General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

iatrogenic said:
JF, you do have some funny posts....

While watching this blatantly biased media coverage favoring Hillary, it is difficult to ignore the damage they may be doing to the liberal voters they favor. If Hillary wins and continues with the same Obama agenda, it is difficult to see any reason for improvement in "income disparity", black unemployment, education, fewer welfare recipients, GDP growth, ease of running a business (b/c of more regulation), national security, the U.S. standing among other nations, or improvement in the health insurance market. It is ironic that by helping Hillary win, the media actually hurts the liberal voter.

I could see how new regulations, executive orders, and supreme court changes would help the transgendered bathroom cause and other fringe movements, increase the national debt, reduce the right to keep and bear arms, and continue the terrible immigration policies currently in effect, but honestly, what has she proposed that would solve any of our country's problems?
Click to expand...

I think most people are cynical about Obama and don't support Hillary because they think she has good ideas. If you look her website, she does have a policy agenda of sorts, but she's not really running on it. Furthermore, nobody's really impressed by it. She's running on Trump being a crackpot and her not being one.
 
What a disaster!!!!!, part whatever:

Clinton +2 in a number of traditional national polls,

Florida - basically tied

Hey Deezer, note how the traditional polls are approaching the LA Times and other survey polls. The gap is like 3 pts now instead of 6 pts. I guess I already won the argument?
 
mchammer said:
What a disaster!!!!!, part whatever:

Clinton +2 in a number of traditional national polls,

Florida - basically tied

Hey Deezer, note how the traditional polls are approaching the LA Times and other survey polls. The gap is like 3 pts now instead of 6 pts. I guess I already won the argument?
Click to expand...

What argument have you won?
 
Phil Elliott said:
Please stop beclowning yourself. You have no idea how he treats him employees anymore than I do. If they are treated so badly, CNN would have them lined up to tell their awful stories on the air 24x7. Instead we get nothing on that front. Ditto all the women who he supposedly sexually denigrates - where are they???

The federal government spends like 5 drunken sailors on their last shore leave ever. Some sort of fiscal responsibility would be nice for a change. If you think that is asking for "the people" to be screwed over, I cannot reason with you.
Click to expand...

Fiscal responsibility? He's filed bankruptcy 4 times. Through the bankruptcy proceedings, we know he took 10's of millions in debt out of the Trump Taj Mahal while it was failing to use elsewhere. Wait, he's suggested our Federal Government should declare bankruptcy. Maybe you do want him to treat our government like his businesses.
 
Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary Clinton today. This, a day after stating "Donald Trump is no Republican and certainly no Conservative". That's the first time since 1968 they've endorsed a Democrat.

“We have no interest in a Republican nominee for whom all principles are negotiable, nor in a Republican Party that is willing to trade away principle for pursuit of electoral victory,” the editorial concluded. “Trump doesn’t reflect Republican ideals of the past; we are certain he shouldn’t reflect the GOP of the future. Donald Trump is not qualified to serve as president and does not deserve your vote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...orse-trump-for-president-227761#ixzz4JabZMx8p
Click to expand...

I think I'll make this my tagline: "Donald Trump is not qualified to serve as president and does not deserve your vote." - Dallas Morning News 9/6/16"
 
Seattle Husker said:
Fiscal responsibility? He's filed bankruptcy 4 times. Through the bankruptcy proceedings, we know he took 10's of millions in debt out of the Trump Taj Mahal while it was failing to use elsewhere. Wait, he's suggested our Federal Government should declare bankruptcy. Maybe you do want him to treat our government like his businesses.
Click to expand...

Even if you give him a pass on his business record, his proposals are fiscally irresponsible. There isn't even a pretense of fiscal conservatism in them.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Even if you give him a pass on his business record, his proposals are fiscally irresponsible. There isn't even a pretense of fiscal conservatism in them.
Click to expand...

According to the Dallas Morning News, there isn't a pretense of conservatism, period.

Regarding the fiscal issues, it's surprising how much he and HRC align on spending with the only difference being Trump has to go "bigger" on nearly every issue. HRC has proposed a $250B investment in infrastructure...Trump, double that. On the military, both want to "rebuild the military" yet neither has put forth any specific numbers. One is much more bombastic about it and infers a large investment. Any idea which candidate? Oh...the wall? Immigration? Taxes? On virtually every issue Trump is more fiscally irresponsible than his Democratic challenger. Let that sink in for one moment...
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
What argument have you won?
Click to expand...
Add +3 to the traditional polls in favor of Trump when the spread between them and the survey polls was approx. 6 pts. It appears the pollsters adjusted their methods or people started to become more truthful to pollsters (vs anonymous surveys).
 
"Not a pretense of conservativism"?? Where do these people come from?

For starters, [Trump senior economic advisor Stephen] Moore said, major cabinet-level agencies should be eliminated. Walton asked him specifically about eliminating the departments of Commerce, Education and Energy. Together, these agencies employ an estimated 150,000 people, and they oversee things ranging from nuclear security to federal student loans to the U.S. patent system.

