Presidential Race 2016

[Lihu]

4 hours ago, Braivo said:

No way do you apologize in this situation. That DOES NOT make it go away. Every single time a celeb or politician apologizes they get trounced even harder. This woman was looking for attention, she wanted to create a scene and become part of the story. She has done it before - see image below where she claimed NYPD pushed her to the ground, yet they are clearly trying to catch her. 

Lewandowski knew she was the type to do this and pulled her away before Trump did anything himself.

Yeah, in retrospect, it doesn't make sense for them to back down this one. She was clearly in the wrong on this one. If she had not persisted that much, she would not have been hurt.

It's like someone complaining about a police brutality after throwing a rock into a crowd of innocent people.

[Ernest Jones]

8 hours ago, Lihu said:

It's like someone complaining about a police brutality after throwing a rock into a crowd of innocent people.

Uhm...no, not quite. There has been "unpleasantness" at many of Trump's rallies and no shortage of video of Trump fanning the flames and to characterize his rallies as a "crowd of innocent people" is whitewashing.  He's a narcissist who will apparently use whatever tactics he can to win. He will not Make America Great, he will plunge it back into a neo-dark ages of sorts. His comments about Ted Cruz' wife and women in general are repulsive. Not very presidential IMO, and I would be embarrassed to have someone like that as a world leader. You think the US has terrorist threats now? Wait until Trump starts throwing his dick around like some half drunk jock at a date-rape frat party. 

Do really want to be in the same group as all the white supremacists that are rallying to Trumps banner. Think about that. 

[newtogolf]

11 hours ago, Lihu said:

Yeah, in retrospect, it doesn't make sense for them to back down this one. She was clearly in the wrong on this one. If she had not persisted that much, she would not have been hurt.

It's like someone complaining about a police brutality after throwing a rock into a crowd of innocent people.

This goes back to my earlier post about acting "Presidential".  Sometimes as a parent, role model or presidential candidate you have to take the high road to defuse a situation rather than pour gasoline on it.  I'd much prefer the next POTUS of our country denounce violence at his campaign rallies rather than incite it and offer to pay legal fees.  

What Trump hasn't learned yet is that it's in his best interest to ignore the protesters, not create martyrs out of them.  He shows little self restraint in situations where great self restraint is required, the same can be said at lesser degrees for Cruz and Hillary.  

The POTUS has to deal with a lot of dissent (ask Obama and GW).   Trump has been coddled and shielded from a lot of criticism throughout his life.  As POTUS he can't just fire people who disagree with them or call them names.  He has to learn to effectively communicate with those who don't like him or the things he's done.  

[Elmer]

15 hours ago, Braivo said:

There's a difference though, Lewandowski apology would be to a person who was purposely trying to create an incident, the steroid stuff was personal transgressions with no aggressor. Big difference. 

You keep saying this, with zero evidence of the reporters intent.
The facts are the facts
She brushed past security. She  tried to question Trump. Trumps manager grabbed her.
However
You can not project your believed intent upon her.
You have no idea what her intent was.
she was a reporter doing a job. maybe poorly, maybe not!
But dont assume "she wants to be the story" because you dont know.

2 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

Uhm...no, not quite. There has been "unpleasantness" at many of Trump's rallies and no shortage of video of Trump fanning the flames and to characterize his rallies as a "crowd of innocent people" is whitewashing.  He's a narcissist who will apparently use whatever tactics he can to win. He will not Make America Great, he will plunge it back into a neo-dark ages of sorts. His comments about Ted Cruz' wife and women in general are repulsive. Not very presidential IMO, and I would be embarrassed to have someone like that as a world leader. You think the US has terrorist threats now? Wait until Trump starts throwing his dick around like some half drunk jock at a date-rape frat party. 

Do really want to be in the same group as all the white supremacists that are rallying to Trumps banner. Think about that. 

