General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

[Mr. Deez]

It's only tragic if you're a person who believes that moderates don't deserve to get shut out of the GOP primary process. Like I said earlier, there are church-going moderates out there who might not be in lock-step with the platform on gay marriage and actually funding federal agencies like the Departments of Education and Commerce and HUD. These people can win a national election. They can't win an Alabama primary where the main selling point is a wall.

The moment Tea Partiers realize that Joe Fan's prediction of utter demise for the foreseeable future might come to fruition, they'll abandon the Alex Jones and Breitbart crazies and start to support socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative, less-government-is-only-good-if-we-keep-promises-government, intelligent critical thinkers of the non-mainstream GOP and actually win some national elections.

The sad thing is that they don't even have to support a social moderate. John Kasich and Marco Rubio are social conservatives and would be on their way to victory had either won the nomination. The Right labels them social moderates because they don't act like sanctimonious jerks and disrespect people who see things differently than they do. That doesn't make them moderates. It just makes them not ********.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So this was predictable. I35, Joe Fan, et al., I'll give you the obligatory "the media is biased and unfair." It's true. They're not giving a platform to Juanita Broaderick or Kathleen Wiley, and to the extent those women are discussed at all, it's with strong skepticism and suspicion. That was true even when those stories were new back in the '90s. Yes, that's unfair and hypocritical.

However, do you see why this kind of thing is uniquely damaging regardless of how the media spins it? In a normal situation, a campaign could dismiss these allegations as political and deny them, and it would be up to the people to decide whom they want to believe with neither side having an advantage. That's not the case here. In the case of the woman who says Trump groped her tried to put his hand up her dress, she's claiming he did what he bragged about being able to do back in 2005. The beauty pageant contestants are claiming he did what he has already claimed was a "perk" of being the pageant owner - being able to walk around the dressing rooms and look at the girls "in the buck." It's a lot harder to call them all liars when they're accusing you of doing something you already talk about doing.

 

[Crockett]

So Musburger, as our resident expert on Russia, do you think it's simple altruism that motivates the Russian government to work so hard to get Trump elected?

 

[Crockett]

The state of opposition research in American politics is mind-bogglingly feeble. Why would JEB Bush, for example, a bright and highly qualified man to be president, spend millions on a campaign that didn't comb the public record and out Trump for bragging about being a world class misogynist? Honest to God, if Trump had somehow run for the Flower Mound Town Council, somebody would have dug up that crap.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing Clinton campaign operatives knew all this stuff as soon as it became clear Trump was a serious contender for the nomination... and launched this October surprise at the optimal time to torpedo the Trump campaign.
At least the Trump campaign treats opposition research with appropriate respect. Enlisting the help of the Russian intelligence service and Wikileaks shows a robust approach to what should be a critical component of any campaign and shows, at least, that the Trump organization has some strategic vision.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The state of opposition research in American politics is mind-bogglingly feeble. Why would JEB Bush, for example, a bright and highly qualified man to be president, spend millions on a campaign that didn't comb the public record and out Trump for bragging about being a world class misogynist?Honest to God, if Trump has somehow run for the Flower Mound Town Council, somebody would have dug up that crap.

You're right, and frankly it wouldn't have required much digging. Bush's DWI and the Swift Boat operation required far more effort. However, it's possible that Jeb! did know about this and opted not to run with it. Why not? That goes back to the problem of the Republican primary electorate.

If Bush had come forth with the tapes back then, the impact would have been different. The "locker room talk" excuse would have been far more persuasive in a campaign that was figuratively and almost literally about cock size. Furthermore, Trump would have accused Jeb! of being politically correct (by attacking him for bringing up Trump's supposed political incorrectness as a negative). All the rednecks would have fist pumped for Trump and booed the highfalutin, smart-talkin' Jeb! off the stage.

One other thing, even if the tape would have worked, Trump's voters wouldn't have gone to Jeb! (or any immigration reformer). They would have gone to Cruz.

 

[Musburger1]

The state of opposition research in American politics is mind-bogglingly feeble. Why would JEB Bush, for example, a bright and highly qualified man to be president, spend millions on a campaign that didn't comb the public record and out Trump for bragging about being a world class misogynist?Honest to God, if Trump has somehow run for the Flower Mound Town Council, somebody would have dug up that crap.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing Clinton campaign operatives knew all this stuff as soon as it became clear Trump was a serious contender for the nomination... and launched this October surprise at the optimal time to torpedo the Trump campaign.
At least the Trump campaign treats opposition research with appropriate respect. Enlisting the help of the Russian intelligence service as Wikileaks shows a robust approach to what should be a critical component of any campaign and shows, at least, that the Trump organization has some strategic vision.

