General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

[theiioftx]

Yet your preferred candidate hasn't put any policy details out to counter that. Why is that if he's being misrepresented? Could it be that the applause line works in rallies because they actually believe it? Taxing Western Union doesn't quite sound like "Mexico will pay for the wall" does it?

In a negotiation, you do not provide your strategy to the other party prior to the negotiation. That is a sure failure. Much like Obama's failed foreign policy, telling your opponent you moves ahead of time does not work.

Maybe we can ask about Hillary's plans at her next news conference where she actually takes questions?

 

[mb227]

It speaks volumes about Trump that "he did not embarrass himself today" is a noteworthy and significant observation.

Not really...so much of the negative coverage of him has focused on the claims that he lacked the ability to 'be Presidential.' Those journalists basically have maintained that he would crap the bed in his efforts to meet with foreign leaders. They were demonstrated to be off-base in their assessments...and it will open the eyes of SOME to the fact that the next few months need to be spent focusing on issues and not personalities.

 

[Seattle Husker]

In a negotiation, you do not provide your strategy to the other party prior to the negotiation. That is a sure failure. Much like Obama's failed foreign policy, telling your opponent you moves ahead of time does not work.

In other words, we simply need to trust a real-estate tycoon to negotiate a macro-economic deal which he has no demonstrated experience without so much as asking how he intends to do it? That's an immensely important leap that nobody should be willing to make, IMHO.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Not really...so much of the negative coverage of him has focused on the claims that he lacked the ability to 'be Presidential.' Those journalists basically have maintained that he would crap the bed in his efforts to meet with foreign leaders. They were demonstrated to be off-base in their assessments...and it will open the eyes of SOME to the fact that the next few months need to be spent focusing on issues and not personalities.

Wait, standing up and reading prepared statements means he's Presidential? The bar you think he's trying to overcome may be much lower I do.

 

[theiioftx]

In other words, we simply need to trust a real-estate tycoon to negotiate a macro-economic deal which he has no demonstrated experience without so much as asking how he intends to do it? That's an immensely important leap that nobody should be willing to make, IMHO.

You trusted a community organizer twice, correct?

 

[Joe Fan]

That's acceptable to you? It used to be that the voter pushed the candidate for specifics. Partisanship has turned us to enabling our preferred candidate.

As I mentioned above, I saw the path for paying for this kind of stuff 20 years ago.
I may not be correct on that in the end, but the specifics are not so important since there are multiple ways to get there. And again, this stuff happens every presidential cycle.

Clearly detailed discussions aren't available because we are left debating the context of applause lines with this candidates.

Were you bothered that Obama did not give specifics on how he planned to lower ocean levels? Wouldn't you agree the chances of Trumping building a wall are much greater than they ever were of Obama lowering sea levels? (insert meme of choice here)

Obama also promised to "cut the deficit in half" but did not say how he would do that. And, of course ..... well, you know how that went.

Obama gave a guarantee he would "reset" relations with Russia (while LOLng at Romney's view of Russia) - again no specifics (perhaps we should have demanded some?). I guess we have no choice but to concede he really did reset Russia-US relations - just not for the better.

 

[Joe Fan]

In a negotiation, you do not provide your strategy to the other party prior to the negotiation. That is a sure failure. Much like Obama's failed foreign policy, telling your opponent you moves ahead of time does not work.
.....

And this is consistent with a theme of Trump's for over a year, for his entire campaign. That one of the worst problems the US Govt has had over the last two decades+ is that we have had the world's worst negotiators out there cutting deals on our behalf. We get the **** side of every deal. A handful of major donors do get exactly what they wanted, but that's it. What about the rest of us? What about the common working folk? What did they get? A pink slip? It is not acceptable and has to end.

 

[mchammer]

SH suffers from literalness disease. Hope and pray for a recovery. He deserves our pity.

 

[mchammer]

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149794681371/trumps-immigration-speech-persuasion-score

I really think SH doesn't get what Trump is doing, which is okay. Not all messages reach all the people.

 

[Joe Fan]

SH suffers from literalness disease. Hope and pray for a recovery. He deserves our pity.