This is spot on. You think terrorist hate us now. Trump as president will be their biggest recruiting tool and incentive.
Trump has not been presidential. Infact he gloating in the fact that he is the ringmaster of the circus.
He is not projecting any effort of trying to be presidential, instead he wants everyone to see what attention Trump can bring.
""I love protesters because the only way the cameras turn and show how big the audience is, is when there's a protester," Trump told supporters at a rally in Las Vegas."

Trump does not care about the policy or the message. He care that Trump can bring in a crowd. He cares that the News is reporting on everything Trump.

If he cared at all about policy, or message he would have commented that Women will be punished for abortion, only to change the message 4 hours later!

This gave both Clinton and Kasich talking points.
Paraphrasing
"Trump with his latest message is showing he wants to move us backward"- Clinton
""I think probably Donald Trump will figure out a way to say that he didn't say it"-Kasich

[phillyk]

20 hours ago, Braivo said:

Someone falsely accused one of his top people of a crime. The video clearly shows no crime took place. She was warned to stop grabbing Trump by Secret Service, she was trying to bait Trump into doing something to her. So his campaign manager pulled her away by the arm and everyone carried on. She made no reaction at all that it even hurt. Fraud.

I love that Trump stands up for his people. That's the kind of leader you want. Anyone else would be asking for the guy's resignation, but this is different. Trump is loyal, and he should be. If you don't fight back against these sort of false accusations you just invite more of them to happen. He will fight this all the way, Corey did nothing wrong and shouldn't face any repercussions. 

Kasich will not win the nomination. His campaign serves no purpose other than to try to deny Trump enough delegates. He should quit and go back to running Ohio. 

We haven't heard the last of the Cruz sex scandal either. Cruz has not denied the allegations, very telling. The truth will eventually come out. The GOP is making a fool of themselves by trying to undermine Trump. 

Really?!?!?!  Dude, wake up.  He's incited violence and hate against AMERICAN CITIZENS!! He talks trash about the very people he is suppose to represent.  It's almost like the whole Romney cares about only the top whatever % of people.  All Trump cares about are people who support him.  The rest can go to hell for all he cares.  Every time there's a protestor: oh he's a loser, oh he needs to get a job, just something to get a reaction from the crowd. He is not a leader for the whole American population.  The best line you said there, "Trump stands up for his people."  Yep, just the ones that show up to his rallies or votes for him, the rest apparently don't have jobs and are a nuisance to society.

[Lihu]

4 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

Uhm...no, not quite. There has been "unpleasantness" at many of Trump's rallies and no shortage of video of Trump fanning the flames and to characterize his rallies as a "crowd of innocent people" is whitewashing.  He's a narcissist who will apparently use whatever tactics he can to win. He will not Make America Great, he will plunge it back into a neo-dark ages of sorts. His comments about Ted Cruz' wife and women in general are repulsive. Not very presidential IMO, and I would be embarrassed to have someone like that as a world leader. You think the US has terrorist threats now? Wait until Trump starts throwing his dick around like some half drunk jock at a date-rape frat party. 

Do really want to be in the same group as all the white supremacists that are rallying to Trumps banner. Think about that. 

In fact, I've been the victim of racial profiling myself, so obviously I don't align with the white supremacists.

However, taking a stop gap measure to prevent more potential activity is more or less a reasonable thing to do. Whether the white supremacists would love to see this happen is irrelevant to my view.

Is the reason why there are terrorists unfair? Yes, of course it is. The west has collectively treated the people in that region very badly. In fact, people of that region all should be really wealthy because the oil was found on their land. Is this an unfair situation? Yes, it is, and our puppet governments are not helping that situation.

If you drive a car you are guilty of using their resources without paying them a fair amount of money***.

***Off topic what we should be paying for oil.

Spoiler

At a quick glance. . .

We should be paying something like $360 per barrel or about 11.50USD per gallon of gas, but if you notice the dates of where the price spikes low, we (or our allies) were at war with someone or another in the middle east. Of course some of this is our puppet governments and OPEC trying to prevent alternative energies from flooding the marketplace. At $360 per barrel there are dozens of alternatives that cost far less.