Whether it's Wikileaks, a whistleblower, Gucifer, or the Russian government that is responsible for revealing Hillary's criminality I have no idea. But I'm grateful.

Crockett asked if Russian altruism was the cause for Russia's support for Trump. First of all, it's presumptuous to take Clintons assertion that Russia has meddled with the election at face value. Is it in Russia's best interest for Trump to defeat Clinton? Of course.

The US and NATO and Russia are preparing for war. The Russians see war as inevitable if Clinton becomes President. The people advising Trump have obviously convinced him that war with Russia would be disastrous and that diplomacy and negotiation is a better option. Clinton, the Republican establishment, the State Department, and the Pentagon all support some form of the current policy of regime change and American Exceptionalism. This is unacceptable to Russia and they are not backing down. Russia does not wish for war but they will fight if America continues on the present course. In a nutshell, this explains Russia's desire for Trump to win the election.

 

[Clean]

The Russians see war as inevitable if Clinton becomes President.

Not unless she thinks she can conquer Russia with a couple of drone strikes. That was about the extent of her war mongering as Sec. of State. She and Obama just went to bed and wouldn't even save our people in Benghazi from a ragtag group of Islamists.

All she cares about is globalizing the U.S., turning it into a Third World s---hole with waves of immigrants from Mexico, Haiti, S. America, the Middle East, and Africa. Like Obama, she wants to downsize America, so that it's just a pseudo-nation with loosely defined, open borders. I don't think she gives a damn about Russia.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not unless she thinks she can conquer Russia with a couple of drone strikes.

We're not going to accomplish with drones what Nazi Germany couldn't accomplish with 3.5 million troops and thousands of tanks.

By the way, there isn't going to be any war with Russia with either candidate in the White House because the public in the US and other NATO countries would never support such a thing. Putin would have to launch full scale invasions of NATO countries to change that. Despite some of his smack talk, he isn't that dumb.

 

[Joe Fan]

I think some voters hope to survive Clinton and vote for another Republican in 4 years. I would rather survive Trump for 4 years. Matter of taste I suppose.

Even if she wins but is only a one-termer (or less if she dies in office [which seems quite possible]), the effect she will have had on the SCOTUS will render all of that irrelevant.

SCOTUS justices outlive Presidents.

Their rulings last longer and can have a larger effect than whatever one pres may have done (for example, Marbury v. Madison came out in 1803 and it is still the rule we live under, even though it might have been wrong).

The current make-up of the SCOTUS make this election unique. If she wins, Hillary will be able to alter the balance of the Court for the next 20-30 years, possibly longer. Even though we have had 44 Presidents, only a handful of them have had this same chance that she will have this time. History is going to affected, as well as the course of the entire country. The reason for this is that the rulings they will make during that 20-30 years will be unchallengeable. No one will be able to do anything about them. No future election will be able to undo their work.

So, waiting 4 years is not good enough.

 

[Musburger1]

We're not going to accomplish with drones what Nazi Germany couldn't accomplish with 3.5 million troops and thousands of tanks.

By the way, there isn't going to be any war with Russia with either candidate in the White House because the public in the US and other NATO countries would never support such a thing. Putin would have to launch full scale invasions of NATO countries to change that. Despite some of his smack talk, he isn't that dumb.

Your reasoning assumes all players will act rationally. Any rational person understands that escalation between two nuclear powers increases the possibility of a nuclear confrontation, thus surely neither side would do something which would trigger a nuclear exchange.

The sociopathic desire for power can result in an individual valuing power over life itself. If people with such a mentality fear losing control rational thinking goes out the window and any scenario becomes a possibility.

 

[theiioftx]

As long as it is acceptable that the media chooses elected officials, I guess the anti Trump crowd is happy. The USA is crossing over to total disregard of the constitution and HRC will be appointing justices that go along with her above the law view. The justice department and specifically the FBI will guide the way.

But since Trump is an "easy target", "independents" on this board are okay with it. Don't b**ch about the chaos of the rogue government you will experience in the future.

