General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

Crockett said:
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.
Click to expand...
Trump does not do email, and the GOP did not coordinate with the Trump campaign. Remember when the left was trumpeting Wikileaks? The Clintons made over $200 million since leaving the White House. What are they selling to command that price?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Before we assume the country is irredeemable and predict the apocalypse, I'd like to see the public presented with an alternative who has more maturity and discipline than a 21 year old drunk guy at a strip club.
Click to expand...

Everyone listen to this because I am sick and tired of hearing about the video on the bus. WE are so far past electing someone for their character. Trump has bad character for his words and Clinton has bad character for the thousands of bad actions she has taken in over 30 years of politics. We have to actually start listening to their policies and decide which one is best for America and go VOTE. I really don't agree with a single thing Hillary has said and I really disagree with everything that she is actually saying in private emails about having open borders and such. I actually agree with Trump on most of his policies. And so does the majority of conservatives. Or at least they agree with them much more than they do with Hillary's agenda.

Seriously it is time to start thinking about our country first no matter how much we hate a person for their character. Everything this political season has gone crazy over everything...... and the issues are the last thing mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Clinton has been proven to destroy evidence, rig elections, lie to her constituents and had her husband meet with the AG to negotiate a deal for her crimes. She is for open borders, supports BLM, and plans to expand Obamacare. She offers no plan for addressing the federal debt and proudly takes credit for the Iran nuclear deal.

I will take the drunk 21 year old, but that is me.
 
Prediction: Hillary (and don't say it won't be 8 years because we got 8 for Obama didn't we) then Michelle for 8 more. Open the borders, give illegals the vote, and open the dole floodgates. Just my opinion.
 
theiioftx said:
Clinton has been proven to destroy evidence, rig elections, lie to her constituents and had her husband meet with the AG to negotiate a deal for her crimes. She is for open borders, supports BLM, and plans to expand Obamacare. She offers no plan for addressing the federal debt and proudly takes credit for the Iran nuclear deal.

I will take the drunk 21 year old, but that is me.
Click to expand...

Right, but most people won't take the drunk 21 year old. We shouldn't have forced them to make that choice.
 
theiioftx said:
She offers no plan for addressing the federal debt and proudly takes credit for the Iran nuclear deal.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, Trump promises dramatic expansion of military capability (not cheap) and taking the Bush tax cuts and putting them on steroids, adding trillions to the debt. If a plan relies on wildly different outcomes than basically the same plan implemented 12 years ago that had a disastrous outcome ... maybe it's better not to plan.
 
Joe Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think it'll be as terrible as you make it sound, but it will be bad. I don't deny that for a second. And you forgot the death penalty. It'll be gone even for the worst of offenders.

Will I accept responsibility for it? No, for two reasons. First, my vote is of no consequence. I'm from a state that Trump should overwhelmingly carry, and if he doesn't, then he's in trouble anyway. Second, conservatives who aren't willing to vote for Trump aren't numerous enough to swing this election. He's not going to lose because a bunch of conservatives bolting to vote for Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin. He's going to lose, because he's going to get clobbered with educated voters and female voters. And that's happening, because he's a terrible candidate with extremely narrow appeal (on both style and substance).
 
Joe Fan said:
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
Click to expand...

And what is the "right side of immigration/border enforcement?" Was Trump on the right side? If so, which Trump on which day? He hasn't exactly been a model of consistency on the issue (or any issue).

And if they were so wrong, and he was so right, then he should be "schlonging" Hillary. And Rubio and Kasich should be scrounging around trying to be johnny-come-latelies to the TrumpTrain. That's not happening.
 
Deez, just Trump wanting to secure the border is enough for me. Because now we know Hillary wants open borders. One is for it, one is against it. Plus, trumps stance really hasn't changes as much as you are saying. He still wants to secure the border from the start no matter what the changes you say he did period. Secure the border first, then go after the illegals that have committed crimes. That will take up his first term by itself.
 
I35 said:
Everyone listen to this because I am sick and tired of hearing about the video on the bus. WE are so far past electing someone for their character. Trump has bad character for his words and Clinton has bad character for the thousands of bad actions she has taken in over 30 years of politics. We have to actually start listening to their policies and decide which one is best for America and go VOTE. I really don't agree with a single thing Hillary has said and I really disagree with everything that she is actually saying in private emails about having open borders and such. I actually agree with Trump on most of his policies. And so does the majority of conservatives. Or at least they agree with them much more than they do with Hillary's agenda.

