Who will beat Hillary in 2020?

Deez, I don't understand your thinking. Ok Trump is a clown. But his policies are 1,000% better than what Hillary wants our country to be. Were not talking about the next 4 years. The liberals have already taken us so far left that even if we could get it back to the middle it would seem extreme right. Our justice which will be very liberal will probably be changed for the rest of our life because of this one election. Does it not bother you that she wants to let in 600,000+ refugees and then state in her email that it's impossible to vet them? I could name other policies that would take all day that Hillary is for and I can't imagine that you'd disagree with me.

One thing I haven't touched on at all is that if Hillary is elected, we have set a new precedence that there are no consequences no matter how corrupt if she is elected. We can't keep the politicians in check as it is due to our corrupt media. We have Freedom of Press for the reason to be another watch dog for us the citizens to keep both parties in check. The Press is doing an excellent job on keeping one party in check. We are entering scary ground after all that Obama has done without congress and now our press has turned a blind eye on Hillary's corruption.

My comments were explaining why the general public is more willing to gamble on Hillary than on Trump. They have nothing to do with my own personal preferences.
 
Yes, but a larger group of voters put Obama in the White House 2 years before.

If you remember the end of his first term they started blaming the video. It was after the election that it came out that it was all just a big lie. The people felt betrayed and lied to. Plus there were several other issues that came to light and Obama went crazy with executive orders since he knew he had no more elections to run for. So the American people weren't happy and couldn't wait to take his power away by electing a new congress to get him in check. The problem was nothing at all happened and everything just continued as normal for Obama. We vote to keep Presidents from trying to become dictators. No matter your point was that I was all on Obama when I should have fallen in line and respect the voters decision. I'm telling you that I did. What was spoke last was no more and stop what he is doing. You are really reaching on this one.

That's what's driving my vote. I'm not going to list them out for you again. I've done it a dozen times.

You did? I really don't know where you stand on Refugees and Hillary waiting 600k+. Or open Borders? Or Obamacare? Are you okay with Hillary having control of the new justice appointees? Do you want Taxes to go way up? Are you okay with the views of the left toward our police? Are you okay with our GDP hanging around between 1 to 2% month after month, year after year. Are you happy with Obama's policies now? Because were getting that for four more years, which will be 12 years. Are you okay with the Dems nuclear deal with Iran? I really don't know because you don't talk that much policy. I just hear you fussing about Donald Trump's character. I am glad to see that you think Hillary has character flaws as well because you never mention that. Go ahead and ask me questions about Donald Trump policies that you think are bad and let me give you my opinion on it (for the better or worse) . I don't mind at all. I like talking about actually policies. I'm tired of talking character because they are both bad.
 
The Crisis of the Conservative Intellectual. I didn't expect to see this article on the Washington Free Beacon site, but it's a pretty decent read.
 
Yes I will. I'll be depressed that half our citizens are this ignorant. But I will accept that our country no longer the country I grew up with. This would mean the police are now the bad guys. Corruption at it's highest level is accepted. We will have 600K more new citizens from terrorist hotbed countries. Taxes will go way up. Obamacare will continue and on and on.

I need a drink.

No worries, I get upset that the alt-right crowd so easily twists facts. I've stated before that I don't think Corruption is worse but rather it's harder to hide.
 
The problem was nothing at all happened and everything just continued as normal for Obama. We vote to keep Presidents from trying to become dictators.

And you still can't explain what they should have done differently.

No matter your point was that I was all on Obama when I should have fallen in line and respect the voters decision. I'm telling you that I did. What was spoke last was no more and stop what he is doing. You are really reaching on this one.

No, that isn't my point. My point is that it's inconsistent of you to think I should fall in line with Trump out of deference to the relatively small group of voters (about 14 million) who chose to make him the nominee when you don't give the 66 million voters who chose to make Barack Obama the President of the United States the same degree of deference. By the way, I don't think you should give them any deference, but you shouldn't bust my balls for not deferring to those who chose to nominate Trump.

You did? I really don't know where you stand on Refugees and Hillary waiting 600k+. Or open Borders? Or Obamacare? Are you okay with Hillary having control of the new justice appointees? Do you want Taxes to go way up? Are you okay with the views of the left toward our police? Are you okay with our GDP hanging around between 1 to 2% month after month, year after year. Are you happy with Obama's policies now? Because were getting that for four more years, which will be 12 years. Are you okay with the Dems nuclear deal with Iran? I really don't know because you don't talk that much policy.

