General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

Seattle Husker said:
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.
Click to expand...


Again, the source of the leaked documents is much less important than what is contained in the documents. This is not (or should not be) hard to grasp.
 
Brad Austin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Deez and I disagreed a while back on this. I said we got the votes to win over the house and senate then they didn't do the job we sent them there for. The GOP establishments are not standing up to Obama. When I brought this up Deez asked me what I'd like them to do? I brought up dismantle Obamacare. But we got side tracked about the discussion about Obamacare. But what Brad just brought up is exactly why Donald Trump is the GOP nominee. They aren't doing their job. They just get bullied over and over and cave to the media as well.
 
It reads like a line out of Idiocracy


Cufxg3NWAAAuoZm.jpg



Idiocracy.jpg
 
Seattle Husker said:
I don't think the problem is how Republican's talk about their abortion positions but rather the positions themselves.
Click to expand...

It's both in general, but I'm talking specifically about the judiciary. There's a difference because of the nature of how the court rulings on abortion work. As you correctly pointed out, the platform takes a hardline approach. However, the Roe decision invalidates state abortion restrictions, and the issue is often discussed as though overturning it would effectively ban abortion, when it wouldn't. It would simply return the issue to the states where other medical, family, and criminal justice issues are decided. Respectfully, I'm not sure why you care what the Texas legislature does. If Washington passes a tough gun control law or allows civil lawsuits against against people who don't want to cater gay weddings, I may think it's bad policy and even lead to injustice from time to time, but I don't think it's my business to tell them that they can't do it.

Seattle Husker said:
Most liberals could get on board with late-term abortion restrictions but Republicans haven't shown the discipline to stop there
Click to expand...

You're a consensus kind of guy, and that's a good thing. The problem is that it doesn't matter if many liberals are willing to compromise on the issue if they appoint hardline radicals to the bench who would strike down compromise legislation. Frankly, the absolute certainty that a Democratic president will always appoint full-blown crackpots (never a moderate) on social issues is the biggest reason why I'd never cross party lines on a presidential election. I may not always back the GOP nominees, but for this reason alone, I'd never vote for the Democrat.

It also doesn't help that the Democratic platform is every bit as hardline as the GOP platform. It didn't used to be, but it has been for the last few presidential cycles.

Seattle Husker said:
This carries over to a "test" for their Supreme Court nominees.
Click to expand...

Which party really has a test? Since Roe was handed down, the GOP has made 9 Supreme Court appointments. Five have supported overturning Roe. It's a majority but barely. I'd hardly call it a test. The Democrats have appointed 4 justices. All have been abortion rights hardliners - consistently vote to strike down all restrictions. The Democrats are the one's who actually have a test. I don't know how much you've followed abortion cases over the years, but the big issue has always been whether Justice Kennedy (and previously Justice O'Connor) would vote with the conservatives. Since Byron White (who was appointed in 1962) there has never any doubt about how a Democratic justice would vote on an abortion case.
 
Clean said:
You didn't say what level (elem., middle, etc.) your school was. Hard to imagine that even at the high school level kids know anything at all about Gary Johnson or Stein, yet they have supporters in your poll.

Hell, the 20-somethings I work with have zero interest in politics. I'll bet the majority of them won't vote. Now, if the election was to name the best video game franchise .......
Click to expand...

Elementary. Meaning this is likely a direct reflection of what they're hearing their parents say. I thought it was interesting that yesterday The Daily Texan posted results almost identical to the two major party candidates. We did have students and parents alike that were asking if the other candidates would be on the ballot as we were promoting the election. We had students register to vote and go through the whole process of getting a voter ID.


mchammer said:
Had nothing to do with the election, I had heard from friends in Austin of parents letting their gendered confused sons wearing make-up to middle school. Was curious this was prevalent or not.
Click to expand...

I'm an elementary teacher and there are no transgendered students at my school.
 
Joe Fan said:
You do not understand chain of custody. You should drop this line.
Click to expand...

Drop it because it clearly demonstrates that the evidence could be corrupted?

Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence.
Click to expand...
 
I35 said:
Deez and I disagreed a while back on this. I said we got the votes to win over the house and senate then they didn't do the job we sent them there for. The GOP establishments are not standing up to Obama. When I brought this up Deez asked me what I'd like them to do? I brought up dismantle Obamacare. But we got side tracked about the discussion about Obamacare. But what Brad just brought up is exactly why Donald Trump is the GOP nominee. They aren't doing their job. They just get bullied over and over and cave to the media as well.
Click to expand...

