). You want to make this black and white that one is so much better than the other. Both are terrible candidates, and when given the chance, I would take my chance with Trump over a known failure in Clinton.

 

If you're going to make this about which candidate has more downfalls then it will be Trump every single time. He makes shocking and unconstitutional statements on a near daily basis to the point that it's hardly newsworthy anymore.

 

One candidate absolutely is better than the other. Hillary Clinton has actually held positions that would prepare her for the White House, and if EMAILS is the only thing you can bring up to paint her as a failure then it sounds to me that she wouldn't be nearly as bad as the global disaster we would have on our hands with Trump.

 

 

Hillary Clinton has held 2 positions. As Senator of New York, she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York, and failed to deliver. She also voted in favor of the Iraq war. If she's such a great leader with great judgment, she would have opposed the war back then. Moving on to Secretary of State, nearly everything she touched was a disaster. Lybia, Syria, Iraq, etc... all got worse with her foreign policy, and as I've shown many times before, ISIS was wiped out in 2008 according to Obama's CIA director, and has now grown tremendously. And this isn't even talking about the Benghazi debacle or her email woes. Why on earth should she deserve a promotion when she couldn't handle a Secretary position?

 

And Trump has spewed comments about how successful and rich he is and yet can't back it up. What IS documented is his lack of business success with 4 bankruptcies. He promised thousands of jobs and then bailed. He has CHOSEN to not pay those who have provided him goods and services. Don't care if Hillary missed her promise on jobs - he absolutely harmed peoples livelihood. And continues to do it.

 

He uses labor from outside the US for his staff, and to make his goods.

 

There are over 4000 lawsuits against him (including 190+ related to not paying taxes, or not paying enough taxes). He has admittedly created business to take advantage of the very people that he know attracts as followers (white collar, uneducated men) and is dealing with some of those ramifications as he battles the Trump University cases.

 

Moving on to his documented comments that insult and harass almost every sex, creed, religion and nationality. His lack of understanding of national, international or state side politics, and even more so his lack of desire to even try to learn about it.

 

I can't believe I even bothered to respond to you and this circular conversation. I don't have enough time or energy to continue typing all the evidence of his lack of qualifications or that he's even a good, sane person.

 

I take great comfort in the fact that you seem to be one of few on this board that has refused to open his eyes as to the qualifications of this office and the risk Don presents if he were to get close to occupying it.

 

 

I see you are good at reading the DNC talking points. Lol. My response earlier was to a claim that because Hillary has held positions in government, she deserves to be POTUS which is a bunch of BS. She had no major accomplishments as Senator, voted for the War, and failed to deliver on her jobs promises. As SOS she had even worse results, and we as a nation are paying for it today. With Trump, I understand that out of the tens of thousands of people he has employed, there are a few cases where he didn't do the right thing and deserves the criticism. With that said, his results of hiring and creating tens of thousands of good paying jobs far outshines the negatives. Meanwhile, in looking at Hillary's resume, the positive results she has delivered nowhere near outweighs the negative outcomes as a result of her leadership. And just how many jobs has HIllary ever created herself.

 

If you took away all the dumb comments Trump has made this campaign, and people were voting on resumes and determining whether to continue the current trajectory we are on in this country, or take a new trajectory, Trump would be winning at this point. However, he has chosen to make this campaign a referendum on him which is the dumbest thing he could have ever done, and because of that, he will likely lose. Of all the 16 GOP candidates who ran for the nomination, he is the one with the least chance of beating Hillary, and I still shake my head that the primary voters put him through. If Rubio, Kasich, Bush, or Fiorina were the nominee, they would be beating Hillary easily at this time.

Link to comment
BigRedBuster Legend

BigRedBuster

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bnil, at some point, you've got to acknowledge that perhaps Trump is just plain worse than Clinton.

 

It's not some biased trend; that's remarkably similar to what we're hearing from Trump himself regarding the media. It's just he's the far worse candidate offering far more to criticize.

 

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk.

 

Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much.

 

Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results.

 

Both are poor candidates, but it's plain as day that one is definitively worse than the other. No one wants Hillary in office but it's very clear that Trump is grossly unfit for office at any level, let alone POTUS. It's not even a risk with Trump. There is absolutely no way that a Trump presidency would be anything but detrimental to the American people. He needs to be defeated and defeated soundly. If you can't see this then you must be entirely removed from logic.

