General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

From:[email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2015-03-07 21:41
Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails

we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov ----------

Forwarded message ---------- From: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 6:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
To: Philippe Reines <[email protected]>, Heather Samuelson < [email protected]>, Cheryl Mills <[email protected]> Begin forwarded message: *From:* Josh Schwerin <[email protected]> *Date:* March 7, 2015 at 6:33:44 PM EST *To:* Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]>, Kristina Schake < [email protected]>, Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, Jesse Ferguson <[email protected]>
*Subject:* *POTUS on HRC emails* Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news. -- Josh Schwerin Cell: 518-369-5469
 
CwH9QRbWEAEO_S1.jpg
 
With so many "protest" votes or simply voting for lesser of two evils, they should have an additional choice called "none of the above."

You would vote for one person, but could add the none of the above. If none of the above got more than 50% of voters, start primaries over.
 
theiioftx said:
Sure he could and I would answer. It is a serious question. She got to the nomination through an unfair process over Bernie, she has committed perjury, she has been provided questions in advance of the debates and she is very likely about to be indicted. However, people are finding a way to vote for her. The question is, what would disqualify her from the POTUS for a liberal democrat?
Click to expand...

You could answer it, but you didn't. LOL

Also, I'm not here to defend the Democratic Party, and I know Trump likes playing the "rigged" game to attract Bernie Bros or at least demotivate them from showing up for Hillary, but I don't see it. The presence of superdelegates in the Democratic nomination process has been around for a long time (mainly to avoid a Trump-like scenario), so the process she won under wasn't any different than the process that Democratic nominees have won under for the last few decades. If she won in an unfair process, then so did Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc.

In addition, under what fairer process would he have been nominated? She beat him by 3.7 million votes and a 12 point margin, and she won far more states than he did. He made it interesting at times, but by any measure, he got his *** kicked. She never needed superdelegates, and she never needed Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Also, if Hillary gets indicted, that could be a reason to vote FOR her, at least for a guy like SH because of who her running mate is. If she gets tossed out of office or resigns, Tim Kaine would be become President. I'd prefer Mike Pence, but Tim Kaine isn't a bad guy. Furthermore, he'd be right up SH's alley. Either way, if you think Trump is sleazy and don't like his policy agenda, why would you vote for him under any circumstances, especially if the other party's VP nominee is pretty good?
 
Last edited:
WikiLeaks looks like it will bring down Clinton whether she is a candidate or the President. The cover up emails are coming out now. Welcome to the digital age.
 
iatrogenic said:
WikiLeaks looks like it will bring down Clinton whether she is a candidate or the President. The cover up emails are coming out now. Welcome to the digital age.
Click to expand...
I did not vote for Trump in the primary because of how he handled the primary discussion. However, none of what he said - no matter how outlandish or silly- made him in-electable. His vulgar recorded conversation did not either especially given it was a private conversation more than 10 years ago. His unwanted advances are mostly laughable especially for the porn star.

I am not pointing to Trump's version of rigged. I am pointing to the overwhelming evidence that the DNC helped her defeat Sanders. How democrats could not be against this is amazing.
 
Seattle Husker said:
What's laughable is seeing some critics of his earlier decision not to recommend charges now celebrate him and vice versa for HRC supporters criticizing him now.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Isn't that just disgusting? It says it all about our sleazy-*** politicians, and it shows what a filthy business politics really is. Democrats were talking about him like he was Eliot Ness a few months ago, and now they're talking about him like he's Kenneth Starr. (And of course, Kenneth Starr was widely respected by both parties before the Lewinsky matter.) And the GOP is no better. To them, he was a hand-puppet of Loretta Lynch's a few months ago. Now he's a great beacon of integrity. It's this kind of horse crap that ruined my own political ambitions.
 
theiioftx said:
As expected. Is there any amount of corruption that would overcome Trump?
Click to expand...