“I’m going to press as hard as possible to [eliminate the agencies],” Moore said. “We’re putting a budget together right now that is going to not only pay for the tax cut, but balance the budget in six or seven years. And to do that, you’ve got to make very significant cuts in those kinds of programs.

“I mean, my God, why do we need an Energy Department?” Moore asked, semi-exasperated. “All the Energy Department has done in the last 25 years is make energy prices more expensive!”
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-economic-plan_us_57c9dc5ce4b0e60d31df29ae

I am sure HuffPo is aghast at such a suggestion, but cutting that kind of bureaucracy is very much inline with conservative small-government principles.
 
Phil Elliott said:
"Not a pretense of conservativism"?? Where do these people come from?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-economic-plan_us_57c9dc5ce4b0e60d31df29ae

I am sure HuffPo is aghast at such a suggestion, but cutting that kind of bureaucracy is very much inline with conservative small-government principles.
Click to expand...

This was been discussed ad nauseum. Eliminating the Commerce, Education and Energy departments sounds good but what does that mean? You could eliminate all 3 and only get to 50% of his singular proposal for infrastructure investment.

Budgets:
Commerce: $60.9B (2015)
Energy: $27B (2013)
Education: $73B (2016)

Assuming they haven't changed dramatically, that would save us all a little north of $150B. Have you looked at Trump's spending proposals? Nearly every economic analysis is not favorable to his proposals. His tax plans alone would cost trillions in increased debt. $500B infrastructure proposal. Military? "Massive investment" was what he stated yesterday.

Meanwhile, look into those departmental budgets and you'll see some important stuff. DOE funds nearly federally funded physical science research. They also protect our nuclear weapons and energy programs including disposal of waste. Commerce? Who needs a census? How about the Office of the Inspector General that audits and investigates the other departments? Yep, sits in the Dept. of Commerce. Education? Cut federal student loan program? That would be ******* insane.

There is plenty of pork to cut but what Trump is claiming and what is possible doesn't remotely say "fiscal conservatism".

An interesting fact about the Department of Education since it was founded in 1977. It's greatest increases in funding came in 1994 when Newt Gingrich lead his budget "revolution" and under George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind".
 
Seattle Husker said:
Dallas Morning News endorsed Hillary Clinton today. This, a day after stating "Donald Trump is no Republican and certainly no Conservative". That's the first time since 1968 they've endorsed a Democrat.



I think I'll make this my tagline: "Donald Trump is not qualified to serve as president and does not deserve your vote." - Dallas Morning News 9/6/16"
Click to expand...

SH, I'm not going to disagree or even play Devil's Advocate here, but many are advancing a narrative that the Morning News is some big conservative newspaper endorsing Clinton, which isn't necessarily true as most would define it.

I had to do a pretty comprehensive study on the Morning News endorsements for a state rep back in the '90s, and there's a little more to their viewpoint than conservatism. Their real principle is that they're very pro-old Dallas money and establishment. If you're a liberal who is favored by that crowd, they'll endorse you and will do so over a conservative who's not favored by that crowd.
 
Phil Elliott said:
"Not a pretense of conservativism"?? Where do these people come from?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-economic-plan_us_57c9dc5ce4b0e60d31df29ae

I am sure HuffPo is aghast at such a suggestion, but cutting that kind of bureaucracy is very much inline with conservative small-government principles.
Click to expand...

First, he won't get rid of those agencies. Second, they're chump change. Third, whatever savings he gets from them is more than negated by his opposition to entitlement reform. If you oppose entitlement reform, you aren't a conservative.
 
Hey Deezer,

Clinton is only up 4 pts in NJ and 3 pts in RI. If NJ and RI are competitive, then Clinton must be in big trouble (to borrow one of your talking points).
 
mchammer said:
Hey Deezer,

Clinton is only up 4 pts in NJ and 3 pts in RI. If NJ and RI are competitive, then Clinton must be in big trouble (to borrow one of your talking points).
Click to expand...

If she really is only up 3 points in RI, then she is in trouble. I don't buy that. I also don't buy that she's up by 1 in Texas.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't buy that. I also don't buy that she's up by 1 in Texas.
Click to expand...

There's no way she's up in Texas. I swear they play with the polls to make them what they want. It's a good way to say "hey look, more like Hillary than Trump so it's completely normal to think that way too." I really do believe on election day that it won't be such a surprise that Trump wins. But by how much will be shocking news. We are told by every direction that it's Hillary by a lot or Donald in a close win. But the people are angry on both sides. Trump will win big I think.
 
Funny how the never Trumpers have become skeptical of the polls once the race tightened. Note the Trumpers were skeptical from the beginning. Bottom line: the polls are bunk this year (regardless of the direction of the lean).
 
mchammer said:
Funny how the never Trumpers have become skeptical of the polls once the race tightened. Note the Trumpers were skeptical from the beginning. Bottom line: the polls are bunk this year (regardless of the direction of the lean).
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're referring to me or not, but I've long said that the electorate is too polarized for a blowout at least in the popular vote. I said that even when the polls were showing big leads for HRC, and I still say that now. Trump isn't going to swing RI by 24 points, nor will he swing NJ by 14 points. Hillary isn't going to swing Texas by 17 points.
 