 

 

And that is YOUR opinion, and I know a few others on this tiny board we post on. I know just as many non-political individuals that I work with as well as some of my friends that fear Hillary more than Trump as they believe Trump says some of the things he does as part of his TV personality. When you look at Trump's proposals (outside of the Muslim ban), which proposals are you most concerned with? Securing our border? Removing unfair trade deals? Increase the child tax credit? Not starting more wars like Iraq?

 

Calling an entire race of people rapists is because of his TV personality? Calling global warming a hoax created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive is part of his TV personality? Having not one clue what is happening in the world and blaming stuff that happened 12 years ago on Obama is part of his TV personality? The man is a complete and utter dipsh*t. There simply is no defending him using reason or logic.

 

 

Falling asleep at the wheel when requests have been made for a year in Benghazi for additional security is acceptable? And then lying to the families as to why their loves ones were killed is acceptable? How about trashing females who were victimized by her husband's sexual addiction? Or perhaps dodging questions about wiping her server clean ("you mean with a cloth" stated Clinton). You want to make this black and white that one is so much better than the other. Both are terrible candidates, and when given the chance, I would take my chance with Trump over a known failure in Clinton.

 

If you're going to make this about which candidate has more downfalls then it will be Trump every single time. He makes shocking and unconstitutional statements on a near daily basis to the point that it's hardly newsworthy anymore.

 

One candidate absolutely is better than the other. Hillary Clinton has actually held positions that would prepare her for the White House, and if EMAILS is the only thing you can bring up to paint her as a failure then it sounds to me that she wouldn't be nearly as bad as the global disaster we would have on our hands with Trump.

 

 

Hillary Clinton has held 2 positions. As Senator of New York, she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York, and failed to deliver. She also voted in favor of the Iraq war. If she's such a great leader with great judgment, she would have opposed the war back then. Moving on to Secretary of State, nearly everything she touched was a disaster. Lybia, Syria, Iraq, etc... all got worse with her foreign policy, and as I've shown many times before, ISIS was wiped out in 2008 according to Obama's CIA director, and has now grown tremendously. And this isn't even talking about the Benghazi debacle or her email woes. Why on earth should she deserve a promotion when she couldn't handle a Secretary position?

 

And Trump has spewed comments about how successful and rich he is and yet can't back it up. What IS documented is his lack of business success with 4 bankruptcies. He promised thousands of jobs and then bailed. He has CHOSEN to not pay those who have provided him goods and services. Don't care if Hillary missed her promise on jobs - he absolutely harmed peoples livelihood. And continues to do it.

 

He uses labor from outside the US for his staff, and to make his goods.

 

There are over 4000 lawsuits against him (including 190+ related to not paying taxes, or not paying enough taxes). He has admittedly created business to take advantage of the very people that he know attracts as followers (white collar, uneducated men) and is dealing with some of those ramifications as he battles the Trump University cases.

 

Moving on to his documented comments that insult and harass almost every sex, creed, religion and nationality. His lack of understanding of national, international or state side politics, and even more so his lack of desire to even try to learn about it.

 

I can't believe I even bothered to respond to you and this circular conversation. I don't have enough time or energy to continue typing all the evidence of his lack of qualifications or that he's even a good, sane person.

 

I take great comfort in the fact that you seem to be one of few on this board that has refused to open his eyes as to the qualifications of this office and the risk Don presents if he were to get close to occupying it.

 

 

I see you are good at reading the DNC talking points. Lol. My response earlier was to a claim that because Hillary has held positions in government, she deserves to be POTUS which is a bunch of BS. She had no major accomplishments as Senator, voted for the War, and failed to deliver on her jobs promises. As SOS she had even worse results, and we as a nation are paying for it today. With Trump, I understand that out of the tens of thousands of people he has employed, there are a few cases where he didn't do the right thing and deserves the criticism. With that said, his results of hiring and creating tens of thousands of good paying jobs far outshines the negatives. Meanwhile, in looking at Hillary's resume, the positive results she has delivered nowhere near outweighs the negative outcomes as a result of her leadership. And just how many jobs has HIllary ever created herself.

 

If you took away all the dumb comments Trump has made this campaign, and people were voting on resumes and determining whether to continue the current trajectory we are on in this country, or take a new trajectory, Trump would be winning at this point. However, he has chosen to make this campaign a referendum on him which is the dumbest thing he could have ever done, and because of that, he will likely lose. Of all the 16 GOP candidates who ran for the nomination, he is the one with the least chance of beating Hillary, and I still shake my head that the primary voters put him through. If Rubio, Kasich, Bush, or Fiorina were the nominee, they would be beating Hillary easily at this time.

