General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

Keep defending the dozens of scandals across multiple decades as fabricated nonsense, we expect no less.

Anyone can literally go online view HC's actual testimony to Congress next to Comey's testimony and prove 100% she lied to Congress under oath.

And sadly that one pales in comparison to the more serious crimes she's committed.

But we all know it's fabricated smear tactics to the Lib world. Can't punish her for that like any other person not named Clinton...#imwithhernomatterhowmanylawsshebreaks
 
Brad Austin said:
Keep defending the dozens of scandals across multiple decades as fabricated nonsense, we expect no less.

Anyone can literally go online view HC's actual testimony to Congress next to Comey's testimony and prove 100% she lied to Congress under oath.

And sadly that one pales in comparison to the more serious crimes she's committed.

But we all know it's fabricated smear tactics to the Lib world. Can't punish her for that like any other person not named Clinton...#imwithhernomatterhowmanylawsshebreaks
Click to expand...

That's the point, conservatives have spent so much time convincing us that HRC trespassing over her neighbors yard is a crisis of character that when there actually is a real issue the accusation carries less emphasis. I get it...y'all hate HRC. I don't particularly like her myself. Too many mole hills have been turned into mountains though for me to really tell where the real mountains are. Y'all have been so good at creating mountains though that there are virtual mountains out there now (e.g. Clinton death squads).

Literally, you've spent so much time and money trying to tear down the Clintons that you've built teflon suits for them. Don't you see it? That's where Aesop's fable comes into play. You've cried wolf so often that now when there is a REAL wolf (e.g. Email scandal) it's viewed as a puppy or many don't see anything there at all.

I use the Death Squad as a prime example of the molehill/mountain. It's pure conspiracy lunacy that as advanced as rational thought. Unfortunately for believers, most rational people look at those believers and say "you're effin' crazy" just like the birthers. Meanwhile, the believers stomp around convinced they are sane wondering aloud why nobody is listening to them. Don't crazy people always think they are sane though?
 
I35 said:
SH, do you feel like you need a shower after every time you defend her indefensible acts?
Click to expand...

I'm not defending HRC from valid accusations. It's the irrational ones that I laugh at. I'd defend Paul Ryan the same way too if there were irrational accusations hurled at him on this board. I won't defend crazy though and Donald Trump has proven to be borderline crazy with his own words. Heck, he's a liberal to boot. Recognizing I get the "liberal" tag hurled at me on this board, I'd vote for Paul Ryan every day of the week over Donald Trump.
 
I35 said:
But you'd vote for Crooked Hillary over Trump or Ryan?
Click to expand...

Over Trump, easy. I'd strongly consider Ryan vs. HRC but would likely choose the latter due to social issues although I LOVE Ryan's fiscal policies. If Kasich were nominated he'd be my choice. Kasich is social moderate and fiscally conservative. After all, I was a Reagan Republican at one point in my life. I feel the Republican party left me as they chased the religious right.

Trump is all about Trump. He an ego driven enigma. He deserves full credit for his real estate prowess and has profited handsomely for it. Does that make him qualified to deal in International relations? H-E-Double Hocky Stick NO!! In fact, he's demonstrated himself to be ignorant on most issues. To make matters worse, he's ignorant and doesn't know it. Remember when he said "I know more about ISIS than the Generals do. Believe me." That's dangerous, IMHO. That's not an isolated occurrence either. Multiple times he's claimed to the be expert on **** he clearly has no clue about.

So, your question is would I vote for the ethically challenged person over the dangerous idiot? Yes, I would in a heartbeat while I lament the choices in front of me.
 
Seattle Husker said:
After all, I was a Reagan Republican at one point in my life. I feel the Republican party left me as they chased the religious right.
Click to expand...

Are you a Obama Democrat? Because I would guess that how far left they have gone from being anything fiscal would have chased you away from that party if you were a Reagan Republican at one time.
 
I35 said:
Are you a Obama Democrat? Because I would guess that how far left they have gone from being anything fiscal would have chased you away from that party if you were a Reagan Republican at one time.
Click to expand...

I'm a registered Independent. I did vote for Obama both times but not due to his fiscal policies. Obama has managed the country as a left-center individual, not extreme left, IMHO.
 