Seriously it is time to start thinking about our country first no matter how much we hate a person for their character. Everything this political season has gone crazy over everything...... and the issues are the last thing mentioned.
Click to expand...

First, the video isn't going to drive my vote, but it does drive other people's votes. People don't like voting for ********. What else is new?

Second, the video all by itself isn't what's screwing Trump. What's screwing him is what the video proved about Trump but what most people already suspected.

Third, Trump's policies are crap. This isn't a flawed person with a great conservative policy agenda. It's an incoherent blabber of nationalistic rhetoric and little more.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Right, but most people won't take the drunk 21 year old. We shouldn't have forced them to make that choice.
Click to expand...
Well we should have better choices on each side. Unfortunately, Hillary and the DNC rigged the primary to get her nominated. I expect the Republicans will do that next time as well. After all, the rules and laws no longer matter.
 
Crockett said:
Meanwhile, Trump promises dramatic expansion of military capability (not cheap) and taking the Bush tax cuts and putting them on steroids, adding trillions to the debt. If a plan relies on wildly different outcomes than basically the same plan implemented 12 years ago that had a disastrous outcome ... maybe it's better not to plan.
Click to expand...
I hear you. However, we are going to need an expanded military after Iran gets nukes.
 
Mr. Deez said:
First, the video isn't going to drive my vote, but it does drive other people's votes. People don't like voting for ********. What else is new?

Second, the video all by itself isn't what's screwing Trump. What's screwing him is what the video proved about Trump but what most people already suspected.

Third, Trump's policies are crap. This isn't a flawed person with a great conservative policy agenda. It's an incoherent blabber of nationalistic rhetoric and little more.
Click to expand...

First, We know that video doesn't drive your vote, you've stated much earlier you don't like his character. But it's not your vote I'm worried about. It's the ignorance of certain states that will determine the election that base their vote on character of one candidate only and not the other. It should be about the policies they are pushing. If they would do that then no way Hillary wins.

Second, you even pointing this out still proves its about character when it should be about his policies.

3rd, Trump isn't running against other conservatives anymore. Something you need to accept. He's running against a flaming liberal that wants a third term of Obama. Trumps policies are crap? So you are for open borders? You are for allowing refugees coming into the US by the thousands when there isn't a way to vet them? You are for continuing Obama care? You like our GDP showing no growth? You like having our Supreme Court Justice being appointed by Hillary Clinton and affecting us for the next 30 to 40 years? You like all the regulations continued by Obama that's squeezing the neck of the small businesses? You like bigger government as Hillary is promising to raise taxes? Just Trump promising to undo all the regulations by Obama is enough to vote for him. That's not even any policies that Trump is wanting to make. That's undoing policies that we desperately need. So what policies are you talking about that are crap?
 
I35 said:
It's the ignorance of certain states that will determine the election that base their vote on character of one candidate only and not the other.
Click to expand...

Funny, Libs say the same thing about Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.
 
I35 said:
Second, you even pointing this out still proves its about character when it should be about his policies.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you remember 1992, but the mantra from Democrats was that character didn't matter - only policies and issues. It's ironic to hear a Republican make the same argument 24 years later.

I only said the video wouldn't drive my vote. I didn't say character won't. It certainly does, and I'll tell you the same thing I told people back in 1992 when I said I would vote for Bush if I could. (I was only 16 in 1992.) If a political figure is of poor character, then you can't trust that person to do what he says he will do on policies. Character and policies go together.

I35 said:
3rd, Trump isn't running against other conservatives anymore. Something you need to accept. He's running against a flaming liberal that wants a third term of Obama. Trumps policies are crap? So you are for open borders? You are for allowing refugees coming into the US by the thousands when there isn't a way to vet them? You are for continuing Obama care? You like our GDP showing no growth? You like having our Supreme Court Justice being appointed by Hillary Clinton and affecting us for the next 30 to 40 years? You like all the regulations continued by Obama that's squeezing the neck of the small businesses? You like bigger government as Hillary is promising to raise taxes? Just Trump promising to undo all the regulations by Obama is enough to vote for him. That's not even any policies that Trump is wanting to make. That's undoing policies that we desperately need. So what policies are you talking about that are crap?
Click to expand...

Phil Elliott said:
Please do share with me the policies you think are crap, and then compare it to HRC's policies on the same issue, and show me how they are collectively better.
Click to expand...

