General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

[theiioftx]

LOL - she hate you

What I truly do not understand about HRC supporters. She has been exposed as a liar and manipulator of the electorate. She is on record showing utter disrespect for the people who vote for her. Yet, she can count on the votes. Either she is correct - her supporters are idiots - or they simply do not care as long as she gives them their benefits.

 

[mchammer]

It's all about mind control with the dems

 

[Clean]

I'm afraid Trump has dug too deep of a hole this time. The Democratic Dirt Machine has destroyed him, much as it did Romney last time (dog on the roof, 47%ers, etc.). My wife and two daughters are now going to either not vote or vote for Shrillery.

It's amazing that while the Clinton's are the real criminals, they've been able to paint themselves as slightly better people than Trump. Of course, it helps to have the main stream media working overtime for you, exposing Trump's dumbassery while ignoring real crimes like Benghazi, Bill's sex capades, Hillary's email scandal, the Clinton Foundation scandal, etc.

 

[Phil Elliott]

"you'd be in jail" - more of this, please.

 

[Horn6721]

Clean
What do your wife and daughters say when you try to discuss how Hillary has treated us,lied to us and exposed our security?

 

[Mr. Deez]

He was handed a SCOTUS question on a platter
He should have been ready to go with that one -- it was a chance for complete annihilation.
But he choked. He did mention Scalia and his list of names but then just bumbled everything after that

To be clear, I don't think he did especially well. He managed to change the subject away from the 2005 recording, and he didn't get his *** totally kicked on policy, mostly because she wasn't particularly strong. Frankly, I think the town hall meeting is a bad format for her, because she can't be anywhere near as scripted, and she's not likable. Furthermore, though most politicians don't like ordinary voters, she's terrible at hiding it.

Nevertheless, Trump did screw up on the SCOTUS issue. However, Republicans are almost always bad at it. They think the "legislate from the bench" slogan is effective, and it's not. Most people don't know what that means, and it's pretty superficial anyway. What Democrats have understood at least since the Bork fiasco is that the politics of the judiciary is nothing more than a proxy for social issues (especially abortion) and to a lesser degree, identity politics. Accordingly, they use it to trap the GOP into arguing extreme and pretty remote situations regarding abortion. If you're a conservative haggling over rape and incest scenarios or defending nationwide abortion bans, you're losing the debate. If you're turning the tables and forcing liberals to defend late term abortion, opposition to parental notification laws, etc., then you're winning the debate.

What typically happens is that liberals falsely claim that conservative judicial picks will lead to a complete ban on abortion. Conservatives usually let that myth perpetuate by not correcting it, and then they redirect the discussion to incoherently tossing out the "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" slogans. What they should do is quickly correct the liberals' lie about the impact of reversing Roe and then point out the reality that liberal judicial nominees routinely adopt a position on abortion that's so extreme that they vote to strike down even the most reasonable restrictions on abortion (and be prepared to discuss specifics if asked). That would make the conservative judicial position on abortion look far more reasonable and moderate (because it actually is) and force the liberals to actually defend their support of what most sane people view as true baby killing.

I don't expect Trump to have the brains or discipline argue this, but future GOP nominees need to learn how to do it.

 

[Joe Fan]

Podesta caught admitting their entire response to Benghazi was just 'tricks'
"Hey, look over there, a squirrel"

And look at how the networks are in bed with them
The media-industrial complex in this country is so corrupt, the only way to save it is to first destroy it

 

[Joe Fan]

What I truly do not understand about HRC supporters. ......

IMO, with them, it is purely about self-interest. Screw the country. Screw everyone else.

Remember the girl from '08?
"Obama gonna pay for my gas in my car"
"Obama gonna pay my mortgage"

 

[Seattle Husker]

To be clear, I don't think he did especially well. He managed to change the subject away from the 2005 recording, and he didn't get his *** totally kicked on policy, mostly because she wasn't particularly strong. Frankly, I think the town hall meeting is a bad format for her, because she can't be anywhere near as scripted, and she's not likable. Furthermore, though most politicians don't like ordinary voters, she's terrible at hiding it.

