Presidential Race 2016

[Ernest Jones]

6 hours ago, Gunther said:

Haha, I know you didn't expect much love from this lot.  I thought he did fine.  He's much better extemporaneously, however, which is a skill more indicative of his intelligence.  You ever heard Obama off a prompter?  Horror show.

The prompter is a necessity these days, he's adjusting and will improve.

I dunno. I thought Obama was quite eloquent here - http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/03/obama_gun_control_is_not_that_different_than_driving_safety_video.html - certainly far more Presidential than anything that has ever come out of The Donald. 

It actually makes it all the more painful to listen to Trump when you juxtapose it with Obama's eloquence and intelligence. 

In anycase, with Bernie seemingly done like dinner, I don't envy you your choices in this election. 

Too bad Obama can't run again, probably win by a landslide.

Choice 1: more of the same old story  

Choice 2: a bigoted buffoon

Good luck with that.

 

[boogielicious]

12 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

This is just for fun for my friend @newtogolf because I think it will make his head explode:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/hillary-clinton-fundamentally-honest-and-trustworthy

And it all started with this.

http://rense.com/general21/clears.htm

Quote

$70 Million Whitewater 
Report Clears The Clintons
By Michael Kirkland
UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent
3-21-2

WASHINGTON (UPI) - The final Whitewater report was released by the independent counsel's office Wednesday, ending an 8-year investigation whose many phases cost the taxpayer a total of $70 million.

Final verdict: No crimes committed by President Clinton or Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

In a letter accompanying the voluminous report, and in the report itself, the office repeated its conclusions that it first made public last year: There was not enough evidence to charge former President Clinton or Sen. Clinton with any crime, "including perjury," in regard to their Arkansas business dealings and the subsequent investigation into those dealings.

"This office investigated whether President and Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct related to Madison Guaranty, CMS, or Whitewater Development or had any knowledge of such conduct," the letter announcing the release of the report said, citing various Arkansas business ventures.

Which was led by this guy.

http://deadspin.com/ken-starr-faceplants-when-confronted-with-email-showing-1780263253

Quote

Ken Starr Faceplants When Confronted With Email Showing He Was Told About Rape At Baylor

 

[newtogolf]

46 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

I dunno. I thought Obama was quite eloquent here - http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/03/obama_gun_control_is_not_that_different_than_driving_safety_video.html - certainly far more Presidential than anything that has ever come out of The Donald. 

It actually makes it all the more painful to listen to Trump when you juxtapose it with Obama's eloquence and intelligence. 

In anycase, with Bernie seemingly done like dinner, I don't envy you your choices in this election. 

Too bad Obama can't run again, probably win by a landslide.

Choice 1: more of the same old story  

Choice 2: a bigoted buffoon

Good luck with that.

 

He was eloquent but he didn't answer the entire question which is why does Chicago (Obama's home town which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country) lead the nation in gun crimes and murders.  He also doesn't acknowledge that background checks are already required to purchase guns, it's a Federal law.  

If you spew the same speech countless times you eventually know it well enough that you don't need a telepromtper

[Elmer]

13 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

This is just for fun for my friend @newtogolf because I think it will make his head explode:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/hillary-clinton-fundamentally-honest-and-trustworthy

Politifact would agree
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ 
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

A couple great points from a very insightful article:

"How can a presidential candidate lie so frequently without being held accountable by the public? How can a presidential candidate declare that he will be the “best jobs president of all time” when most impartial economists agree that his policies would in fact destroy the economy? Do his supporters even care about facts?

One of his most vocal advocates, Breitbart writer (and full-time troll) Milo Yiannopoulos, provided an insight on Twitter when he was asked what Trump policies he actually supports, and replied that Trumpists just want to “burn everything down.” In other words, the policies (or lack thereof) don’t matter, they just want to watch the establishment squirm. This may be accurate for his most dedicated (and privileged) supporters, but surely there are voters who believe that he will somehow bring back jobs, deport 11 million people, and so on — they don’t know how, and they don’t really care how, but they have faith (just like the students at Trump University).