No, I'm not OK with those things, and I've discussed all of those issues at length. If I was OK with them, I would have voted for Hillary. That isn't the issue. Again, my reason in not voting for Trump is policy disagreements with Trump, not a policy preference for Hillary Clinton's agenda.

I am glad to see that you think Hillary has character flaws as well because you never mention that.

You don't follow my posts very closely. I rip her all almost every day. In fact, I've locked horns with both Seattle Husker (about her BSing about Benghazi) and Crockett (about her sleaziness with the e-mail server) on multiple occasions. I've been a vocal critic of hers since 1992. Hell, I gave money to Rick Lazio.
 
That isn't the issue. Again, my reason in not voting for Trump is policy disagreements with Trump, not a policy preference for Hillary Clinton's agenda.

So can you discuss a few of the policies that you disagree with Trump on? Plus explain how they are so bad that they equal the horrible policies of the Obama/Hillary. I just want to talk policies with you. I don't want to hear how much you dislike Trump. I want to talk real substance with you.
 
I35
Excellent question. Unlike some posters on here MrD will respond. I look forward to hearing how he disagrees with Trump's policy.
 
I35
Excellent question. Unlike some posters on here MrD will respond. I look forward to hearing how he disagrees with Trump's policy.
Deez has posted hundreds of times on here about Trump's policies...mostly it's either 1) they're virtually impratical/possible rendering the suggestion a lie - e.g. deporting everyone or the wall, 2) he's incoherent or downright unknowlegeable about foreign policy, and 3) he's not really conservative with his budget, tax plan, and is too socially moderate for Deez' taste.

And all of that is tied to Trump's lack of intellecutalism (Trump doesn't remember the last time he read a book) which Deez values so highly.
 
So can you discuss a few of the policies that you disagree with Trump on?

I've already done this at length, but I'll summarize. First, he opposes entitlement reform. That's a $1T per year disaster position - much bigger than Obamacare or any other issue. You can't call yourself a conservative and take that position. It's a defining issue.

Second, he's wrong on immigration. The "build a wall and deport everybody" approach is impractical, expensive, unnecessary, and dumb. Of course, he has partially flip-flopped on this, but I'm going to hold him to the position that got him the nomination.

Third, though I'm not a neocon in the William Kristol mold, I do support maintaining the post-WWII alliances that have mostly served us well for the last 70 years. I also think our policy of discouraging nuclear proliferation has been wise. Trump diverts from those positions from time to time and then flip flops for a few days and then flip flops back. I can't endorse that kind of instability on foreign policy.

Fourth, I oppose term limits on members of Congress, which Trump now supports.

Fifth, I'm a deficit hawk more than I'm a tax cutter. Trump is basically calling for large tax cuts and big spending increases. Not smart when we're in the hole by $20T and not fiscally conservative.

Sixth, though this touches on his temperament, I'm a skeptic of our trade policy and agreements, but I don't trust Trump to fix the problem. I think he'd much more likely make it worse than make it better, so unless we get somebody who's a little more thoughtful, I prefer the status quo.

There are probably more, but that's what I can come up with on the fly.

Plus explain how they are so bad that they equal the horrible policies of the Obama/Hillary.

No, because I didn't vote for Obama or Hillary.
 
Last edited:
T2000
"they're virtually impratical/possible rendering the suggestion a lie -"
I get it. You mean like Obamacare?
 
T2000
"they're virtually impratical/possible rendering the suggestion a lie -"
I get it. You mean like Obamacare?
I was summarizing everything I've read Deez post about Trump. See below. Ask him.
Second, he's wrong on immigration. The "build a wall and deport everybody" approach is impractical, expensive, unnecessary, and dumb.

I'm off the Trump train because the guy is a clown. Like I can't vote for a felon for President, I can't also vote for a clown. I will vote for every republican on the ballot, but not him.
 
Last edited:
Deez has posted hundreds of times on here about Trump's policies

Seriously, I only seen the one about foreign affairs. And it doesn't make sense that he believe Hillary will be better than Trump. Yes he actually said that once. Hard to imagine he believes that when she has been a disaster and has caused the death of Americans, then lie to the families face. No way she is suitable for Commander in Chief.
 