 

[Mr. Deez]

No candidate is getting away with the Access Hollywood comments. You're downplaying the depravity of the comments. The fact that Donald can't simply say "I said it and I was profusely wrong and I apologize" exacerbated the issue. He said that then put a giant ******* BUT on the end of it. BUT it was "lockerroom talk". BUT "Bill Clinton said worse". BUT "ISIS chopping off heads". All the BUT's demonstrate a lack of remorse.

If Trump was a smart candidate and a sincere candidate, he would have needed to get out in front of this issue long ago. I don't expext him to memorize and retract every stupid thing he has said. There are too many of them.

He should have said something along these lines very early on - perhaps even in his announcement speech. "I've been in the public light for a very long time, and I've said some very foolish and hurtful things over the years. Furthermore, I wasn't the husband or man that I should have been. I'm not proud of how I spoke and how I behaved, but I want the American people to know that I'm not that guy anymore and haven't been that guy for several years. However, I have worked very hard to become a successful businessman, and I would like to take the expertise that I have to fix the many problems our country has." If he wanted to discuss his alleged religious conversion as the force that caused him to change his life and attitude, that might also be appropriate.

If he had made a statement like that, it would have inoculated the public from the shock of his idiotic comments over the years when they inevitably would become common knowledge.

Of course the catch is that he wouldn't be able to fake this. He would have actually shed the "Trump Persona." He'd have to act and talk like the strong Christian he claims to be.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The sociopathic desire for power can result in an individual valuing power over life itself. If people with such a mentality fear losing control rational thinking goes out the window and any scenario becomes a possibility.

That would put Putin in the Hitler category that you righteously claim him not to be in.

 

[Joe Fan]

We hear that every election cycle. .....

No election cycle ever has had such an obviously corrupt candidate.
Nixon's wasnt fully known until after the 1972 election. Maybe 1824?

Anyway, we will see what you say once she has her new SCOTUS --
-- Alter redistricting maps all over the country to suit her liking
-- Heller gone (prob followed by some type of Natl Registry, followed by the start of seizures (multiple future Wacos?). Will you be on this list? Will you care then?
-- Citz United gone (maybe their first act -- ironically, no one has benefited from it than her)
-- take down Drudge/Limbaugh via Court/FCC combo
-- Permanently alter parameters free speech (see college campuses for a hint)
-- Further alter 1st A via rendering 'Religious Liberty' meaningless
-- Wave of pro-Govt regulatory powers. This will be YUGE, well beyond the scope of most voters. The Hillary Court will only accept cert. on cases adverse to more Govt reg power (which she will use to circumvent the Congress. Example, she already plans on using Treasury Dept to affect her immigration changes). (Treasury!)
-- Class action rules will be liberalized
-- The NLRB will be allowed to go hog wild
-- Enviro regs will be used to crush energy sector

These are just off the top of my head. Will you accept responsibility for this 6-8 years from now? My guess is not. You will blame someone else. By then, you will be in denial regarding your position in the election of 2016.

 

[Musburger1]

That would put Putin in the Hitler category that you righteously claim him not to be in.

Or Hillary. I'm convinced she is sociopathic. I don't see that trait in Putin.
Putin's career path did not start out politically. He was a KGB agent that became a high level bureaucrat. Yeltsin's people sought him out as a competent replacement for the failed President of Russia.
Hillary has been all about the attainment of power from the beginning. She latched on to Bill Clinton solely to ride his coat tails. Her long-time career has been in "public service" with the goal of reaching the top. And when she gets the Presidency, even that will not be enough.

 

[Horns11]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing Clinton campaign operatives knew all this stuff as soon as it became clear Trump was a serious contender for the nomination... and launched this October surprise at the optimal time to torpedo the Trump campaign.
At least the Trump campaign treats opposition research with appropriate respect. Enlisting the help of the Russian intelligence service as Wikileaks shows a robust approach to what should be a critical component of any campaign and shows, at least, that the Trump organization has some strategic vision.

I think you're probably right. There's an "obviousness" to WaPo being the one to break the Access Hollywood story. Trump attempts to distance himself from their negative coverage and even threaten to deny credentials to them. I don't think that Trump asks for help from Russia... his advisors just read what they say about it and pass the word along to Donald.