One underlying theme of Trump’s presidential campaign has been his hostile, anti-intellectual attitude — he is almost disdainful towards facts and expert opinion. The billionaire seems to pride himself on his ignorance, and has no desire to learn or familiarize himself with the issues — even now that he is the presumptive GOP nominee. In many ways, he is a reflection of much of America. Proud, prejudiced, patriotic, ignorant, materialistic, belligerent. He is also rich and famous, which millions of Americans aspire to be one day (there’s a reason why “business” is the No. 1 major at real universities). All of this makes Trump very appealing to average people, who see a billionaire who thinks and acts just like them."

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/08/its_all_a_con_trumps_presidential_campaign_is_as_big_a_scam_as_trump_university/

And by the way....Trump picks the "best people"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/07/donald-trumps-bad-week-just-got-worse-his-first-endorsed-candidate-got-destroyed/

 

 

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Politifact would agree
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ 
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

A couple great points from a very insightful article:

"How can a presidential candidate lie so frequently without being held accountable by the public? How can a presidential candidate declare that he will be the “best jobs president of all time” when most impartial economists agree that his policies would in fact destroy the economy? Do his supporters even care about facts?

One of his most vocal advocates, Breitbart writer (and full-time troll) Milo Yiannopoulos, provided an insight on Twitter when he was asked what Trump policies he actually supports, and replied that Trumpists just want to “burn everything down.” In other words, the policies (or lack thereof) don’t matter, they just want to watch the establishment squirm. This may be accurate for his most dedicated (and privileged) supporters, but surely there are voters who believe that he will somehow bring back jobs, deport 11 million people, and so on — they don’t know how, and they don’t really care how, but they have faith (just like the students at Trump University).

One underlying theme of Trump’s presidential campaign has been his hostile, anti-intellectual attitude — he is almost disdainful towards facts and expert opinion. The billionaire seems to pride himself on his ignorance, and has no desire to learn or familiarize himself with the issues — even now that he is the presumptive GOP nominee. In many ways, he is a reflection of much of America. Proud, prejudiced, patriotic, ignorant, materialistic, belligerent. He is also rich and famous, which millions of Americans aspire to be one day (there’s a reason why “business” is the No. 1 major at real universities). All of this makes Trump very appealing to average people, who see a billionaire who thinks and acts just like them."

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/08/its_all_a_con_trumps_presidential_campaign_is_as_big_a_scam_as_trump_university/

And by the way....Trump picks the "best people"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/07/donald-trumps-bad-week-just-got-worse-his-first-endorsed-candidate-got-destroyed/

 

As opposed to democrats who run on a platform of promising more free stuff to those who refuse to contribute to society and offering citizenship to illegal aliens who are being given the right to vote by other democrats?  Let's be real, each candidate appeals to the issues their voters want addressed.  

 

 

[bplewis24]

On 6/7/2016 at 3:31 PM, drmevo said:

For the life of me I can't understand how anyone is surprised by his comments about the judge. He's been saying similarly stupid and offensive stuff the whole election cycle, and he's always been inarticulate and unable to explain himself.  Is this just the straw that broke the camel's back?  

Completely agree.  But, ummm...err, I dunno.  For some reason this was just either more direct than the others or maybe since he's supposed to be in "serious, presidential" mode now, it matters more to the party heads.  Who knows?

[Gunther]

27 minutes ago, bplewis24 said:

Completely agree.  But, ummm...err, I dunno.  For some reason this was just either more direct than the others or maybe since he's supposed to be in "serious, presidential" mode now, it matters more to the party heads.  Who knows?

Nah, this was no big deal.  Nothing that hasn't been said about white judges for 100 years.

The judge is clearly biased against Trump but it's based on his politics, i.e., open borders, Clinton supporter, etc.  It's probably true that his politics were largely shaped by his ethnicity but that's hard to nail down.

Trump was in artful in how he explained his meaning, I wish he was better at that kind of thing (I wished the same of Bush) but this will pass.  He's not a racist.  

