General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

[Hollandtx]

Of the many things that I strongly dislike about Trump is the fact that the major factor that separated him from electable Republicans was his constant talk about the Wall. Yes, all politicians lie to a degree, pivot once the general elections are in full swing, but a majority of Trump supporters became supporters because of his hard line stance on immigration and the wall. Remember the call, and chants of the crowds?
"What are we going to do?" "Build a wall" "Who is going to pay for it?" "MEXICO!"
Only the very slow, or people that live in the middle of the US who have no clue about people trying to immigrate or come here illegally would ever have thought a wall was feasible, or possibly work.

Mexicans walk through deserts, often dying along the way, try and swim across a dangerous river, trust someone who has packed them into the back of a windowless truck to let them out. Did any rational person really think they would be willing to do all of that, then come to a wall, and say, "Oh, there's a wall. Let's turn around." It was a ridiculous talking point, and I can only defend people who have no clue what it is like living close to a border.
That is why Trump's lie is so much worse than the usual promises and lies.
People really believed this, and better men lost the chance to be a viable candidate, and quite possibly the POTUS because of this lie.
For that, I find him despicable. For that lie, he will most likely ensure a Clinton victory. That is why it is different than the usual run of the mill lies, spins, flip-flops in my book.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Hollandtx is about to earn a spot next to NJ on my signature. Very few are as consistently right as often as she is

 

[iatrogenic]

"Remember all that talk about deporting all the illegals? JUST KIDDING!!!"

I never supported his former position on illegal immigration, but it still astounds me how much of a self-serving, unprincipled hack he is. He demonized Jeb Bush and John Kasich for holding what is basically the same position as he's now adopting. They just didn't ******** and lie during the primary like he did.

And people call Hillary Clinton a liar.

He flipped. Per CNN and FoxNews. From the CNN article...

Hillary and Immigration
2003– As a Senator says “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants”
2006– Votes for the Secure Fence Act, devised to allow for the construction of a 700 mile fence along the US-Mexico border
2007– Expresses she is against providing drivers licences for undocumented people
2014-During a town hall meeting is asked about what she would do with children from Central America who are coming across the US-Mexico border. In her response, after saying she would send them home, she states – “Just because your child gets across the border doesn’t mean your child gets to stay”
2015– States that she supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Also expresses support for state policies which would allow drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants

For over a decade Hillary was “against illegal immigrants”, favoring building walls and sending people back where they came from (sounding conspicuously similar to a current Republican candidate). Then in 2015, as she embarked on another attempt to become President, she engaged in a dramatic reversal.

 

[Horns11]

Oh and in 1996 she was for DOMA and now she supports gay marriage. The horror!

First, her positions aren't a "dramatic" reversal... you can still be against illegal immigration, while at the same time, supporting means/laws that would figure out ways for some of those immigrants to get a pathway to citizenship. It's not "ship them all back AND keep them here," which seems to be what has happened to Trump's stance since Manafort resigned.

Second, you're posting exactly what some people have stated on this thread: over time, positions alter. You have hard core Trump voters stating that there's no problem in flip-flopping if your position alters over time. Is anyone going to burn Hillary for altering her gay marriage stance? Probably not, except for fringe elements of the far left. Why not? Because times have changed and electing Trump (who can appoint a bunch of Scalias to overturn Obergefell) is far worse than Hillary changing her position over 20 years.

Finally, Trump isn't just altering his position... he's altering a campaign promise mid-run. This would be akin to Bush 41 saying "no new taxes" on the campaign trail, and then before he even had a chance to be elected, met with tax advisers and said "well, maybe some new taxes, I'm still looking into it."

 

[iatrogenic]

Because times have changed and electing Trump (who can appoint a bunch of Scalias to overturn Obergefell) is far worse than Hillary changing her position over 20 years.

Changes positions (excuse me; "evolves") over twenty years? Here are some of her flip flops that happened within days or a couple of years.