Seriously, I only seen the one about foreign affairs. And it doesn't make sense that he believe Hillary will be better than Trump. Yes he actually said that once. Hard to imagine he believes that when she has been a disaster and has caused the death of Americans, then lie to the families face. No way she is suitable for Commander in Chief.

I don't know for sure that she will be better. I have to speculate, because Trump's foreign policy is a scattered mess. Her foreign policy will likely resemble Obama's - not good. However, Trump's foreign policy is one of incoherence. Is he going to undermine NATO or our security agreements with South Korea or Japan? He makes all kinds of goofy comments about them that show he's extremely ignorant of them. If those collapse or get severely undermined, the consequences are much worse than the biggest foreign policy blunders under Obama.
 
Trump's foreign policy is one of incoherence.

I believe Trump will listen to the generals more than Hillary will. Despite him staying he knows more than generals, I think he just got caught up in the moment. Trump is successful because one thing he is good at is surrounding himself around smart people and listen to them. Once a commander I believe he will do that. Hillary has Huma Abedin in her ear. She's not made the right decision yet in regards to foreign policy, I doubt she starts now. Remember, what you are saying about Trump were what the left and media were saying about Ronald Reagan. That he will push the red button and that he knows nothing about foreign affairs. He did pretty well. I'm not saying he will be the next Ronald Reagan, only that we just don't know.
 
Last edited:
As I said before, the lack of discipline and erratic nature of Trump has been the only real issue of the campaign. Republican positions, many of which I find valid, have been relegated to secondary issues, whether anyone likes it or not.
 
As I said before, the lack of discipline and erratic nature of Trump has been the only real issue of the campaign. Republican positions, many of which I find valid, have been relegated to secondary issues, whether anyone likes it or not.

And that's what's so absurd about this race. The GOP nominated Pee Wee Herman, and they're expecting people to take him and what he says seriously. We might laugh at Pee Wee, but we're not going to trust him with our kids or with the nuclear codes.
 
What is even more absurd is that the electorate prefers Bonnie and Clyde over PeeWee Herman and Sophia Loren.
 
I believe Trump will listen to the generals more than Hillary will.

First, he doesn't come across as a guy who will listen to generals. He comes across as a guy who shoots his mouth off first and thinks later. During my time around the military (albeit in a civilian role), I've met some generals and some admirals, and my grandfather was a captain in the Navy. None of them talked or acted like Trump. They were pretty erudite and measured people. Even guys like Douglas MacArthur and George Patton who advocated some pretty aggressive actions and had pretty harsh personas weren't stupid or reckless men. They were sharp men whose plans were well-considered and thoughtful.

Second, saying he'll listen to generals is a cop-out. Generals don't speak with a single voice. They often disagree. Which generals will he listen to?

Third, military strategy and deployment aren't the only facets of foreign policy. Economic and diplomatic policy are big factors, and this stuff isn't always simple. We have a State Department for a reason.

Finally, the "generals" aren't always right and don't always have the right motives. There's a reason why the military is ultimately commanded by a civilian.

I'll give you an example that incorporates #3 and #4. Before relocating to Germany, I volunteered in the legal office at Lajes Field in the Azores (a group of islands in the mid-Atlantic in case you're not a geography buff) for about 18 months. Anyway, the "generals" want to close Lajes Field. They say it's redundant, because much of what it does can be done at Moron Air Base in Spain and think it's a waste of money. Congress overrules them and keeps it open.

So are the generals right, or is Congress right? Seems like a goofy question. Of course, the generals are right, and Congress is a bunch of dumbass, self-serving politicians who should let the Pentagon do its job, right? Well, maybe not. In fact, the "generals" are putting the US and NATO at risk of China gaining a military base in the Atlantic Ocean close to mainland Europe, and they're completely BSing the cost savings to justify spending a fortune on a new facility in the UK. Link. At least these particular generals didn't give a crap about the taxpayers money. So in short, they're not considering the diplomatic and economic impacts of their decisions, and their intentions are bad.

The point isn't that our military leaders are generally bad people who shouldn't be listened to. The point is that saying you'll listen to them as a way to avoid stating a coherent foreign policy of your own isn't a serious position. It's not always the smart move.

Despite him staying he knows more than generals, I think he just got caught up in the moment.

Sorry, but there's too much at stake to have a President who gets "caught up in the moment."

Remember, what you are saying about Trump were what the left and media were saying about Ronald Reagan. That he will push the red button and that he knows nothing about foreign affairs. He did pretty well. I'm not saying he will be the next Ronald Reagan, only that we just don't know.