The media thought they had him and went on a witch hunt and some cowardly Republicans backed away out of fear but this will have no bearing on the election in November.

[rehmwa]

19 minutes ago, Gunther said:

The judge is clearly biased against Trump but it's based on his politics, i.e., open borders, Clinton supporter, etc.  It's probably true that his politics were largely shaped by his ethnicity but that's hard to nail down.

I'd like to see the evidence that's so 'clear'.  And that's really just the initial step.  Then, I'd like to see where this individual has applied any bias in the execution of his job.  (All people have biases, a good judge sets them aside and doesn't let them affect his job).

Trumps lawyers needed to present that evidence and ask for a venue change.

clearly making a blanket statement about where the judges parents used to live as reason for exclusion is a really stupid alternative to real evidence

 

(It's no different than when BLM 'demands' to have judges and investigators of color for cases of alleged police misconduct.  They don't talk about the performance of the individuals, they just accuse them of being biased strictly because they are white.  It's wrong either way, it's racist either way.  Whether Donald is or isn't racist, the off the cuff statement, misspoke or not, sure was.)

[Braivo]

14 hours ago, jamo said:

He would definitely be the first president to say the ... word, I guess we'll call it, "bigly."

I honestly can't believe i made it through all 15 minutes of that. When he reads off the prompter he sounds, well, he sounds like he's reciting a speech. He stops and starts at odd times, he doesn't know what to do with his hands (because he's strictly reciting a speech not in his own voice*), and he interrupts himself. It's robotic, awkward, and I don't sense a moment of sincerity.

He reads from a prompter, he gets criticized. He doesn't read from a prompter, he gets criticized. All of this is simply based on a pre-conceived opinion of him (same as it is with Obama). If you like the guy, you think he's doing great. If you don't like him, you think it's terrible. Pointless to argue really. 

14 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I prefer the Trump who rambles on with no filter.

It certainly is more entertaining. 

27 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Nah, this was no big deal.  Nothing that hasn't been said about white judges for 100 years.

The judge is clearly biased against Trump but it's based on his politics, i.e., open borders, Clinton supporter, etc.  It's probably true that his politics were largely shaped by his ethnicity but that's hard to nail down.

Trump was in artful in how he explained his meaning, I wish he was better at that kind of thing (I wished the same of Bush) but this will pass.  He's not a racist.  

The media thought they had him and went on a witch hunt and some cowardly Republicans backed away out of fear but this will have no bearing on the election in November.

Exactly. The GOP will take a little while to realize that Trump is anti-fragile. Once you've been labeled a racist xenophobe it doesn't really matter anymore, he knows this. No one's opinions of him will change because of the judge thingy. 

[Golfingdad]

3 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He reads from a prompter, he gets criticized. He doesn't read from a prompter, he gets criticized. All of this is simply based on a pre-conceived opinion of him (same as it is with Obama). If you like the guy, you think he's doing great. If you don't like him, you think it's terrible. Pointless to argue really. 

This might be the single most agreeable thing any of us have said in all 72 pages of this thread.  Kudos.  (Especially the last sentence) 

[krupa]

6 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He reads from a prompter, he gets criticized. He doesn't read from a prompter, he gets criticized. All of this is simply based on a pre-conceived opinion of him (same as it is with Obama).

If he hadn't already criticized other people for reading from a teleprompter, he probably wouldn't be criticized for reading from a teleprompter.  

8 minutes ago, Braivo said:

If you like the guy, you think he's doing great. If you don't like him, you think it's terrible.

Pretty much sums up all politics.

[StevenR84]

8 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He reads from a prompter, he gets criticized. He doesn't read from a prompter, he gets criticized. All of this is simply based on a pre-conceived opinion of him

I don't think there's anything pre-conceived about peoples opinion of him. He has said plenty to shape people's opinion of him.