What sidetracked the discussion is what always sidetracks this discussion. The people who think the GOP should be dismantling Obamacare don't have a political or legislative strategy to get around the veto problem. Presidents don't sign bills that repeal their signature legislative achievements, and if they're not seeking reelection, Congress has pretty much no leverage to force them to do it. The remedy is to put a Republican in the White House. We had a pool of about 17 candidates, and we chose the one who was least likely to win, while rejecting several who could have easily won. Not very smart.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Paul Ryan says he won't defend Trump anymore. Evidently he didn't buy the 59yr old man "locker-room talk" excuse. To most non-Trump voters, that video demonstrates Donald Trump's character, at least those of us with wives, mothers and sisters.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm getting tired of the "locker room talk" excuse. Saying you can do whatever you want to random attractive woman just because of who you are isn't locker room talk. It's sexual assault talk, whether we're talking about the kissing (which he allegedly has done) or about grabbing the genitals. It's sleazy and out of line either way. Also, it may be true that some women are OK with it, but that doesn't make it right. Furthermore, are they really OK with it, or are they going along out of intimidation or fear because a guy like Trump is in a position of power?

There's another angle that hasn't been discussed, and it's the political angle. For the last several years, the Democrats have claimed that the GOP wages a "War on Women" and doesn't respect women, and this feeds right into it. You've got a guy laughing about sexually assaulting women. If you don't take it seriously or dismiss it as "locker room talk," you're feeding right into the narrative. And for what? To try (almost certainly in vain) to help a guy who's not a conservative and is mostly making a piss-poor effort win the Presidency? Even if you have no moral compass on the issue, it's politically foolish, and it'll hurt us long after we get over our party's stupid love affair with Trump.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The remedy is to put a Republican in the White House. We had a pool of about 17 candidates, and we chose the one who was least likely to win, while rejecting several who could have easily won. Not very smart.
Click to expand...

I think the base was agitated and didn't want another Romney or McCain or anyone perceived as a "Washington insider". They were tired of Republicans who aren't much different than Democrats. But, the guy they picked had too many warts and if there's one thing the Dems are good at, it's digging up dirt. With the Media ruthlessly, unabashedly on their side, those warts were bound to be uncovered. I heard that they had the Billy Bush audio since May and waited to spring it as an October surprise.
 
I think the base was agitated and didn't want another Romney or McCain or anyone perceived as a "Washington insider". They were tired of Republicans who aren't much different than Democrats. But, the guy they picked had too many warts and if there's one thing the Dems are good at, it's digging up dirt.
Click to expand...

It would not have mattered who the GOP picked, that person would get the same treatment from the media. If there are not true "warts", the media will make them up. At least Trump fights back. Romney and McCain did not.
 
Clean said:
I think the base was agitated and didn't want another Romney or McCain or anyone perceived as a "Washington insider". They were tired of Republicans who aren't much different than Democrats. But, the guy they picked had too many warts and if there's one thing the Dems are good at, it's digging up dirt. With the Media ruthlessly, unabashedly on their side, those warts were bound to be uncovered. I heard that they had the Billy Bush audio since May and waited to spring it as an October surprise.
Click to expand...

I was never a fan of Romney or McCain (voted Libertarian in 2008), but with Hillary's liabilities, either one of those guys would be on their way to a decisive victory. She's a very poor candidate. We had to shoot incredibly low to make her a favorite. Frankly, the Democrats didn't dig up very much dirt. They didn't have to. Trump's reputation as a misogynistic douche has been well-known for decades. He laid the foundation for that reputation in the '80s and spent the next 25 years reinforcing it through his own actions and immature comments. All the Democrats found was an example that proved the point in very direct, undeniable, and indefensible language.

At some point, voters need to use their brains a little when they vent their frustrations. If I was forced to eat a hamburger every day for six months, I might get frustrated with burgers (Romney or McCain), but I wouldn't pick up a dog turd (Trump) off the sidewalk and start eating it. I'd see if I could hustle a piece of chicken or a pork chop (Rubio, Walker, Kasich, etc.) instead.
 
Phil Elliott said:
It would not have mattered who the GOP picked, that person would get the same treatment from the media. If there are not true "warts", the media will make them up. At least Trump fights back. Romney and McCain did not.
Click to expand...

Guess I wasn't looking but Deez beat me to it.

I don't see ANY way that Kasich, Rubio, etc. would have faced this type of "treatment" (as if covering a damning story about a candidate is treated like schoolyard gossip instead of hard news) because they wouldn't have been in the position that Trump has consistently put himself in.

Christie would have gotten slammed over the bridge thing. Cruz for being annoying. Carson for his comments about gay people and his slow reaction time. And don't pretend that those things aren't "warts" that could affect the outcome of an election. But you wouldn't see anything that compares to what's happened with the media since Friday because none of the other Republican candidates did what he did.
 


Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium (kind of a nerdier version of fivethirtyeight) argues that this election is actually the most stable one in 65 years, since Eisenhower's first election. His EV predictor has basically kept the same position for a lot of the election with little movement.

So odd that as volatile as this election season has been, it's not because of the polling data.
 
Horns11 said:
Guess I wasn't looking but Deez beat me to it.