Nevertheless, Trump did screw up on the SCOTUS issue. However, Republicans are almost always bad at it. They think the "legislate from the bench" slogan is effective, and it's not. Most people don't know what that means, and it's pretty superficial anyway. What Democrats have understood at least since the Bork fiasco is that the politics of the judiciary is nothing more than a proxy for social issues (especially abortion) and to a lesser degree, identity politics. Accordingly, they use it to trap the GOP into arguing extreme and pretty remote situations regarding abortion. If you're a conservative haggling over rape and incest scenarios or defending nationwide abortion bans, you're losing the debate. If you're turning the tables and forcing liberals to defend late term abortion, opposition to parental notification laws, etc., then you're winning the debate.

What typically happens is that liberals falsely claim that conservative judicial picks will lead to a complete ban on abortion. Conservatives usually let that myth perpetuate by not correcting it, and then they redirect the discussion to incoherently tossing out the "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" slogans. What they should do is quickly correct the liberals' lie about the impact of reversing Roe and then point out the reality that liberal judicial nominees routinely adopt a position on abortion that's so extreme that they vote to strike down even the most reasonable restrictions on abortion (and be prepared to discuss specifics if asked). That would make the conservative judicial position on abortion look far more reasonable and moderate (because it actually is) and force the liberals to actually defend their support of what most sane people view as true baby killing.

I don't expect Trump to have the brains or discipline argue this, but future GOP nominees need to learn how to do it.

I don't think the problem is how Republican's talk about their abortion positions but rather the positions themselves. Most liberals could get on board with late-term abortion restrictions but Republicans haven't shown the discipline to stop there. The party platform states plainly "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth." Actions by State legislatures in Texas and others have clearly sought to achieve that end. This carries over to a "test" for their Supreme Court nominees.

 

[Seattle Husker]

IMO, with them, it is purely about self-interest. Screw the country. Screw everyone else.

Ironic that this is stated by the same person posting hacked documents by Russian agents exposed by an organization led by someone that had their own show on Russia Today and has explicitly stated they have a goal of bringing down HRC? In that context, any lecture on who cares more about the USA rings hollow.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What I truly do not understand about HRC supporters. She has been exposed as a liar and manipulator of the electorate. She is on record showing utter disrespect for the people who vote for her. Yet, she can count on the votes. Either she is correct - her supporters are idiots - or they simply do not care as long as she gives them their benefits.

I'd agree if HRC was the only candidate on the ballot. She's not. In all the hatred of HRC some people fail to acknowledge that the other candidates are actually worse. There were good candidates on the R side of the ledger but voters decided to forego those candidates in favor of Trump. That's on them.

 

[Joe Fan]

Hacked emails appear to show HRC campaign spokesman was in close contact with DOJ attorneys during the Hillary investigation
(As an aside, this does not happen. You talk to the other side's attorneys. You do not talk to the party directly. Never. Unless they have no representation)

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
How funny that YOU think exposing Hillary and her campaign's corruption and disregard for our country is somehow a disregard or care for the country.
Most will see exposing how she used her status to line her pockets while lying to us and playing loose with our security as a good thing.
Would you rather the truth about this had not come out?

 

[Clean]

Clean
What do your wife and daughters say when you try to discuss how Hillary has treated us,lied to us and exposed our security?

They don't like either Trump or Clinton, but right now, it's more of an emotional response, not a logical one.

 

[Joe Fan]

Ironic that this is stated by the same person posting hacked documents by Russian agents exposed by an organization led by someone that had their own show on Russia Today and has explicitly stated they have a goal of bringing down HRC? In that context, any lecture on who cares more about the USA rings hollow.

I have never fully been able to wrap my brain around this argument. It is too disjointed to allow an effective response. But at least you are consistent.

So, some general responses --

First, HRC has no proof she was hacked by Russia. They dont know who got this info. It's just something she says to deflect. You should at least be smart enough to see this much. It is more likely it was an inside job. You may recall Snowden or Manning were both inside jobs with the results ending up at Wiki too. You might also recall that one person who might have done the hacking in this case was a US citizen who was mysteriously murdered on the streets on DC.

Next, all of this is largely immaterial because the larger issue is HRC/DNC's subversion of democracy, i.e., their lying, their cheating and their stealing. You obsess about "the hack" itself because it allows you to ignore these bigger issues. Psychologists call this "avoidance."

But you always seem to miss the big picture. Which is, as regards this particular issue --> The only way Americans ever really know what their Govt and its leaders are doing is when someone lifts the veil by stealing their secret communications and then showing them to the rest of us. This is not supposed to be how it works. And this is what should actually be pissing you off instead of the hack.