Early 1970s OPEC floated the price of oil and regulated pumping then Kissinger told the OPEC nations to pump more oil or expect war. Next spike down was the Gulf war the next one was. . .

 

 

Should we profile people who are potential threats to the US? Yes, but should we also pay their countries a fair market value for their resources? Yes, of course we should. Then they would have enough to spread the wealth to everyone and reduce/eliminate the poverty that exists in their countries. Trump will stop the bleeding and a real government will stop the bloodshed in the middle east.

 

 

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

This goes back to my earlier post about acting "Presidential".  Sometimes as a parent, role model or presidential candidate you have to take the high road to defuse a situation rather than pour gasoline on it.  I'd much prefer the next POTUS of our country denounce violence at his campaign rallies rather than incite it and offer to pay legal fees.  

What Trump hasn't learned yet is that it's in his best interest to ignore the protesters, not create martyrs out of them.  He shows little self restraint in situations where great self restraint is required, the same can be said at lesser degrees for Cruz and Hillary.  

The POTUS has to deal with a lot of dissent (ask Obama and GW).   Trump has been coddled and shielded from a lot of criticism throughout his life.  As POTUS he can't just fire people who disagree with them or call them names.  He has to learn to effectively communicate with those who don't like him or the things he's done.  

This is exactly what I was thinking prior to my last statement, but the issue I have with this particular aggressive reporter is that she knew the risks associated with trying to get a statement from Trump. She knew she was pushing secret service agents aside to get to him. She could have been just as easily shot as a possible assassin. It's literally like walking up to a police line and forcing your way through and not expecting any consequences.

Guessing that she usually gets her way on everything, and this time she didn't.

 

1 hour ago, Elmer said:

This gave both Clinton and Kasich talking points.

Paraphrasing
"Trump with his latest message is showing he wants to move us backward"- Clinton
""I think probably Donald Trump will figure out a way to say that he didn't say it"-Kasich

The issue I have with this hypocrisy is that Clinton was a "Barry Goldwater Girl". She is inherently a racist herself even if on a subtler level.

Kasich is just blabbering something, which is why he is not a front runner.

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, Elmer said:

If he cared at all about policy, or message he would have commented that Women will be punished for abortion, only to change the message 4 hours later!

First rule in a political interview - Don't answer hypotheticals

Second rule in a political interview - Don't answer hypothetical questions about abortion

Third rule in a political interview - when asked if the exec should enforce a bad law - run. there is no right answer (it's a trap)

http://giphy.com/gifs/starwars-movie-star-wars-3ornka9rAaKRA2Rkac

(best answer at this point would be to remind the reporter that the Legislative branch makes laws and the exec is obligated to enforce laws - even bad ones (good chance to take a poke at the current guy in office who thinks he gets to pick and choose which laws to enforce....).  The only other recourse is veto a bad proposal, and if it gets overturned, then the supreme court.)

Reminding the voters of balance of powers is likely a very good tactic for the Trump campaign.....

He fell for the 1st grade journalism question tactic.  He's not smart enough to stay in the race.  The Improv is not a place to run a campaign.  (His presence won't just give the office to a Dem, it'll also give the congress to the Dems - the worst case scenario is to give both branches to a single party......)

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

This goes back to my earlier post about acting "Presidential".  Sometimes as a parent, role model or presidential candidate you have to take the high road to defuse a situation rather than pour gasoline on it.  I'd much prefer the next POTUS of our country denounce violence at his campaign rallies rather than incite it and offer to pay legal fees.  

What Trump hasn't learned yet is that it's in his best interest to ignore the protesters, not create martyrs out of them.  He shows little self restraint in situations where great self restraint is required, the same can be said at lesser degrees for Cruz and Hillary.  

The POTUS has to deal with a lot of dissent (ask Obama and GW).   Trump has been coddled and shielded from a lot of criticism throughout his life.  As POTUS he can't just fire people who disagree with them or call them names.  He has to learn to effectively communicate with those who don't like him or the things he's done.  