During current campaign Hillary states, days apart, the following:

I take a back seat to no one, when you look at my record, in standing up and fighting for progressive values”
vs.
“I get accused of being kind of a moderate and center…. I plead guilty”

2008– Runs for President the first time while opposing gay marriage
2010– Is reportedly furious about changing the “mother, father” designations on passport application forms to “parent 1, parent 2”. States she “could live with letting people in non-traditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father”
2013– Comes out in support of marriage equality

2002– During a speech in the Senate after voting for the Iraq war says “It is with conviction that I support this resolution. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war”
2002– Poll on public support for Iraq war — 52% for, 42% against
2007– While running for President says on Iraq “our President rushed us into war”

2004– As a Senator states “NAFTA has been good for New York and Americans”
2007– While running for President states “NAFTA was a mistake”

From 2010-2013 as Secretary of State Hillary advocated no less than 45 times in favor of the TPP all around the world. She called it “the gold standard in trade agreements”. However late in 2015 she changed her opinion and began opposing it, a curious reversal for someone who had essentially been the American face of the TPP on the international stage.

As Secretary of State Hillary professed that she was “inclined” to approve the Keystone pipeline, reasoning “We’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the gulf, or dirty oil from Canada”. For the first half of 2015, as the clear-cut front runner in the Democratic primary, she refused to respond to cries from liberal Democrats asking her to articulate her position on the project. However as her opponent Bernie Sanders, himself an opponent of Keystone from the very beginning, chased and eventually caught her in the polls she was forced to enunciate her position. At that point she revealed her position had changed, and she now opposed Keystone.

First, her positions aren't a "dramatic" reversal

You don't have to consider the lack of values or thought by Hillary "dramatic reversals". Let's call them melancholy reversals. Call them anything you want, just be sure to keep "reversal" in the description.

 

[I35]

Too honest to a fault? Your realize we're talking about him flip flopping on his defining issue, right? Not exactly a case of honesty to a fault.

You act as if he had a private server with top secret info on his personal computer. Or he refused to send help to Americans in a foreign land that is being attacked by terrorist. Flip flop? Flip flop would be if he said open borders and amnesty. All he did was prioritize the order he would do things in regards to immigration. He still plans to enforce the law. Are we to the point now that we've even forgot what the law is? Why do you lose your mind when it comes to Donald Trump?

 

[mchammer]

Why do you lose your mind when it comes to Donald Trump?

The tell-tale sign of a Trump hater. A lot of normally rational people deny their Trump hatred cause there is usually no rational reason for that person to hate him. Yet there responses don't lie.

 

[Mr. Deez]

All he did was prioritize the order he would do things in regards to immigration. He still plans to enforce the law. Are we to the point now that we've even forgot what the law is?

No, he's not planning to enforce the law. Enforcing the law would mean deporting all illegal immigrants. If you aren't in favor of that, then you aren't in favor of enforcing the law. And frankly, that's a reasonable position at this point. We've ignored the law for decades, and it has gotten to the point that it's not enforceable from a practical standpoint and should be changed to accommodate our failure to enforce it. That means addressing the issue of the millions of illegal immigrants presently in the US.

The problem with Trump is that he ran on strict enforcement of the law and demonized and insulted anyone who suggested any kind of reform that didn't deport the illegal immigrants currently in the country. Now he's tacitly admitting that he was full of **** in the primary. You can deny that it was a lie, but what's the alternative? The alternative is that he took a very defiant position on an issue on which he was horrifically uninformed and stupid. Neither is good.

The tell-tale sign of a Trump hater. A lot of normally rational people deny their Trump hatred cause there is usually no rational reason for that person to hate him. Yet there responses don't lie.

You dismissing me as a Trump hater is like the liberals who deemed all Obama critics as haters and racists. I don't deny that Trump is a classless prick. Most of his supporters will admit that. (Hell, that's a big reason why they like him.). However, I have real policy disagreements with Trump, and that's what's driving my decision not to vote for him. If he supported entitlement reform and wasn't a total crackpot on foreign policy, there's no question that I'd vote for him over Hillary even if I didn't particularly care for his style and personality. I'm much more of a Hillary hater than a Trump hater.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The tell-tale sign of a Trump hater. A lot of normally rational people deny their Trump hatred cause there is usually no rational reason for that person to hate him. Yet there responses don't lie.