But, instead, you prefer to trust/believe what politicians say or what the Govt releases and stop there. Your position is that you would rather not know the truth of what they are actually doing. This makes zero sense to me. I dont like that the Obama people constantly make it so easy to hack us. Nonetheless, in most cases, I prefer to know the truth of what the Govt is actually doing (versus what they are publicly saying). I find it so odd that you dont agree.

To Hillary, you are just an everyday American.

 

[Horn6721]

JF
Does this mean that in addition to us Deplorables and those Bernie supporters she hates her supporters?
That could make Husker depressed.

 

[Seattle Husker]

First, HRC has no proof she was hacked by Russia. They dont know who got this info. It's just something she says to deflect.

I'd agree with you if it was simply HRC's campaign. BOTH campaigns have been briefed through intelligence briefings that Russia is behind the hacks. The US Director of National Intelligence has publicly stated that all information points to Russia. "Independent" White Hat organizations have also claimed to have traced this back to Russia. Recognizing those details may be inconvenient for Trump, they are the facts as we know them. If you're looking for the smoking gun for confirmation then you'll never get confirmation. That may be the goal though because other theories (though less likely) have validity as long as there is no smoking gun.

Next, all of this is largely immaterial because the larger issue is HRC/DNC's subversion of democracy, i.e., their lying, their cheating and their stealing. You obsess about "the hack" itself because it allows you to ignore these bigger issues. Psychologists call this "avoidance."

Immaterial? "Chain of custody" doesn't matter to an attorney? If this was an Edward Snowden situation then we could establish chain of custody. We can't remotely do that here and the information from the National Intelligence Agency further clouds the validity of the information. Again, that may be inconvenient but those are the public facts.

These email may be accurate but I'm not going to assume they are given the information above. I do find it hard to believe that any politician or their staff would say "[candidate ]XXXX hates Americans". What you call "avoidance" psychologists also call "confirmation bias".

 

[Htown77]

So I guess this means Hillary's reset button did not work?

 

[Seattle Husker]

So I guess this means Hillary's reset button did not work?

Clearly unless you consider that relations have taken a demonstrable downturn. It's a chicken/egg conversation on whether we could avoid the confrontations in Ukraine and Syria, or at least who "started" it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump is going nuclear on the Republican party with his favorite medium. Will Trump run 3rd party ticket next election? As Ross Perot demonstrated, a "cult of personality" can only drive a 3rd Party so far. None of these tweets screams "Presidential".

 

[Joe Fan]

JF
Does this mean that in addition to us Deplorables and those Bernie supporters she hates her supporters?
That could make Husker depressed.

Speaker of Bernie, there are now more leaks regarded how DNC/HRC/CNN helped to defraud his voters and, in the process, subvert democracy

CNN has always maintained it does not/did not give townhall question to the candidates in advance. OK, but they did give them Donna Brazile, who then gave them to Hillary! The corruption is so thick it's surprising they can even move around

-----------------------------
Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance

From:[email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Date: 2016-03-12 19:41
Subject: Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance
Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer
but can share it.

Betsaida - can you send her answer on death penalty?
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Donna Brazile <[email protected]>
wrote:

Here's one that worries me about HRC.

DEATH PENALTY
19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31
states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people
have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have
been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to
die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states
join the current list and abolish the death penalty?

Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile

-------------------------------------

Clinton was indeed asked about her stance on the death penalty during a CNN-hosted town hall the next day in Columbus, Ohio.

Brazile, as you may know, is the current leader of the DNC. She got that position in July after Wiki-DNC emails showed Debbie Wasserman Schultz was in the tank for Clinton and biased against Sanders. Brazile claimed throughout the primaries that she was a neutral commentator regarding Clinton and Sanders (she is clearly a liar) -- “I’ve maintained my neutrality, and that’s very important to me as an officer, but I want to say how incredibly important his campaign, I think, has been this entire political season,”

This stuff is indefensible.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
You say both campaigns have been briefed by intelligence that the Russians are behind the hacks.
I did not know that. Can you provide a source?

 

[Joe Fan]

... The US Director of National Intelligence has publicly stated that all information points to Russia.....

No ones knows who did it. Hackers know how to make it look like someone else did it. This is dumb.