I think I would pick listening to the Boomer Sooner song 300 times in a 4 hour period than listen to Hillary's raised voice for 30 seconds.
 
I35 said:
Ethically Challenge? I would describe Hillary as a corrupt blabbering dangerous idiot vs Trump who blabbers without a teleprompter.
Click to expand...

You've also attributed 50 murders to the Clintons so clearly you're more than willing to accept any accusation as "true" regardless of evidence or facts.

I don't think HRC is dangerous or an idiot. Corrupt? Maybe. Willing to lie for her own political gain? Absolutely. Neither of those effect me directly whereas Trump could easily impact the international consulting firm I work for, security here at home, or simply the standing of America here and abroad. HRC is status quo if she governs from the center. Trump is a mystery box with very limited potential for a positive outcome when opened.
 
CqLbDGAUkAAOAuP.jpg
 
Seattle Husker said:
You've also attributed 50 murders to the Clintons so clearly you're more than willing to accept any accusation as "true" regardless of evidence or facts.

I don't think HRC is dangerous or an idiot. Corrupt? Maybe. Willing to lie for her own political gain? Absolutely. Neither of those effect me directly whereas Trump could easily impact the international consulting firm I work for, security here at home, or simply the standing of America here and abroad. HRC is status quo if she governs from the center. Trump is a mystery box with very limited potential for a positive outcome when opened.
Click to expand...

The standing of America is not something to point to. Russia knows the current administration will do nothing to stop him. BO drew a red line in Libya and then ignored the country as it spiraled into mass killings and led to the refuge crisis. The only leader he ever really took a stand on was one of our longtime allies, Israel, and he could barely hide his dislike of Netanyahu.

"The tortured relationship between Barack and Bibi, as they call each other, has been a story of crossed signals, misunderstandings, slights perceived and real. Burdened by mistrust, divided by ideology, the leaders of the United States and Israel talked past each other for years until the rupture over Mr. Obama’s push for a nuclear agreement with Iran led to the spectacle of Mr. Netanyahu denouncing the president’s efforts before a joint meeting of Congress.

As Mr. Netanyahu arrives at the White House on Monday for his first visit in more than a year, both leaders have reasons to put the past behind them. They will discuss a new security agreement and ways to counter Iran."

Counter Iran??? After BO gave them the deal they wanted, lots of cash, and just gave them $400,000,000 in unmarked currency to release our hostages?? I think Trump will surround himself with people very, very knowledgable about foreign affairs. Hillary will continue the same appeasement and horrible deals we have seen for 7 years. That is assuming she can stand up and her dementia doesn't get worse.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
.....There is no singular message in attacking HRC as a candidate. ....
Click to expand...

I dont know about messaging but there is easily a single biggest reason she cannot win and it is that she cannot be allowed to rig the SCOTUS. If this is allowed, nothing else really matters (short of nuclear destruction, I guess). It's over. The great American Experiment ends there.
 
So if Trump (or anyone else like Rubio, Kasich, etc.) won the presidency and put 3 new conservatives on the SC to replace RBG, Breyer, and Scalia, would you still call it "rigging" the SC?
 
Per CNN review of polling they've moved Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire from "Battleground" states to "lean Democrat". If HRC wins the states in those 2 buckets, she'll have 273 delegates at the electoral college and wins the election.

Solid Republican:
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3) (158 total)
Leans Republican:
Arizona (11), Georgia (16), Utah (6) (33 total)
Battleground states:
Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), Ohio (18), North Carolina (15) (74 total)
Leans Democratic:
Colorado (9), Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), (72 total)
Solid Democratic:
California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), DC (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Minnesota (10), New Mexico (5) (201 total)

Trump's 2nd campaign leadership shakeup in 3 months has a lot of work to do not only win the battleground states but also flip a few of the "leans democratic". It spears they think Pennsylvania and Virginia are their best opportunities to flip a state based on their recent $4M ad buy.
 
Horns11 said:
So if Trump (or anyone else like Rubio, Kasich, etc.) won the presidency and put 3 new conservatives on the SC to replace RBG, Breyer, and Scalia, would you still call it "rigging" the SC?
Click to expand...