As mentioned previously, my vote was based primarily on policies. Though this particular election has been very light on policy detail I feel we could make an educated guess on policies. For example, we can infer HRC's policies from Bill's administration. We know she'd likely advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, is hawkish in foreign affairs, strongly prefers more open trade, will appoint more liberal judges and supports more liberal immigration than her opponent (note..."open" borders is a red herring).

For Trump his policies are less clear partly because he doesn't have a history of performance to refer to, has reversed his stances this election cycle from previous public stances (see: abortion, Iraq War) and has offered very little detail on his specific policies. Where he has been clear is immigration, at least with regard to the border wall, and international trade. What I do know is that the public stances he's claimed and feigned are policies are not ones I support. His social stances have reversed 180 degrees from those he espoused in the 90's to gain support from the religious right. That's concerning to a social liberal-fiscal conservative. His economic protectionsism is unrealistic as it infers a reversal of globalization which I think is impossible and impractical. Finally, his tax schemes do nothing more than reverse our progressive tax plan to the point that our debt (my biggest issue) would balloon my magnitudes of X over his opponent.

Yes, I believe Hillary's attempts at secrecy are abhorrent. Clearly the private email server and subsequent obfuscation was an blatant scheme to keep her conversations (public and private) beyond the view of the average American.
 
Last edited:
NJlonghorn said:
A growing consensus ... really?
Click to expand...

That was my thought. The idea is laughable and elitist. We all know young people that are more informed than their elders. This board is evidence of that without mentioning any names. :p

Let's narrow the voting ages from 26 to 55. How does that sound? ;)
 
theiioftx said:
With so many "protest" votes or simply voting for lesser of two evils, they should have an additional choice called "none of the above."

You would vote for one person, but could add the none of the above. If none of the above got more than 50% of voters, start primaries over.
Click to expand...

Though I like the idea, we'd be perpetually deadlocked in our federal government. Yes, I know some would see that as "progress".
 
I should mention...I did not vote for incumbent Senator Patty Murray as I think she's become part of the Democratic machine. I voted for (R) Chris Vance. My wife taught his son in elementary school an lauded his family as quality. In turn, it was an easy choice to vote for Vance even though he has no chance of winning.

Vance is a moderate Republican who previously was chair of the party in the state. He has also openly talked about his disdain for Trump and stated that he would not vote for him or HRC. I like his principled stance.
 
If we wind up 269-269 and SC goes 4-4, as in Joe Fan's retweet, I'm sure that would give Obama all the ammunition he needed to grace us with another 4-40 years of Hope and Change.
 
Clean said:
If we wind up 269-269 and SC goes 4-4, as in Joe Fan's retweet, I'm sure that would give Obama all the ammunition he needed to grace us with another 4-40 years of Hope and Change.
Click to expand...

I'd take Obama over the 2 major party candidates in a heartbeat.

Doesn't the vote fall to Congress if there is a tie in the electoral college? I thought that was Evan McMullin's hail mary strategy.
 
I assume in the 269 tie scenario and Florida recount, the ruling (if ordering a recount) by the Florida Supreme court would stand since the SC would be deadlocked.

If this thing does end in 269 and goes to the House per tiebreaker rules...Trump wins.

Each state gets 1 vote and there are 33 Rep majority states and 16 Dem majority states in the House....Trump would likely win tiebreaker with ease.

No chance a lot of Reps would jump out of line and vote HRC. The RNC would blackball those who blocked Trump in their next re-election campaign.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'd argue that Kasich is NOT the R candidate of choice because he's not an attention *****.
Click to expand...

He was my first choice. But when I seen he had no chance at winning I moved over to Rubio. But I'm glad I didn't vote for him now. He is coming across as a big cry baby.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Not true, HRC is much more hawkish than Obama.
Click to expand...

As of right now Obama is the worst President we've ever had. Of course maybe because he gets away with everything he does because of the backing of the Media. It's a shame because the Media is suppose to be the people's watchdog over bad politicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top