It's hard to nail down his policies, because he's pretty incoherent on policy, but he's got some bad ones. First, he advocates big spending hikes without paying for them - basically doesn't give a crap about the budget deficit. Second, he opposes entitlement reform. That's a deal-breaker for me. Third, he's a total crackpot on foreign policy. He plans to screw with NATO while fawning over Vladimir Putin. I'm not a fan. He's incoherent on dealing with the Middle East. Yes, I know he uses harsh rhetoric about "bombing the ****" out of ISIS, but in terms of an actual policy on the Middle East, he's a mess. Fourth, on immigration, it depends on which Trump we're talking about. His policy has shifted from mass deportations (which he used to defeat his primary opponents) to a position of ambiguity on what to do with law-abiding illegals. Basically nobody knows what he really intends to do. Finally, I'm open to revisiting our trade policy, but I don't trust Trump's judgment to make significant changes.

And I'm no fan of Hillary's policies, which is why I wouldn't vote for her either.
 
Horns11 said:
Funny, Libs say the same thing about Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.
Click to expand...

You mean the libs can't understand those states for being against open borders, not happy that the GDP shows no economic growth, against allowing refugees by the thousands enter our land that even Hillary said can't be vetted, against taxes being raise so the government can grow even bigger, against the crushing regulations that hurts the small business?

That's crazy the libs can't understand that. So there you go.....there's the problem right there.
 
I35 said:
You mean the libs can't understand those states for being against open borders, not happy that the GDP shows no economic growth, against allowing refugees by the thousands enter our land that even Hillary said can't be vetted, against taxes being raise so the government can grow even bigger, against the crushing regulations that hurts the small business?

That's crazy the libs can't understand that. So there you go.....there's the problem right there.
Click to expand...

I read the entire speech to Banco Itau and I didn't see her recognition of "open borders" as a borderless state. I saw it as eliminating bureaucratic and economic barriers to international trade, which I guess many people who are voting for Trump aren't for anyhow. Anyone twisting it as "let's just let in everyone because Hillary said borderless" is grasping at straws.

The GDP is showing mild growth. Not at the rate of the heydays of the mid-80s and late-90s, but I think the recovery from the 2007 bust had a lot to do with the slow-go on that.

Hillary said that people walking into Jordan from Syria couldn't be properly vetted. That's not how our vetting system works, and she has acknowledged that we need tougher standards on visas and other controls.

I'm with you on taxes and business regulations, but I don't think the GOP has solvency over the Democrats in either of those situations.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's hard to nail down his policies, because he's pretty incoherent on policy, but he's got some bad ones. First, he advocates big spending hikes without paying for them - basically doesn't give a crap about the budget deficit. Second, he opposes entitlement reform. That's a deal-breaker for me. Third, he's a total crackpot on foreign policy. He plans to screw with NATO while fawning over Vladimir Putin. I'm not a fan. He's incoherent on dealing with the Middle East. Yes, I know he uses harsh rhetoric about "bombing the ****" out of ISIS, but in terms of an actual policy on the Middle East, he's a mess. Fourth, on immigration, it depends on which Trump we're talking about. His policy has shifted from mass deportations (which he used to defeat his primary opponents) to a position of ambiguity on what to do with law-abiding illegals. Basically nobody knows what he really intends to do. Finally, I'm open to revisiting our trade policy, but I don't trust Trump's judgment to make significant changes.

And I'm no fan of Hillary's policies, which is why I wouldn't vote for her either.
Click to expand...

Deez, sounds like you've just bought into the liberal media's portrayal of Trump's Policies. Trickle down on steroids? EVERYONE knows that Trump has the best economic policies. His economic policies will stimulate the US economy BIG TIME. YOUR HEAD WILL SPIN from all the jobs that will be created from cutting taxes on everyone and reducing all business regulation. Social Security and entitlements won't be a problem because of the the TREMENDOUS growth in GDP that will occur because of his economic policies; and the government deficit will go away so quickly YOUR HEAD WILL SPIN, AGAIN! On foreign policy, ALL THE GENERALS are endorsing him because his SECRET plan will utterly destroy ISIS. Isn't it about time European countries pay their fair share for our protection, which they wont need because we will be great friends with Russia again. Wouldn't it be nice if America was friendly with Russia? Dont worry about the illegals that are here. They will be deported humanely! We must stop anchor babies and repeal birthright citizenship. And we will build a WALL to keep new ones from coming through our porous borders, and MEXICO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT!!! Trade has destroyed the US economy! NAFTA is the worst deal ever negotiated. We have to penalize and tax US corporations that create jobs in other countries. We have to do it.
 