-- Alter redistricting maps all over the country to suit her liking
-- Heller gone (prob followed by some type of Natl Registry, followed by the start of seizures (multiple future Wacos?). Will you be on this list? Will you care then?
-- Citz United gone (maybe their first act -- ironically, no one has benefited from it than her)
-- take down Drudge/Limbaugh via Court/FCC combo
-- Permanently alter parameters free speech (see college campuses for a hint)
-- Further alter 1st A via rendering 'Religious Liberty' meaningless
-- Wave of pro-Govt regulatory powers. This will be YUGE, well beyond the scope of most voters. The Hillary Court will only accept cert. on cases adverse to more Govt reg power (which she will use to circumvent the Congress. Example, she already plans on using Treasury Dept to affect her immigration changes). (Treasury!)
-- Class action rules will be liberalized
-- The NLRB will be allowed to go hog wild
-- Enviro regs will be used to crush energy sector

I think you're just looking at the nuclear scenario in which she can possibly do all of these things without a friendly Congress over the course of 4 years (I'm not going to give her the benefit of two terms because I still think the GOP can get its **** together and start looking towards moderates). I think she can do some of it. Not all of it. There's still a chance that the Senate will be 51-49 in favor of the GOP (although the NC seat is looking pretty ripe for the blue taking now), so we can sit on an 8-member court for a while.

Redistricting actually is important to me, as I think many people are getting shut out of the process. The House is probably going to end up with +35 for the GOP despite the 50-50 split that many states will vote. I doubt the SC takes up handguns a la Heller unless there's another travesty law like it challenged. I think the Dems in DC benefit too much from Citizens United to want to challenge it right now. I guess I'd like to see more of what regulatory powers you think the executive branch will try to add.

 

[Joe Fan]

The sad thing is that they don't even have to support a social moderate. John Kasich and Marco Rubio are social conservatives and would be on their way to victory had either won the nomination. The Right labels them social moderates because they don't act like sanctimonious jerks and disrespect people who see things differently than they do. That doesn't make them moderates. It just makes them not ********.

These people could have prevented all of this by getting on the right side of immigration/border enforcement from the outset.
But they did not.
Why?
Either--
(1) they were not smart enough to see it, or
(2) they could not change their position for fear of losing big donor money

Nether of these choices makes them moderate.
It makes them either --
(1) dumb, or
(2) sell-outs
Possibly both
It's their own fault. Dont pass the buck

 

[Joe Fan]

I think you're just looking at the nuclear scenario in which she can possibly do all of these things without a friendly Congress over the course of 4 years ......

We already know from leaks she is plotting to take out Heller
CitzU was about her. What do Clintons do when someone personally goes after them like that?

Here is one more -- like Heller, we also know from leaks that she agrees with the emerging legal theory of reading a "Liveable Minimum Wage" into the language of the 14th A.
Take a moment and think about that.
We have already seen Obama double the deficit from roughly $10T to $20 Trillion

Now answer this -- What do you think having a Constitutional Right of a Minimum Livable Wage will do to the debt?

 

[theiioftx]

I think you're probably right. There's an "obviousness" to WaPo being the one to break the Access Hollywood story. Trump attempts to distance himself from their negative coverage and even threaten to deny credentials to them. I don't think that Trump asks for help from Russia... his advisors just read what they say about it and pass the word along to Donald.



I think you're just looking at the nuclear scenario in which she can possibly do all of these things without a friendly Congress over the course of 4 years (I'm not going to give her the benefit of two terms because I still think the GOP can get its **** together and start looking towards moderates). I think she can do some of it. Not all of it. There's still a chance that the Senate will be 51-49 in favor of the GOP (although the NC seat is looking pretty ripe for the blue taking now), so we can sit on an 8-member court for a while.

Redistricting actually is important to me, as I think many people are getting shut out of the process. The House is probably going to end up with +35 for the GOP despite the 50-50 split that many states will vote. I doubt the SC takes up handguns a la Heller unless there's another travesty law like it challenged. I think the Dems in DC benefit too much from Citizens United to want to challenge it right now. I guess I'd like to see more of what regulatory powers you think the executive branch will try to add.

Who needs congress when you have a pen, phone, and the Supreme Court?

 

[Joe Fan]

.....Redistricting actually is important to me, as I think many people are getting shut out of the process. .....