That's absurd. Trump has literally insulted nearly every demographic category other than white males during his candidacy. No rational reason? Really?

 

[theiioftx]

If he supported entitlement reform and wasn't a total crackpot on foreign policy, there's no question that I'd vote for him over Hillary even if I didn't particularly care for his style and personality. I'm much more of a Hillary hater than a Trump hater.[/QUOTE]

I generally agree with Deez, but sometimes Deez gets overboard on his personal dislike of people(mostly for good reason) such as Perry & Trump. But on Trump,I do not understand the dislike exceeding HRC. Even in quote above, he will not vote for Trump because of not supporting entitlement reform & being crackpot foreign policy. Yet HRC has known history of terrible foreign policy plus plans to increase entitlement. Which is worse?

 

[Hollandtx]

I won't speak for Mr. Deez, but for me, at this point it isn't about tit for tat and who is worse on differing policies, or more corrupt even.

It is the "what could have been" that haunts me.

It is the fact that his entre into the upper echelon of Republican nominees was the "build a wall" promise. In the beginning, that was almost the entirety of his message. "Build a wall" gave him the momentum he needed, along with his never before heard hateful (aka as "telling it like it is") rhetoric towards his fellow candidates, to secure the Republican nomination.
Think about that for a moment. Without touching the nerve of illegal immigration, and an incredibly ridiculous false promise to fix it, would Trump have made it this far? In my humble opinion, no.
Donald Trump is the candidate of the Republican party. Those words stagger me.
And, again in my opinion, almost any other candidate would have wiped the floor with Hillary, in this, quite possibly the most important election in decades.
So, it goes way beyond lies, spinning, pivots, even financial corruption. It is the principle of the matter, and the motives behind his actions. This is all about putting a notch in his belt. It has nothing to do with the love of our country...it's about people idolizing him.

His love of telling people what they want to hear, just to pack auditoriums, look good in polls, hear chanting/cheering crowds and see people waving signs with his name on it has taken precedence over our county's future. His ego and narcissistic personality took precedence over the future of our country.
I can't stand HRC, I have a visceral reaction to her, and her many minions, but Trump has done an enormous disservice to our country. He has no clue how to govern, or be Presidential.

He has given the election away, probably divided an already divided nation even further, and possibly done irreparable damage to the Republican party as we know it because of a snappy catch phrase that was a lie from the get go.

 

[nashhorn]

Oh and in 1996 she was for DOMA and now she supports gay marriage. The horror!

Exactly

I generally agree with Deez, but sometimes Deez gets overboard on his personal dislike of people(mostly for good reason) such as Perry & Trump. But on Trump,I do not understand the dislike exceeding HRC.

Same here.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I'll be honest. I've never particularly cared about presidential health or age because every candidate I've ever voted for has chosen a VP that I'd be comfortable with becoming President. (Note - I didn't vote for McCain/Palin.) With respect to the current candidates, I'd consider both VPs to be significant improvements over the presidential nominees. Frankly, if Hillary or Trump die in office, most Americans will breathe a sigh of relief.

Lol, interesting point. The fact that Hillary might keel over a die tomorrow could well be the thing that convinces fence-sitters to vote for her.

 

[militaryhorn]

And we have different assumptions. You assume that it can't get any worse than Hillary. At a minimum you assume that Trump can't be worse. He can be. (In fact I have no doubt that he will be worse on foreign policy.) You also give no credence to partisan politics. Hillary sucks, but the GOPs recent history has been confrontation with Democratic presidents and weakness with Republican presidents. In other words, they'll contain Hillary as they contained Bill and Obama, and they'll roll over for Trump as they rolled over for Bush.

Are you assuming that the GOP is going to win the House and Senate again? What happens when the Democrats win both the House and Senate again along with a Clinton presidency?

My position on Clinton is clear. I cannot vote for someone who has done what she has done while in a position of leadership and be so flippant about what she has done; like she is above the law.