 

As for your first paragraph. No need to claim someone is "good at reading the DNC talking points" and then go on and basically reiterate the Trump campaign talking points. Makes the entire paragraph kind of meaningless.

However, I will agree on a main idea that Hillary is a horrible candidate and doesn't have much success to back up how popular she is with some people.

 

As for your second paragraph. I agree with pretty much everything except the bolded part. I'm not sure he would be winning. He has clearly proven that even when talking about issues, he has absolutely no CLUE what he is talking about. In fact, I believe he is making it a referendum on him BECAUSE he knows he has no clue on the issues so he needs to steer the conversation in a completely different direction. He has spoken so many times about issues and then be proven his "facts" don't come anywhere close to reality that enough people would have seen through his BS.

 

Now, I think it would be a closer election. But, there is nothing I see that shows me that he would be winning.

Link to comment
HuskerNation1 All Conference

HuskerNation1

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bnil, at some point, you've got to acknowledge that perhaps Trump is just plain worse than Clinton.

 

It's not some biased trend; that's remarkably similar to what we're hearing from Trump himself regarding the media. It's just he's the far worse candidate offering far more to criticize.

 

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk.

 

Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much.

 

Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results.

 

Both are poor candidates, but it's plain as day that one is definitively worse than the other. No one wants Hillary in office but it's very clear that Trump is grossly unfit for office at any level, let alone POTUS. It's not even a risk with Trump. There is absolutely no way that a Trump presidency would be anything but detrimental to the American people. He needs to be defeated and defeated soundly. If you can't see this then you must be entirely removed from logic.

 

 

And that is YOUR opinion, and I know a few others on this tiny board we post on. I know just as many non-political individuals that I work with as well as some of my friends that fear Hillary more than Trump as they believe Trump says some of the things he does as part of his TV personality. When you look at Trump's proposals (outside of the Muslim ban), which proposals are you most concerned with? Securing our border? Removing unfair trade deals? Increase the child tax credit? Not starting more wars like Iraq?

 

Calling an entire race of people rapists is because of his TV personality? Calling global warming a hoax created by the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive is part of his TV personality? Having not one clue what is happening in the world and blaming stuff that happened 12 years ago on Obama is part of his TV personality? The man is a complete and utter dipsh*t. There simply is no defending him using reason or logic.

 

 

Falling asleep at the wheel when requests have been made for a year in Benghazi for additional security is acceptable? And then lying to the families as to why their loves ones were killed is acceptable? How about trashing females who were victimized by her husband's sexual addiction? Or perhaps dodging questions about wiping her server clean ("you mean with a cloth" stated Clinton). You want to make this black and white that one is so much better than the other. Both are terrible candidates, and when given the chance, I would take my chance with Trump over a known failure in Clinton.

 

If you're going to make this about which candidate has more downfalls then it will be Trump every single time. He makes shocking and unconstitutional statements on a near daily basis to the point that it's hardly newsworthy anymore.

 

One candidate absolutely is better than the other. Hillary Clinton has actually held positions that would prepare her for the White House, and if EMAILS is the only thing you can bring up to paint her as a failure then it sounds to me that she wouldn't be nearly as bad as the global disaster we would have on our hands with Trump.

 

 

Hillary Clinton has held 2 positions. As Senator of New York, she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York, and failed to deliver. She also voted in favor of the Iraq war. If she's such a great leader with great judgment, she would have opposed the war back then. Moving on to Secretary of State, nearly everything she touched was a disaster. Lybia, Syria, Iraq, etc... all got worse with her foreign policy, and as I've shown many times before, ISIS was wiped out in 2008 according to Obama's CIA director, and has now grown tremendously. And this isn't even talking about the Benghazi debacle or her email woes. Why on earth should she deserve a promotion when she couldn't handle a Secretary position?

 

And Trump has spewed comments about how successful and rich he is and yet can't back it up. What IS documented is his lack of business success with 4 bankruptcies. He promised thousands of jobs and then bailed. He has CHOSEN to not pay those who have provided him goods and services. Don't care if Hillary missed her promise on jobs - he absolutely harmed peoples livelihood. And continues to do it.