Horns11 said:
You're implying that they SHOULDN'T look at R-drawn maps in states. Courts don't have to draw the districts... .
Click to expand...

I object that only Southern states are subject to this review, and
I object even more to your idea that only R-drawn districts should be reviewed. Have your ever looked at Calif's political maps?
Check out this one from Illinois

il04.jpg
 
Horns11 said:
.....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 **** .....
Click to expand...

Some of these things we already know she is planning because of leaks.

Two things --
(1) This is a woman who has had a long time to plan. And that is what she has been doing (that and selling everything she can sell); and
(2) While it takes along time for for the type of cases to percolate up to the Supremes, there are ways to help issues along. Since she realizes she may not have that long (1-term is possible + those pesky health issues), she already has plans to get these issues moving. For example, the Heller challenge will probably come quick. As will her grab for greater regulatory power. While it sounds boring, this will matter alot. The idea here will be an avenue to bypass the Congress if she needs to (with cover from her newly re-figured rubber-stamp SCOTUS)

It is also good to remember, she is not just getting to pick 1-4 Justices, she also gets to add more liberals to the entire federal judiciary, on top of what Obama has already done. This is on top of all the USAs across the country. This is on top of the heads of DOJ departments. Dont think this matters? I give you Exh A Lynch, Exh B Comey and Exh C Napolitano. I think Hillary is going to use this apparatus to punish her enemies, expanding what we saw with Obama and the IRS. I expect her to use the FCC, the EPA and DHS generally. It is going to get very ugly for certain people.
 
Mr. Deez said:
.... And you forgot the death penalty. It'll be gone even for the worst of offenders.....
Click to expand...

I have always had some conflict on this issue.

I once worked on an death penalty appeal. The case coincidentally involved the murder of a UT coed who taken while leaving Gregory Gym. We did get the execution date stayed. And he lived on death row for about another 20 years or so. His name was Tommy Ray Jackson if you want to look him up. (I think I still have his hand-written manuscript somewhere).
Going to the old Huntsville Unit was one of the strangest experiences ever. There is a tower at the front gate. The guard in the tower actually lowers a basket on a rope, you put your DL in it and he pulls it back up (like a treehouse). Then calls in to verify. Maybe they have a better system now? I hope.

Anyways-
(1) I am willing to let democracy handle this issue. I am OK with it and will be OK when the voters finally reject it (same type of position I had a gay marriage -- except the Court should have stayed out of that), and
(2) This area of the law has been so thoroughly litigated that even Hillary's hand-picked Justices wont have much room there.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
And what is the "right side of immigration/border enforcement?" Was Trump on the right side? ....
Click to expand...

I meant right side so far as the Rep primaries went
It was Trump's first issue out of the gate. First day stuff. It quickly set him apart from the field and got his campaign alot of attention.. And it gave him an early lead which was never seriously challenged.

All of the other candidates were stunned, and then slow to react. And, when they did react, it was mild and even weasily.

If Trump had not entered the race, they would have all been able to slide through pretending to be tough on immigration/border enforcement while, in reality, being closeted open-borders Republicans. All 100 of them! Isnt this the problem with out R-majority generally? Once they get to DC, they dont give a crap anymore what their voters want anymore.

If any of these guys (or gal) were as smart as they think they are, they would have quickly seen the writing on the wall and pivoted on this issue that is so key to R-voters. Doing so would have helped deny it to Trump. It was pretty stupid of them not to. And so Trump had it all to himself and sailed through.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
Going to the old Huntsville Unit was one of the strangest experiences ever. There is a tower at the front gate. The guard in the tower actually lowers a basket on a rope, you put your DL in it and he pulls it back up (like a treehouse). Then calls in to verify. Maybe they have a better system now? I hope.
Click to expand...

minor derail and nit to pick...there is no such practice at the Walls Unit. You go up the steps and in the glass doors where an officer behind glass checks the ID and makes a call.

At most other facilities, to include Ellis (the former Death Row location) and Polunsky), the practice is still as you describe. This holds for attorneys and any other weekday visitor to the unit, to include agency employees not assigned to the unit.

(I'm on units all around the State on a regular basis due to the nature of our work)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top