On the military, both want to "rebuild the military"
Click to expand...

For what war? Are we planning on fighting aliens from outer space? Why can't we decrease military spending and fund NASA or try to decrease our national debt or something?

Ironically, our biggest national security threat is bankrupting ourselves with needless, wasteful military spending.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't know if you're referring to me or not, but I've long said that the electorate is too polarized for a blowout at least in the popular vote. I said that even when the polls were showing big leads for HRC, and I still say that now. Trump isn't going to swing RI by 24 points, nor will he swing NJ by 14 points. Hillary isn't going to swing Texas by 17 points.
Click to expand...
Generally the never Trumpers were using the polls to justify themselves. By the way, Marc Levine just announced that he was voting for Trump after months of saying the opposite. Like I said, in due time, GOP will unite against Hillary.
 
Htown77 said:
For what war? Are we planning on fighting aliens from outer space? Why can't we decrease military spending and fund NASA or try to decrease our national debt or something?

Ironically, our biggest national security threat is bankrupting ourselves with needless, wasteful military spending.
Click to expand...

I don't buy this "rebuild the Navy" crap. If we need to rebuild anything it's our war weariness. Our military is burned out and needs a break. That doesn't take money though. We need to limit our military interventions.
 
We need two more aircraft carriers and about 50 more support ships. If we don't maintain our strength, China will attack us and Taiwan (which we have a defense treaty). Defense now means lesser chance of war with China.
 
Gracious me I agree with SH! Our troops are truly war, or deployment, weary. It's getting absurd with what we are asking them to do and then expecting them to return and blend right back with 'normal' civilian life. Then the care they get at the VA sucks, pathetic, just pathetic.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Number of Aircraft Carriers by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...untry#Numbers_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

We need more?
:idk:
Click to expand...
Seattle, I don't know if we "need" more. But here are some thoughts.

Here's my perspective. Applying an analysis saying we have 10x more carriers than the next guy...why do we need more? Ignores several realities.

First, the current world order is unipolar with the United States as the sole superpower. Being the sole superpower is expensive, but it's an investment that saves lives. To have the power to call the shots and dictate the terms of battle, to have the flexibility and resources to decide when to and when not to fight saves lives. Let me put it this way...France, England, Russia, China...would LOVE to even consider whether 10 carrier strike groups was too expensive. We're fortunate that capitalism has provided us with a strong economy for our people to enjoy while also paying for the shield to protect their freedom.

Now, our position as the sole superpower is slipping. China and Russia are both engaging in a carrier building program. If China or Russia had just 5 carriers to control sea lanes and project power in their region, something completely possible, it would put our allies, our interest, and our people at much greater risk. With lives and national security at risk, this isn't just a matter of having a little more than the next guy - being a little better, it's about controlling the fight.

Second, threats we currently face today are asymmetric. The United States military, for reasons stated above, is not an asymmetric force. And while we have evolved our special forces capability to take on these threats...the power of carrier strike groups are a major force multiplier to our grunts. The ability to put a carrier off the shore of any country and provide immediate close air support, reconnaissance, search and rescue within 24 hours for our grunts on the ground is huge. You can't do that with Air Force assets. That requires foreign country clearance, treaties for bases, refueling, etc. The air support from Naval aviation saves lives. And we can do that because right now we have 10 carrier strike groups. Taking that down to like 8 severely reduces that capability. There are always carriers getting refitted/nuclear refueled (which takes several years), in workups to certify for deployment, or just getting back from deployment, etc. It would mean either carrier gaps or at sea deployments in excess of 9 months. Is the prospect of no immediate air support for special forces or troops in case of a major contingency digestible to the American people?

Third, cost of the craptastic F-35 aside, I think the evolution in UAV technology, weapon systems, and ship automation will eventually make the cost of buying and operating 10 or 12 carriers realistically about 80% of what it currently takes in real dollars. Now...to get there means we fix the f'd up procurement system. But that's not a technology or finance issue...that's a political issue.
 
Last edited:
nashhorn said:
Gracious me I agree with SH! Our troops are truly war, or deployment, weary. It's getting absurd with what we are asking them to do and then expecting them to return and blend right back with 'normal' civilian life. Then the care they get at the VA sucks, pathetic, just pathetic.
Click to expand...

If our military is deployment weary, then shouldn't we be reinforcing it with additional troops and equipment? A common response is that we should stop fighting wars and let our troops recover. However, this assumes that we're fighting wars that are optional rather than as a last resort. If that's true, then we've got bigger problems.

Certainly some of our military is weary, but I think our public is much wearier. If we had to go fight a major war (much bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan) tomorrow, our military would be fine. The public is who would get weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top