 

He uses labor from outside the US for his staff, and to make his goods.

 

There are over 4000 lawsuits against him (including 190+ related to not paying taxes, or not paying enough taxes). He has admittedly created business to take advantage of the very people that he know attracts as followers (white collar, uneducated men) and is dealing with some of those ramifications as he battles the Trump University cases.

 

Moving on to his documented comments that insult and harass almost every sex, creed, religion and nationality. His lack of understanding of national, international or state side politics, and even more so his lack of desire to even try to learn about it.

 

I can't believe I even bothered to respond to you and this circular conversation. I don't have enough time or energy to continue typing all the evidence of his lack of qualifications or that he's even a good, sane person.

 

I take great comfort in the fact that you seem to be one of few on this board that has refused to open his eyes as to the qualifications of this office and the risk Don presents if he were to get close to occupying it.

 

 

I see you are good at reading the DNC talking points. Lol. My response earlier was to a claim that because Hillary has held positions in government, she deserves to be POTUS which is a bunch of BS. She had no major accomplishments as Senator, voted for the War, and failed to deliver on her jobs promises. As SOS she had even worse results, and we as a nation are paying for it today. With Trump, I understand that out of the tens of thousands of people he has employed, there are a few cases where he didn't do the right thing and deserves the criticism. With that said, his results of hiring and creating tens of thousands of good paying jobs far outshines the negatives. Meanwhile, in looking at Hillary's resume, the positive results she has delivered nowhere near outweighs the negative outcomes as a result of her leadership. And just how many jobs has HIllary ever created herself.

 

If you took away all the dumb comments Trump has made this campaign, and people were voting on resumes and determining whether to continue the current trajectory we are on in this country, or take a new trajectory, Trump would be winning at this point. However, he has chosen to make this campaign a referendum on him which is the dumbest thing he could have ever done, and because of that, he will likely lose. Of all the 16 GOP candidates who ran for the nomination, he is the one with the least chance of beating Hillary, and I still shake my head that the primary voters put him through. If Rubio, Kasich, Bush, or Fiorina were the nominee, they would be beating Hillary easily at this time.

 

As for your first paragraph. No need to claim someone is "good at reading the DNC talking points" and then go on and basically reiterate the Trump campaign talking points. Makes the entire paragraph kind of meaningless.

However, I will agree on a main idea that Hillary is a horrible candidate and doesn't have much success to back up how popular she is with some people.

 

As for your second paragraph. I agree with pretty much everything except the bolded part. I'm not sure he would be winning. He has clearly proven that even when talking about issues, he has absolutely no CLUE what he is talking about. In fact, I believe he is making it a referendum on him BECAUSE he knows he has no clue on the issues so he needs to steer the conversation in a completely different direction. He has spoken so many times about issues and then be proven his "facts" don't come anywhere close to reality that enough people would have seen through his BS.

 

Now, I think it would be a closer election. But, there is nothing I see that shows me that he would be winning.

 

 

If you subscribe to the believe that Trump is erratic and unable to focus, I would argue that he has no talking points against Hillary, so not sure I would agree with your first paragraph as well. As for the 2nd paragraph, I completely disagree here. This election should have been a referendum on Hillary/Obama, and all Trump had to do was not be an idiot and he could have one. When voting for POTUS, most voters are looking for trust and leadership qualities, and not someone that knows the nuances of every situation. All Trump would have to do is say that he will bring together the best team to take on whatever challenge comes our way. In 1980 Reagan didn't have great depth of knowledge on many issues and all the nuances, but he focused on higher level themes and offered a vision of where he wanted to take this country.

Link to comment
BigRedBuster Legend

BigRedBuster

Posted
Posted

Trump's talking points (when you cut through the total crap) has always been that Hillary was a failure as SOS and that he is so great because he built big buildings and gave thousands of people jobs. That's basically what you said in that paragraph.

 

But....no need to belabor that point.

 

The issue with Trump is though, he isn't just slightly not informed about issues. He has absolutely no friggen clue. Meanwhile, as much as you and I both dislike Clinton, one thing she does have is knowledge of situations and the ability to talk about them. She is a very good professional at this and I think you will see her literally obliterate him in the debates because of his total lack of knowledge. He will not be able to get away with how he handled himself in the primary debates against her. Again....as much as I dislike her....she is good at campaigning and getting elected. Trump hasn't met up with anyone like her and her husband yet.

Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...