The formal objection is that his replies are "non-responsive."
It often seems like he meant to quote a different post because one usually has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH suffers from literalness disease. Hope and pray for a recovery. He deserves our pity.

I'd accept that accusation if you can point me to substance in Trumps policies. Until that happens one of us appears to be voting based on applause lines and tweets.

 

[Seattle Husker]

And this is consistent with a theme of Trump's for over a year, for his entire campaign. That one of the worst problems the US Govt has had over the last two decades+ is that we have had the world's worst negotiators out there cutting deals on our behalf. We get the **** side of every deal. A handful of major donors do get exactly what they wanted, but that's it. What about the rest of us? What about the common working folk? What did they get? A pink slip? It is not acceptable and has to end.

And what are Trump's policies to change that? What does he intend to DO? Build a wall? Is that a policy? Deport 11 million, errr thousands of immigrants? Renegotiate NAFTA? How so? WHAT is wrong with NAFTA?

If I sound like I'm frustrated by the acceptance of applause lines as policy I am. Trump is an enigma making bold statements with no detail. I get it, many hate HRC so much that they are willing to accept the mystery box that allows them to fill in their own context. Detailing specific policies is now taboo because it means yielding your negotiating power. To me that's a rationalization that absolves a supporter from holding your own candidate accountable. These were were the same accusations hurled at Obama supporters and had merit.

 

[Joe Fan]

heh

 

[theiioftx]

HRC vows "comprehensive immigration reform" in first 100 days with no specifics. She does plan to promote Obama's executive orders that directly violate federal law.

On the other hand, Johnson is for open borders.

Forgive me for liking Trump' specifics better than the alternatives. From the speeches after the meeting, it sure sounded like the Mexicans know the border is a problem, that NAFTA needs improvements and that both countries need to protect its citizens from foreign illegal immigrants and drug cartels.

 

[mchammer]

And what are Trump's policies to change that? What does he intend to DO? Build a wall? Is that a policy? Deport 11 million, errr thousands of immigrants? Renegotiate NAFTA? How so? WHAT is wrong with NAFTA?

If I sound like I'm frustrated by the acceptance of applause lines as policy I am. Trump is an enigma making bold statements with no detail. I get it, many hate HRC so much that they are willing to accept the mystery box that allows them to fill in their own context. Detailing specific policies is now taboo because it means yielding your negotiating power. To me that's a rationalization that absolves a supporter from holding your own candidate accountable. These were were the same accusations hurled at Obama supporters and had merit.

Find a transcript of the speech. I believe there was a 10 pt plan, though I'm going to proactively assume that might not be enough detail for you.

 

[Brad Austin]

As Trump said the immigration reform conversation should be centered around strengthening policies and laws that best benefit the American citizens.

Mexico's citizens are illegally here, not ours. The Mexican prez even said it's his job to look out for Mexican citizens both home and abroad.

So why in the world would the American prez break our own laws to illegally accommodate other people's citizens when it directly harms our own?

Easy answer...future votes and staying in power...nothing more nothing less.

America has serious problems and it's time for "America First!" to fix them.

HC opened the favor factory for international donors (bribers) with little regard to America's best interest.

She supports sanctuary cities over Americans losing loved ones to preventable crimes coming from illegals she protects in those places.

The lesser of two evils in this one is no contest. Supporting HC after all of her corruption that gets further proven with every email dump is a sickness.

 

[Seattle Husker]

heh

Policy within 140 characters. Move on...nothing to see or question. Believe me.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
You realize even Nieto said changes to NAFTA needed to happen?
Maybe you can ask Nieto what is wrong with NAFTA since you apparently don't see anything wrong.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That assumption is incorrect, IMO.

Trump has avoided stating the means with any specificity. As he should at this point. But he has multiple tools at his disposal. Some might or would require Congressional cooperation, some would not.

Also worthy of consideration is the way Trump is able to manipulate the media with all the "Wall, no Wall" combined with the "Who Pays" issue. I think they know what he is doing, but they keep sliding into same pattern.