Good post.  Well said.

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

As POTUS he can't just fire people who disagree with them or call them names. 

And yet I get the strong impression that this is EXACTLY what he thinks he can do (first half) and what he will do (second half). 

[Lihu]

8 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

And yet I get the strong impression that this is EXACTLY what he thinks he can do (first half) and what he will do (second half). 

That's exactly why both parties are afraid of him. Refreshing.

My hope is that government workers will be responsible for their actions, and treated accordingly. They are currently "untouchable" no matter how badly they screw up or treat citizens.

[Golfingdad]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

That's exactly why both parties are afraid of him. Refreshing.

There are a lot of words I can think of that I would use to describe Trump if he actually tried to run the country that way, and "refreshing" wouldn't even sniff the bottom of that list if it was 1,000 words long.

[Lihu]

Just now, Golfingdad said:

There are a lot of words I can think of that I would use to describe Trump if he actually tried to run the country that way, and "refreshing" wouldn't even sniff the bottom of that list if it was 1,000 words long.

 

It seems like our views are a bit different concerning government workers and their responsibilities, and I do agree that Trump might be a little bit over the top regarding how he treats his employees. I don't have any first hand information regarding this, but he did defend his campaign manager even in the face of overwhelming discontent. Guessing he's fair.

[Ernest Jones]

3 hours ago, Lihu said:

In fact, I've been the victim of racial profiling myself, so obviously I don't align with the white supremacists.

However, taking a stop gap measure to prevent more potential activity is more or less a reasonable thing to do. Whether the white supremacists would love to see this happen is irrelevant to my view.

Is the reason why there are terrorists unfair? Yes, of course it is. The west has collectively treated the people in that region very badly. In fact, people of that region all should be really wealthy because the oil was found on their land. Is this an unfair situation? Yes, it is, and our puppet governments are not helping that situation.

If you drive a car you are guilty of using their resources without paying them a fair amount of money***.

***Off topic what we should be paying for oil.

  Reveal hidden contents

At a quick glance. . .

We should be paying something like $360 per barrel or about 11.50USD per gallon of gas, but if you notice the dates of where the price spikes low, we (or our allies) were at war with someone or another in the middle east. Of course some of this is our puppet governments and OPEC trying to prevent alternative energies from flooding the marketplace. At $360 per barrel there are dozens of alternatives that cost far less.

Early 1970s OPEC floated the price of oil and regulated pumping then Kissinger told the OPEC nations to pump more oil or expect war. Next spike down was the Gulf war the next one was. . .

 

 

Should we profile people who are potential threats to the US? Yes, but should we also pay their countries a fair market value for their resources? Yes, of course we should. Then they would have enough to spread the wealth to everyone and reduce/eliminate the poverty that exists in their countries. Trump will stop the bleeding and a real government will stop the bloodshed in the middle east.

 

 

This is exactly what I was thinking prior to my last statement, but the issue I have with this particular aggressive reporter is that she knew the risks associated with trying to get a statement from Trump. She knew she was pushing secret service agents aside to get to him. She could have been just as easily shot as a possible assassin. It's literally like walking up to a police line and forcing your way through and not expecting any consequences.

Guessing that she usually gets her way on everything, and this time she didn't.

 

The issue I have with this hypocrisy is that Clinton was a "Barry Goldwater Girl". She is inherently a racist herself even if on a subtler level.

Kasich is just blabbering something, which is why he is not a front runner.

With all due respect @Lihu, I have no idea what your response to my post means. What is this stop gap measure you're referring to? Electing a narcissist? Building a wall on the Mexican border? Jailing women who have abortions? Something else? what?

[iacas]

Who do the rest of you plan to vote for? If you're anti-Trump (fine, whatever), who are you voting for? "Not Trump" isn't really an answer.

I don't know enough about politics to have much to say one way or the other about anyone, really, but I'll close the thread down and NOT start another if this thread turns into the same thing as the old one.