If I were still in the military and I sent one classified email from my private email account then lied about doing it, I would be in court martial proceedings right now.

My prediction on this coming election is that it will be the lowest voter turnout in history. Nobody wants these two in office which includes me. I live in Nebraska so if I don't vote it won't matter since this state will clearly go to Trump.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Hollandtx is about to earn a spot next to NJ on my signature. Very few are as consistently right as often as she is

I would be honored to share the space. Frankly, I'm surprised I've managed to stay there this long at all, much less solo.

 

[theiioftx]

I understand the visceral feelings toward Trump. I have them too. I would have preferred every other Republican candidate other than Graham or Perry. Hell, I would have preferred O'Malley over those three.

However, I place Clinton below them all. To believe America is about to elect the most corrupt lying Presidential candidate couple into the most powerful position on Earth is beyond me. The "what could of been" will pale in comparison to the illegal actions covered up by lies and political influence/corruption of the Clinton Judiciary system of SC and AG.

 

[Seattle Husker]

However, I place Clinton below them all. To believe America is about to elect the most corrupt lying Presidential candidate couple into the most powerful position on Earth is beyond me.

Can you accept that your view on HRC is different than many because you've accepted as fact every conspiracy theory surrounding her? Even the left leaning posters on this board have stated dislike and distrust for HRC regarding her email handling and Clinton foundation dealings. What we haven't jumped to is the belief in crazier "death squad" and other conspiracy theories.

 

[theiioftx]

Can you accept that your view on HRC is different than many because you've accepted as fact every conspiracy theory surrounding her? Even the left leaning posters on this board have stated dislike and distrust for HRC regarding her email handling and Clinton foundation dealings. What we haven't jumped to is the belief in crazier "death squad" and other conspiracy theories.

Feel free to cite any post where I posted about death squad conspiracies. There is plenty of evidence regarding her lies, cover ups and corruption. I guess technically OJ was not guilty either.

 

[I35]

No, he's not planning to enforce the law. Enforcing the law would mean deporting all illegal immigrants. If you aren't in favor of that, then you aren't in

Trump has to secure the border first. If not then we are pissing in the wind. But I still disagree that he's flip flopped. He's made it clear that he's not granting citizenship.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Feel free to cite any post where I posted about death squad conspiracies. There is plenty of evidence regarding her lies, cover ups and corruption. I guess technically OJ was not guilty either.

So, you've determined guilt even if in a court of law guilt has not been proven. You'll understand if others aren't ready to make that leap, I hope.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Trump has to secure the border first. If not then we are pissing in the wind. But I still disagree that he's flip flopped. He's made it clear that he's not granting citizenship.

Anything short of deportation is not enforcing the law. Not granting citizenship has nothing to do with it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump has to secure the border first. If not then we are pissing in the wind. But I still disagree that he's flip flopped. He's made it clear that he's not granting citizenship.

What does it mean that you get to stay here but not be a citizen? I've never understood this in the argument against amnesty.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What does it mean that you get to stay here but not be a citizen? I've never understood this in the argument against amnesty.

The idea is to grant a legal status that is short of citizenship such as permanent residency. Frankly, I don't think that's a bad idea. First, it respects the fact that many illegal immigrants are loyal to their home nations and allows them to maintain their citizenship with that country, while allowing them to live as a US resident without the fear of deportation. Second, it maintains the right of the US to deport those who actually do end up being bad apples. Third, it doesn't completely disincentivize people from following the normal legal process for becoming a citizen.

However, if someone had favored this 3 days ago, Trump would have thrown a **** fit and called him a traitor.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The idea is to grant a legal status that is short of citizenship such as permanent residency. Frankly, I don't think that's a bad idea. First, it respects the fact that many illegal immigrants are loyal to their home nations and allows them to maintain their citizenship with that country, while allowing them to live as a US resident without the fear of deportation. Second, it maintains the right of the US to deport those who actually do end up being bad apples. Third, it doesn't completely disincentivize people from following the normal legal process for becoming a citizen.