I'm sure their assumption is incorrect. Between this and his scattered rhetoric on deportation and foreign policy, it's like he's speaking in code to his supporters to tell them what he'll actually do. If you don't "speak Trump," he's speaking over your head.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The key word is "negotiate." He went from $30 million to $5 billion because he can negotiate. Negotiating with Mexico will be a light snack for Trump since the US has all the leverage over Mexico.

Do you think negotiating trade deals is the same or substantially similar to negotiating real estate deals?

 

[theiioftx]

Do you think negotiating trade deals is the same or substantially similar to negotiating real estate deals?

Actually, effective negotiation strategy is relatively the same regardless of what you are negotiating. Yes, trade deals are substantially more complex, but the way we have done them over the years have been less than optimal for the common good of the US.

For example, the Iran deal is an excellent example of what not to do. Kerry and Obama openly stated a deal had to get done. Without holding a position of walking away if you do not get what you want, you will never effectively negotiate. We seem to do a lot of that.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Actually, effective negotiation strategy is relatively the same regardless of what you are negotiating.

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night? Just kidding. I think that's a vast oversimplification though. Negotiating a building is a single threaded process compared to a multi-nation trade deal. I don't think they are in the same stratosphere when considering the immense number of influences (e.g. trade organization, corporations, etc.). Trade deals can take as much as a decade to complete and occur over multiple administrations. Simplifying it to "walking away" just because you don't get exact deal you want is an oversimplification. Walking away from a real-estate deal is easy knowing other cities and properties exist. How do you swap out Mexico as a trading partner?

 

[theiioftx]

My point is that negotiating is a process with integral steps that must be followed. Yes, these trade deals are complex and take time. However, if America negotiated properly from the position of power, it could do much better in these deals. We lost too much in manufacturing and jobs as a result of NAFTA. We gained some in exports, but overall Mexico and Canada came out better than the United States. We should revise the agreement to create more US jobs. As I mentioned before, I thinking building a wall is unnecessary, but could be incorporated into a newly revised trade agreement.

Mexico is very fortunate to share a border with the world's super power. They can live free of worry that any foreign country would invade them. Unfortunately, they are corrupt. Their greatest danger comes from within and threatens the security of the United States.

And for the record, I am a Marriott guy.

 

[Joe Fan]

HRC vows "comprehensive immigration reform" in first 100 days with no specifics. She does plan to promote Obama's executive orders that directly violate federal law......

According to her website, Hills will make Obamacare available to illegals.

This is something Obama swore up and down would never happen. He even said it during one of his SOTO's, dismissing his critics on this point with his usual smug, smirkiness. He was, in turn, heckled somewhat at the time. The word "lie" was even heard. The hecklers were, in turn, put through the ringer on all the talk shows and by the late night comedians.

Yet here we are.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I don't know why y'all try to argue with SH. He voted for BHO twice but complains that Trump does not give any specifics - I'm done. He's a Dem true-believer and cannot be won over to your side.

 

[Joe Fan]

I'm sure their assumption is incorrect. Between this and his scattered rhetoric on deportation and foreign policy, it's like he's speaking in code to his supporters to tell them what he'll actually do. If you don't "speak Trump," he's speaking over your head.

His speech last night in Arizona offered sufficient specifics for a campaign.
He had a 10 point plan, with varying degrees of detail on each point.
If you watched the speech, you already know this. IMO, he offered plenty of red meat to reel conservatives back into to the original core issue of his campaign. He also quickly shut down all the wanky talk that he was suddenly flip-flopping on amnesty.
If you did not watch it, then my friendly suggestion is to hold off criticizing it until you do. Otherwise, it's like saying you hate a book that you never actually read.

It was a broad speech that covered alot of ground. In fact he offered so much, I think he can simply drop this issue completely now. There is no need to say anything else (at least until it comes back up during the debates). Drop it cold and move on directly to the economy. Start hammering that.

 

[mb227]

How do you swap out Mexico as a trading partner?

You forget that the counter to that question is how does Mexico swap out the United States as a trade partner.

Nobody has claimed that business deals were necessarily apples to apples with trade agreements, but negotiation is negotiation. The reason some take far longer is not always due to the complexity of the deal but rather the incompetence of one or more parties involved IN the equation...