I don't see ANY way that Kasich, Rubio, etc. would have faced this type of "treatment" (as if covering a damning story about a candidate is treated like schoolyard gossip instead of hard news) because they wouldn't have been in the position that Trump has consistently put himself in.

Christie would have gotten slammed over the bridge thing. Cruz for being annoying. Carson for his comments about gay people and his slow reaction time. And don't pretend that those things aren't "warts" that could affect the outcome of an election. But you wouldn't see anything that compares to what's happened with the media since Friday because none of the other Republican candidates did what he did.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to BS. The media isn't fair to Trump. They take things he says out of context. They basically claim that anything he says that they disagree with is a "lie" and call it "fact-checking." Their attitude toward him is full of double standards and ********. I don't deny that for a second. I also don't deny that they'd be unfair to any Republican presidential nominee. The political media has been dominated by partisan liberal Democrats since at least the New Deal.

The issue is how the Republican Party deals with the political media. Some think the Party should basically nominate the most obnoxious candidate who will give the media as much ammunition as possible. I don't understand that rationale, but some buy into it. I think you should nominate a candidate who acts like a decent human being, while articulating a conservative policy agenda. The media will still crap on him, but their crap will ring hollow. They hated George Bush's guts and Ronald Reagan's guts, but regular Americans never bought their horse crap, because it didn't match what they knew of Bush and Reagan. They are buying their crap on Trump, because it rings true. He has spend decades proving that their characterization is entirely accurate.
 
Last edited:
Horns11 said:
Guess I wasn't looking but Deez beat me to it.

I don't see ANY way that Kasich, Rubio, etc. would have faced this type of "treatment" (as if covering a damning story about a candidate is treated like schoolyard gossip instead of hard news) because they wouldn't have been in the position that Trump has consistently put himself in.
Click to expand...

The media has brutalized Pence too, whom I consider to be a decent, old-school American. I think it was the Late Show that made jokes about Pence being gay and giving BJs to Putin. Seems kind of odd that they slander someone by calling him gay when they are allegedly the party of inclusion.
 
Clean said:
The media has brutalized Pence too, whom I consider to be a decent, old-school American. I think it was the Late Show that made jokes about Pence being gay and giving BJs to Putin. Seems kind of odd that they slander someone by calling him gay when they are allegedly the party of inclusion.
Click to expand...

Of course the media rips Mike Pence. They ripped Dan Quayle in 1988 too. He still won, because the top of the ticket was strong.
 
I'm not going to BS. The media isn't fair to Trump. They take things he says out of context. They basically claim that anything he says that they disagree with is a "lie" and call it "fact-checking." Their attitude toward him is full of double standards and ********. I don't deny that for a second. I also don't deny that they'd be unfair to any Republican presidential nominee. The political media has been dominated by partisan liberal Democrats since at least the New Deal.
Click to expand...

And yet you say that Trump is not losing b/c of the media. It's not ONLY b/c of the media, but it's a component. He, and anyone else in the GOP, has to be good enough to overcome the media bias + the Dem competitor. Y'all say how decent Romney was, but they said he gave a woman cancer, abused his dog, and turned "binders full of women" into a sexual slur. The only reason that was as bad as it got for Romney was because that was enough. If they thought Obama was in any trouble after that, they would have gone further and you damn well know it. At least Trump fires back.

I am just tired as hell of getting our shiite pushed in while our guy stands there blankly and wonders, "Why don't they like me?" If Trump goes down, fine, but at least he will get his shots in. Y'all acting like they would not be flaming anybody else just as bad is ridiculous.
 
Phil Elliott said:
And yet you say that Trump is not losing b/c of the media. It's not ONLY b/c of the media, but it's a component. He, and anyone else in the GOP, has to be good enough to overcome the media bias + the Dem competitor. Y'all say how decent Romney was, but they said he gave a woman cancer, abused his dog, and turned "binders full of women" into a sexual slur. The only reason that was as bad as it got for Romney was because that was enough. If they thought Obama was in any trouble after that, they would have gone further and you damn well know it. At least Trump fires back.

I am just tired as hell of getting our shiite pushed in while our guy stands there blankly and wonders, "Why don't they like me?" If Trump goes down, fine, but at least he will get his shots in. Y'all acting like they would not be flaming anybody else just as bad is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If the media was completely fair to Trump, he would still be losing. Yes, they are unfair to him, but what's really hurting him and what's going to cost him the election is his own mouth. That's what's actually resonating with the public. The media didn't make him say idiotic things.

And cut the crap about the media not "flaming" anybody else. Nobody denies that they would be unfair to another hypothetical Republican nominee as they've been unfair to all Republican nominees since the New Deal, with the possible exception of Eisenhower. That's not the issue at all.
 
Gotta like English TV personality and newspaper columnist Katie Hopkins' attitude: "So Trump is a very flawed human - big deal. I'd rather be grabbed by the p**** than governed by one".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top