The Supremes, like Royals, still sit in a position of getting to deem whether certain states' redistricting are to their liking

They have even recently thrown out Republican-drawn congressional maps in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia

Let's say Hillary gets 3-4 SCOTUS noms -- how do you think they will look at R-drawn maps in southern states? I say it's already baked into the cake. Between loose immigration and new Court-drawn districts in the South, I predict that the Rs are going to lose the House for a long time. This may take several or even many years, but this is how one needs to look at Pres elections

 

[Musburger1]

http://thesaker.is/vladimir-putins-interview-with-the-french-tv-channel-tf1-transcript/

Putin recently was interviewed by French media regarding Syria. You can read the transcript of what he said or you can just take the word of the media that his goal is to kill innocent civilians and conquer the free world.

 

[Phil Elliott]

It's their own fault. Dont pass the buck.

Bingo, JF.

 

[Horns11]

Let's say Hillary gets 3-4 SCOTUS noms -- how do you think they will look at R-drawn maps in southern states? I say it's already baked into the cake. Between loose immigration and new Court-drawn districts in the South, I predict that the Rs are going to lose the House for a long time. This may take several or even many years, but this is how one needs to look at Pres elections

You're implying that they SHOULDN'T look at R-drawn maps in states. Courts don't have to draw the districts... they can tell when something doesn't smell right though. States can go back to the drawing board in many instances. State legislatures added a net of 600 GOP members in the 2010-2014 elections because of these "community of interest" redistricting attempts to consolidate minority groups. Don't get me wrong... Democrats would probably try to do the same thing if they had the chance, but this article shows that the vast majority of gerrymandered districts are in favor of the GOP right now.

I don't predict the GOP will lose the House. I predict it'll be closer to the 50-50 split the country currently shows on a national level. I also don't predict that Hillary will get 3-4 SC members in her time as President, especially if the Senate goes 51-49 like I think it will.

 

[mchammer]

Since Trump's campaign is fizzling out, he's starting to attack conservatives more than Hillary Clinton is. They may just not want to back somebody who's attacking them. In addition, if Trump wins (which is pie in the sky at this point), it'll stain the whole party. It's already happening, but it'll be easier to fumigate the place if he loses than if he wins.

He's leading according to Rasmussen.

 

[Horns11]

Nether of these choices makes them moderate.
It makes them either --
(1) dumb, or
(2) sell-outs
Possibly both
It's their own fault. Dont pass the buck

It makes them dumb or sell-outs to the far right. Sure, it's their own fault they don't win primaries. But if the GOP wants relevance, they have a path to achieve it. They're spiting that path because they don't want a member of the executive branch who tries to compromise on issues like immigration.

 

[mchammer]

More stuff on the way for Hillary according to this. Note they say they are not Russians.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Joe and Deez,

Trump was my 2nd to last choice (before Paul) among the GOP contenders. I grudingly accepted his nomination. Two weeks ago, I penned Trump as a narcasicist, but self-aware and transparent narcasict who's narcism is more or less a superficial character weakness of a lot of powerful Type A men. Children are often superb indicators of the real person...and his are upstanding.

Obviously, that is not the case. Like Hillary, he too would not be able to get any regular job after a cursory background investgation given the accusations of sexual assault. Is this as bad as FBI investgations into mishandling of classified material? No, not by a long shot. But still, the statement "Trump is not fit for office," is 100% accurate.

Joe and Deez - how bad would a 4 year Clinton admin impact the SCOTUS? 3-4 noms? Clinton won't win in 2020. Pence, Rubio, Cruz, Haley, Scott, Kasich (yawn)...they would roll her easily. Well...unless she fast tracks path to citizenship for illegals.

How bad would it really be?

The only chance Trump has right now is if Hillary has a public seizure. And that's not really long odds there.

 

[Crockett]

Oh, so the leakers say they are "not Russians" Should we trust them? Maybe we could if they wouldn't mind telling us who they are, what their stake is in this election and while they are at it explain why they have released no embarrassing GOP emails? Given Trump's less than careful talk when clearly in the public eye, it might be really interesting.

 

[theiioftx]

Has HRC or the democrats denied any of the emails as false? Nope. Just blaming the Russians as if it matters who released them. And you buy it.

 

[Crockett]

Oh the emails are politically damaging and diminish my esteem for Hillary and the Democratic party establishment. I see my choice as between one who carefully lies and abuses power and one who lies and abuses power without a second thought.