I guess you dont know much about SC history?
Republican presidents have proven historically incapable of performing this seemingly simple task.

Ford gave us Stevens (no wonder so many people tried to assassinate him).
Reagan gave us Sandy Baby who was good for awhile but then began to waffle like Kennedy. And, of course, King Waffler himself, Anthony Kennedy (the author of Obergefell).
Then, in one of the crimes of the century, GHBush (and purported "genius" John Sununu) gave us Souter (Bush was afraid to use up his limited "political capital" on this pick -- what a horrible decision).
Then W. gave us Roberts, who will never be forgiven for the individual mandate.

So, you could argue that the Rs have already packed the Court - except the idiots did it for your side!

In any event, to your point, conservative or "originalist" justices acknowledge the supreme power of the Constitution, even when they do not like it. Liberal or "living Constitution" proponents do not like the Constitution because it limits their ability to invoke the changes they want and the speed with which they can make that change. So, they are out to alter the Constitution. No matter what else you might read or they might say, this is the bottom like, they want to change or weaken the US Constitution. If allowed, they will keep chipping away at that supreme power until it eventually means little. At that point, the Court itself will become a sort of Super Legislature, circumventing Separation of Powers and rendering Congress itself largely irrelevant (what can they ever do about it? they have no executive power of their own). And it wouldnt matter if the people sent 90% Rs into the Congress.

This will not happen in a couple years (but you can bet Heller and Citizens United are gone or significantly altered in a couple years - they are already planning that - we know this much from leaks). It may even take a couple decades, but that's the deal with SC justices -- they outlive, outlast and have a bigger impact than their actual nominating presidents do. Not everyone gets that. And this is the eventual future if HRC wins now (even if she never lives to see it, which seems a certainty as of this moment). This time is not like other times and other presidents. It really is different this time. Because the balance itself is at stake. Plus, they know exactly what they are doing now and exactly what they want. That is the most dangerous part - it took awhile but now idea is crystallized. They now know precisely what they want (hint - and its nothing close to what the Founders envisioned). The change this time will be professional, expedient and ruthlessly efficient. They have been planning this for a long time -- this is not hyperbole. Simple Translation = Hillary will get to put 2, maybe 3 Ruth Baders on the Court in one term. With 8 years, she might get 3 or 4 or even 5 Ruth Baders (to join Kagan and Sotomayor). If so, that's it. The Constitution is done and with it, us too.

And finally, back to your original rhetoric.
-- If R-Presidents were able to rig or stack the Court, it would only mean the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Is that so bad to you? Is that so conservative that it threatens your sense of being?
-- However, if D-Presidents were able to rig or stack, then, by todays rules and standards, it means the Constitution does not survive. It's going to be altered and changed, but mainly it will be weakened. Why? Because they want to be able to do whatever the hell they want, without arbitrary restrictions, like those imposed on them by that document. It is just a document, right? Written along time ago. By white guys. That just doesn't cut it anymore.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
Per CNN review of polling they've moved Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire from "Battleground" states to "lean Democrat". If HRC wins the states in those 2 buckets, she'll have 273 delegates at the electoral college and wins the election..........
Click to expand...


Let us at least see how the debates go first. It's not over. Reagan v. Carter turned to a large degree on the debates and Carter led going in (there were other factors too - disaster of an economy, inflation, int rates, oil + the Iranians (again)).

I feel pretty sure she wants to avoid them if at all possible, but 3 debates are mandatory. I dont think she can do that and still get the federal money. And no way she gives up that money, right?
 
Joe Fan said:
Let us at least see how the debates go first. It's not over. Reagan v. Carter turned to a large degree on the debates and Carter led going in (there were other factors too - disaster of an economy, inflation, int rates, oil + the Iranians (again)).

I feel pretty sure she wants to avoid them if at all possible, but 3 debates are mandatory. I dont think she can do that and still get the federal money. And no way she gives up that money, right?
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not "calling it over" but rather pointing out that the electoral map is a significant hurdle for Trump to overcome at this point. He's going the wrong direction in states that he can't win without. Maybe his newfound contrition "I regret some things I've said" will have the desired effect of bringing back some of the voters who favored him coming out of the RNC? That was a big move for him after saying over and over and over he had no regrets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top