[Lihu]

27 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

With all due respect @Lihu, I have no idea what your response to my post means. What is this stop gap measure you're referring to? Building a wall on the Mexican border?

I was referring to the stop gap measure of not allowing people from certain countries from entering as freely as they have been. I find this reprehensible as well, and I feel really bad about feeling that there is need to do so. If it was my own race of people who were doing such things I would feel just as strongly.

Building a wall(s) is not necessarily building a physical wall, but could also be a large number of robotic sentries blocking passage and using the latest sensing (and remote sensing) technology to detect the presence of movement along all our borders.

There are just too many lives at stake.

Why there are so many lives at stake is another issue. I might even differ from your opinion on that topic. I feel just as strongly that the western nations are completely at fault for this debacle.

[Fourputt]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

Who do the rest of you plan to vote for? If you're anti-Trump (fine, whatever), who are you voting for? "Not Trump" isn't really an answer.

I don't know enough about politics to have much to say one way or the other about anyone, really, but I'll close the thread down and NOT start another if this thread turns into the same thing as the old one.

Well, obviously @Ernest Jones isn't voting for anyone, since he's 
Canadian, but he sure likes to stir the pot.

[phillyk]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Who do the rest of you plan to vote for? If you're anti-Trump (fine, whatever), who are you voting for? "Not Trump" isn't really an answer.

I don't know enough about politics to have much to say one way or the other about anyone, really, but I'll close the thread down and NOT start another if this thread turns into the same thing as the old one.

I don't remember if I said it, but I'll probably vote for Bernie.  He has a ton of experience, good ideas, and is true to himself and beliefs (as in, won't change because someone paid him to).  I don't think all his ideas will work like free education and healthcare.  I like the ideas for both, but it's unrealistic IMHO.  But, maybe trying to decrease the overall costs would be nice.  In WA, there's a plan that went through to decrease tuition over the next 5 years and it is showing.  We just have to band together and do it.  Healthcare wise, I don't have much knowledge except that doctors don't really like it because they don't get paid as much, and for college students, there is less incentive to go that route because of the amount of schooling and high costs still necessary to get the degree.  So there will be less doctors and more people to try and help.  I don't know how to switch it, but something needs to be done.  Also, there is too much "judging a book by its cover" these days.  I think Bernie has the best approaches to move America to being more racially united.  Obama made a good start, and I think Bernie has the best chance at continuing it.  I'm not saying giving out free stuff will make it better, but giving them the opportunity to grow themselves is important.  Education is the other part of it.  No student left behind was a disaster, but the motive for it was good.  Teachers are always trying to find ways to better educate todays children.  But the parents must also be more involved.

Hillary just seems too thirsty for more power.  She had her time with Bill and now with Obama.  With her whole scandal stuff, it just seems like she is unfit for the job.

[Golfingdad]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

Who do the rest of you plan to vote for? If you're anti-Trump (fine, whatever), who are you voting for? "Not Trump" isn't really an answer.

Sure it is.  At this point I have no idea who I am voting for.  In the primary, (democrat) I'm probably voting Bernie, but he's likely to lose to Hillary.  I'm no fan of hers, so I won't say that I'm voting for her when the general rolls around.  The only absolute guarantees I would make right now is that I'm not voting for Trump (or Cruz for that matter).  But if this Kasich guy makes it, or if Bloomberg were to run, or any other third party candidate that I don't know of yet, who knows?

The only thing that is certain is that Trump or Cruz is not getting my vote.

[baller7345]

48 minutes ago, iacas said:

Who do the rest of you plan to vote for? If you're anti-Trump (fine, whatever), who are you voting for? "Not Trump" isn't really an answer.

Now as I'm registered as independent I have no say if I'll get to vote for who I actually want to (though whether or not our individual votes actually matter is a whole other mess).

I want to be able to vote for Bernie, but if he loses I'm not going consider voting for a republican even though I dislike Clinton.  Though if through some sort of manipulation Kaisch ends up with the nomination I might have to think a bit more on it.