Just because the Left and media say something doesn't make it per se wrong. We can listen to Reagan talk foreign policy and quickly see that he wasn't ignorant and wasn't reckless. That's not the case with Trump. The media is often wrong about how they describe Republican politicians (Reagan, Dan Quayle, etc.), but sometimes the evidence shows them to be right (Sara Palin, Donald Trump).
 
Last edited:
I believe Trump will listen to the generals more than Hillary will.

Has Trump shown a predisposition to listening to his advisors? He's been saying for days that his advisors tell him not to talk about the sexual harassment allegations but can't help himself on the stump then normally defends himself for 10 minutes. In fact, I'd argue that based on his campaign he's clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to guidance. Could it be possible you're projecting what you want Trump to be rather than what the evidence shows?

HRC has the opposite problem...she listens to a lot of advisors, carefully calculates the decision. Being very political, HRC will have an inner circle she listens to. If a particular general is not in that group, I doubt they get heard.
 
What is even more absurd is that the electorate prefers Bonnie and Clyde over PeeWee Herman and Sophia Loren.

Two questions. First, why do you think that's their preference? Second, is Melania supposed to be Sophia Loren in this analogy, or is Mike Pence?
 
Two questions. First, why do you think that's their preference? Second, is Melania supposed to be Sophia Loren in this analogy, or is Mike Pence?
FIrst, the electorate cares more about their personal handouts than the long term good of the country.

Melania is Sophia. CLyde is first pervert and embezzler Willie.
 
FIrst, the electorate cares more about their personal handouts than the long term good of the country.

Since Trump is an opponent of entitlement reform, I'm not sure why that would be a big issue. Nevertheless, what personal handout do you think NJLonghorn and Seattle Husker are worried about that would make them so dismissive of the long-term good of the country?
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I firmly believe a large portion of HRC's voters fall into the "lesser of two evils" category. That's not a preference but rather a result of the candidates the primary process gave us.
Depends on what you mean a large portion.

All the Hillary voters I know are drinking the kool-aid. They think mishandling classified email isn't a big deal, or Bush did it, or if Hillary gets punished for her e-mail that Bush should have been prosecuted for the War.

That is the exactly the conversation I had with 2 regular Hillarry friends of mine very recently. These are highly educated women (as in they have graduate degrees). These are her base supporters.

They think the reason Obama isn't more popular is because the entire country is racist. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by large portion, but almost all the women I meet who are voting for Hillary also subscribe to the "It's time for a woman in the Oval Office" trope.

Marginalizing the seriousness of her e-mails speaks to the mindset of these supprters. Trump is paying for his more recently public sins by losing voters like me. Hillary voters are so shameless that they don't care.
 
Since Trump is an opponent of entitlement reform, I'm not sure why that would be a big issue. Nevertheless, what personal handout do you think NJLonghorn and Seattle Husker are worried about that would make them so dismissive is the long-term good of the country?
Fairly certain I said "electorate." However, I respect Husker's views as a liberal democrat even if I do not agree with him. He sincerely believes in wealth redistribution to take care of those who, in his view, need it. I do not think it is for him personally, but for others.

As for NJ, who knows. I thought he was conservative leaning like you? Why would you include him with Husker?
 
Depends on what you mean a large portion.

All the Hillary voters I know are drinking the kool-aid. They think mishandling classified email isn't a big deal, or Bush did it, or if Hillary gets punished for her e-mail that Bush should have been prosecuted for the War.

That is the exactly the conversation I had with 2 regular Hillarry friends of mine very recently. These are highly educated women (as in they have graduate degrees). These are her base supporters.

They think the reason Obama isn't more popular is because the entire country is racist. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by large portion, but almost all the women I meet who are voting for Hillary also subscribe to the "It's time for a woman in the Oval Office" trope.

Marginalizing the seriousness of her e-mails speaks to the mindset of these supprters. Trump is paying for his more recently public sins by losing voters like me. Hillary voters are so shameless that they don't care.

Yeah, I see some of those voters too. My wife is one. She likens the criticisms of HRC to being overly vetted simply due to the fact that she's a woman despite my insinuation that the email scandal is a real issue and inexcusable. They are like Trump supporters though, HRC was their choice in the primaries and continues to be their choice regardless of new information.

It's the Bernie voters, Independents and Republicans that can't trust Trump that are either going to HRC or Gary Johnson.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top