However, if someone had favored this 3 days ago, Trump would have thrown a **** fit and called him a traitor.

Essentially we hand out green cards to these illegal immigrants? I can support that. Doesn't that get characterized as "amnesty" every time it's brought up?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Another Trump-hater has emerged. Shockingly, Paul Wolfowitz has come out denouncing Trump as "dangerous". It's making me feel dirty to be on the same side of an argument at the neocons. I guess, we disagree on foreign policy tactics but agree that regardless, Trump's statements are borderline imbecile.

Washington (CNN)Former Bush administration official Paul Wolfowitz said he is considering voting for Hillary Clinton in an interview in which he lambasted Donald Trump as dangerous.

Wolfowitz, who was the deputy secretary of defense for President George W. Bush in the lead-up to and start of the Iraq War, said in an interview published Friday that while he isn't enthused about it, he may be forced to vote for Clinton.
"I wish there were somebody I could be comfortable voting for," Wolfowitz told the German publication Der Spiegel. "I might have to vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I have big reservations about her."
In the interview, Wolfowitz repeatedly expressed concerns about Trump, saying he agrees with 50 other former Republican security officials who recently blasted Trump as "dangerous."
50 GOP national security experts oppose Trump
"He says he admires Putin, that Saddam Hussein was killing terrorists, that the Chinese were impressive because they were tough on Tiananmen Square. That is pretty disturbing," Wolfowitz said, calling him "unacceptable."
Wolfowitz also called Trump a continuation of President Barack Obama, despite their party differences. Wolfowitz said Obama's apparent "step back" foreign policy would be exaggerated under Trump, calling him "Obama squared."

"The only way you can be comfortable about Trump's foreign policy is to think he doesn't really mean anything he says. That's a pretty uncomfortable place to be in," Wolfowitz said. "Our security depends on having good relationships with our allies. Trump mainly shows contempt for them. And he seems to be unconcerned about the Russian aggression in Ukraine. By doing this he tells them that they can go ahead and do what they are doing. That is dangerous."
Wolfowitz is one of the nation's most prominent neoconservatives and interventionists, and has been widely characterized as the "architect' of the invasion of Iraq. CNN reported back in 2003 that he was the first Bush administration official to push the 43rd president to topple Saddam Hussein -- broaching the subject four days after the September 11 attacks.
Trump has been an ardent critic of the Iraq War on the campaign trail, saying he opposed it from the get-go, although the first evidence of him opposing the invasion of Iraq was after the war had begun. But Clinton voted in favor of the war when she was in the Senate, a fact that her opponents have used against in her both the 2008 and 2016 presidential elections.
The GOP candidate has also criticized Obama and Clinton for pulling troops out of Iraq too quickly and destabilizing the region, though he supported the same policy in CNN interviews during Obama's first term.
Clinton has steadily courted and landed endorsements from Republican elders in foreign policy, arguing that their support shows that Trump's election would endanger the country's security.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Essentially we hand out green cards to these illegal immigrants? I can support that. Doesn't that get characterized as "amnesty" every time it's brought up?

Yes, it does.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I would be honored to share the space. Frankly, I'm surprised I've managed to stay there this long at all, much less solo.

It's well-deserved on your end, but after reading her posts for a while, she has certainly earned her way. Her commentary is consistently outstanding and very worthy of my respect.

 

[theiioftx]

So, you've determined guilt even if in a court of law guilt has not been proven. You'll understand if others aren't ready to make that leap, I hope.

Yes I know how gullible Democrats are.

 

[I35]

First the wall has to be built, then he's deporting the ones that have a record. That will keep them from just coming back in. Meanwhile the ones that are still here will have to pay back taxes and current taxes. That will take up his first term. Beyond that who knows what will happen. But if he does those things then he's done more toward immigration and securing our borders than all the presidents put together.

 

[theiioftx]

A wall does not have to be built. They just need to demagnetize the USA by enforcing harsh penalties on anyone hiring an illegal worker. This will stem the flow and will result any people deporting themselves.