... Immaterial? "Chain of custody" doesn't matter to an attorney? ...

What is immaterial is that you went from "Voters vote in their own self interest" to "Russians hackers did it!" Was that supposed to make sense?

What is further immaterial is how we got the info. What is material is the substance contained in that material - the corruption of Clinton and DNC, their lies, the subversion of democracy and the possible crimes. Your focus on the act of the hack allows you to ignore the crimes and other outrageous behavior that the hacks reveal. You are focused on the wrong things.

Or rather you are being told to focus on them.
Here is Glenn Greenwald on this very topic "In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots"
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11...nconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is another example of how Hillary takes different positions in public and private

Here, according to leaked details of one of her private speeches, she sounds alot like an everyday American with regard to letting refugees from Syria into the US.

Good God she is such a lying hypocrite

 

[Phil Elliott]

The fix is so clearly in from all sides against Trump, especially WRT DNC-MSM collusion, I can vote for him for that reason alone. He has all the right enemies for me to actually like him. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, indeed.

 

[Phil Elliott]

And the RINOs like McCain and Ryan are showing themselves to be exactly who we thought they were. Establishment GOPers are in bed with the Dems and want the same things they do - more money, more power. Just think of how an HRC election would help the GOP in the mid-terms.

 

[Brad Austin]

Those tweets sound very presidential to me considering the garbage leadership the last 8 years. We'd finally have a leader who fights back and doesn't put up with corrupt, hypocritical, political bs and agendas.

More presidential than Obama's cuckholding to aggressive foreign leaders and constant apologizing for our powerful role in the world.

Paul Ryan is a turncoat who's done nothing but sell out since taking power. The guy just bent over and agreed to fully fund every illegal program on Obama's agenda.

He funded sanctuary cities. Demanded no increased refugee vetting rules while funding greater expansion of the program.

They didn't demand one single thing the base put them there for and instead green lighted BO's agenda in full. Ryan can kiss the base's arse.

 

[Seattle Husker]

No ones knows who did it. Hackers know how to make it look like someone else did it. This is dumb.

This is how the conspiracy theory overrides the evidence at hand. Like I said, your insistence on the smoking gun allows you to disregard the evidence. Try to discredit the known evidence leaving room to introduce a theory that has no evidence to advance an agenda. Welcome to Brietbart 101.

What is immaterial is that you went from "Voters vote in their own self interest" to "Russians hackers did it!" Was that supposed to make sense?

Where did that tangent come from? I can understand how you'd be confused if you are trying to conflate separate topics. I'm not sure how you blame that on me.

What is further immaterial is how we got the info.

How does that work in a court? "The source of this video doesn't matter but it clearly shows the plaintiff shooting the victim so we must convict."

What is material is the substance contained in that material - the corruption of Clinton and DNC, their lies, the subversion of democracy and the possible crimes. Your focus on the act of the hack allows you to ignore the crimes and other outrageous behavior that the hacks reveal.

Establishing accuracy of the evidence is important before you convict. Not sure why that is so hard for a lawyer to understand. Are all your clients "guilty until proven innocent"? You clearly want to skip over verifying accuracy because this information conforms to what you want it to be. Per your own admission, we don't KNOW who the hacker is so would you admit that it could be tampered with? Does that matter in your rush to use it as a weapon?

 

[Joe Fan]

Where did that tangent come from? I can understand how you'd be confused if you are trying to conflate separate topics. I'm not sure how you blame that on me.

Directly from your post above on this page -- if you cant rmbr what you wrote, how are the rest of us supposed to?

IMO, with them, it is purely about self-interest. Screw the country. Screw everyone else.

Ironic that this is stated by the same person posting hacked documents by Russian agents exposed by an organization led by someone that had their own show on Russia Today and has explicitly stated they have a goal of bringing down HRC? In that context, any lecture on who cares more about the USA rings hollow.

 

[Joe Fan]

How does that work in a court? "The source of this video doesn't matter but it clearly shows the plaintiff shooting the victim so we must convict."

The way it works in this case is that they are not denying that these are their own emails. So, I say "admission against interest." Even if tacit, its still an admission.

I did see one objection that the leaked emails were incomplete. If Hillary wants to correct the record on this point, she can easily do so by giving us the parts she thinks were left out. I am sure everyone would welcome a brief moment of honesty from her. Do you think she will do that?