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don't know why y'all try to argue with SH. He voted for BHO twice but complains that Trump does not give any specifics - I'm done. He's a Dem true-believer and cannot be won over to your side.

And I voted for Bush in 2000 and Perot in '94. I'm blasting Trump because he's the worst POTUS candidate since Monroe, IMHO. There is a very good chance I'll vote for Gary Johnson.

 

[Joe Fan]

I am willing to admit all the talk of the Wall and how much it will cost and who is going to pay for it is a bit of misdirection.

First, of all, our Govt. spends so much money already that adding the cost of a wall would be a teeny percentage of the overall budget.

I think that instead, what Trump is doing with the wall talk is genius. I know some of you will immediately recoil at that, no matter the facts, but here is what I mean. This country has an immigration issue. a huge one. And has for decades. There are all sorts issues at play. But the the media ignores it. They just refuse to talk about it. On the rare occasion they do, it is almost always a story about human rights abuse (possibly even death) of the persons crossing the border. That's it. There is almost never any discussion of the tremendously high costs to the US caused by this issue.

But Trump has done the impossible. His wall issue has forced the media to talk about it. The details of The Wall really dont matter. What does matter is that they are discussing it, every night. He is manipulating them by forcing making them talk about something they would rather ignore and hide from. I think this partially explains the generalized in which he speaks about The Wall. He realizes that it really doesnt matter what they say, as long as they are saying something. Trump might not be "driving the narrative," but he is forcing the topic. By doing this, he is outwitting both the media and all the other politicians (in the future, there will be entire Poli Sci classes devoted to the study of the Trump).

Look at was has happened as a result. The proof is right in front of you. He has more than the TV talking heads and newspapers talking about immigration, he has the entire country talking about immigration. (as an example, I ate local Mexican food last night, and his speech was on all the TVs. And folks were watching it). This is something that probably no one else could have accomplished. From my perspective, it is a remarkable feat.

Before Trump got into this race, they all just paid it lip service to immigration. No one was actually going to do anything. They have been saying they would deal with it for a long time but never have. As some of you know well, the wall (or part of it) was actually funded by Congress pre-Obama. But, of course, only a tiny section actually got built.

How has this all happened? My simple take is that campaigns are expensive and in order to run one, you need money. The people rich enough to fund campaigns and who were willing to give it to you, want cheap labor. They want it for their multi-national corporations. They also want good, cheap nannies and yard workers. And as long as they controlled politicians via the purse strings, nothing was ever going to happen. Or, if anything did happen, it would be even worse than what we have now.

So, along comes a guy rich enough to self-fund, who does not take money from Billionaire-Globalists (because he does not want to owe them anything), and the whole political scene gets turned upside down. The people actually have a voice now. This Trump moment right now could be huge in historical terms. It could change the entire system. We will see.

One of the greatest amusement to me of this campaign, among so many, is how Trump has turned all the people who say they want money out of politics into babbling hypocrites. All those people who have cursed and bemoaned Citz. United have suddenly gone silent. Trump has taken money out of politics, at least on one side, and they still hate it! They hate it even more now than they did before! And, you know what they say about haters.

 

[I35]

Do you think negotiating trade deals is the same or substantially similar to negotiating real estate deals?

Deez, what is your standard that a presidential nominee needs to have to be considered to have a good or great negotiation skills? I would argue that there has never been a President that have been trained to have better negotiating skills than Trump in modern history going into their first presidential election. Do you think senators or congressman get that kind of training? Or Governors? None of them have their own money riding on anything. If they're wrong it's the tax payers that pay the bill. Which means they tend to give up a lot because it's not out of their pocket if they are wrong.

Do you think Obama or Hillary is or was ready to negotiate? The Iran deal alone shows you just how bad they are. How about the presidents before? Why are we getting the short in of all the trade deals with other countries? They didn't even act like we had any leverage when we have all the leverage. Why did we give up 5 terrorist for one guy that was a traitor? We all have had to stratch our heads before wondering WTH because of the idiots in Washington. You give them the benefit of doubt? Why do we send so much money to these nations that hates us and would kill us at first chance?

Your hate towards Trump really clouds your judgment. You lose all objectivity when the name Trump is involved.