[jamo]

16 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He reads from a prompter, he gets criticized. He doesn't read from a prompter, he gets criticized. All of this is simply based on a pre-conceived opinion of him (same as it is with Obama). If you like the guy, you think he's doing great. If you don't like him, you think it's terrible. Pointless to argue really. 

If you say so.

Can you refute anything I said, or are you just going to say I'm biased?

Obama's a skilled orator when reading from a prompter. He knows pacing, he knows where to look and what to do with his hands and his face. He knows where to put his emphasis. He knows how to work the crowd. He can elevate what he's reading just because of how he reads it. Reagan could do the same thing. JFK too. Trump can't. Carter had a certain earnestness to him, but he wasn't a skilled speaker. Bill Clinton is smart in that he knows when to do things like play his accent up and down.

Hillary Clinton has some of that ability, but not a ton. Have you ever been roused by a Hillary Clinton speech? I haven't. Part of that is her message - she doesn't play to the cheap seats like Trump and Sanders tend to, she stays pretty bland and middle-of-the-road liberal.

Obama is also frankly just a better writer than the both of them, and did a very good job employing speechwriters that could write for his voice. Trump hasn't done that very well thus far. Hillary Clinton hasn't either.

[Braivo]

28 minutes ago, jamo said:

Obama's a skilled orator when reading from a prompter. He knows pacing, he knows where to look and what to do with his hands and his face. He knows where to put his emphasis. He knows how to work the crowd. He can elevate what he's reading just because of how he reads it. Reagan could do the same thing. JFK too. Trump can't. Carter had a certain earnestness to him, but he wasn't a skilled speaker. Bill Clinton is smart in that he knows when to do things like play his accent up and down.

I do not pick candidates based on how well they can give a speech. 

[drmevo]

58 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I'd like to see the evidence that's so 'clear'.  And that's really just the initial step.  Then, I'd like to see where this individual has applied any bias in the execution of his job.  (All people have biases, a good judge sets them aside and doesn't let them affect his job).

Trumps lawyers needed to present that evidence and ask for a venue change.

clearly making a blanket statement about where the judges parents used to live as reason for exclusion is a really stupid alternative to real evidence

Exactly, if there was actually any evidence his lawyers would have already made a formal request, which they haven't.  But, not much of anything to do with this election is based on facts or evidence.

On 6/7/2016 at 11:29 PM, newtogolf said:

I may have pulled a Trump and didn't word my position properly .  I meant if integrity is your primary concern you're not likely going to vote for Hillary if you are aware of all the scandals and investigations her and Bill have been involved in.  

I didn't mean to suggest there weren't other reasons one might vote for Hillary but I don't consider integrity to be an area that she stands above Trump on.  

Integrity?  This is politics .   Seriously, though, to me, part of integrity is admitting when you're wrong and apologizing if necessary.  Can you point to one time Donald Trump has ever, in his public life, admitted wrong-doing or apologized, to anyone?  His non-apology the other day doesn't count because he never actually said he was sorry or that he was wrong.  Were you OK with his comments about McCain?  For all her faults, and as much I really don't want to vote for her, at least Hillary eventually apologized for the email server and said it was the wrong thing to do. 

Which president in recent memory has been a beacon of integrity in your eyes?  Reagan with Iran-Contra?  He must have felt pretty entitled to illegally go behind Congress's back.  How is that not just as bad or worse than everything you're criticizing Hillary for?  

Edited June 9, 2016 by drmevo

[jamo]

3 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I do not pick candidates based on how well they can give a speech. 

Communication, including speechmaking, is an important part of being president, getting laws passed, and representing the country on the global stage. IMO.

[Braivo]

1 minute ago, jamo said:

Communication, including speechmaking, is an important part of being president, getting laws passed, and representing the country on the global stage. IMO.

In all fairness, I do not belive Trump has any trouble communicating his position, negotiating a deal, or getting things done. 

[rehmwa]

6 minutes ago, drmevo said:

 at least Hillary eventually apologized for the email server and said it was the wrong thing to do.

I don't know of a single politician that actually apologizes for anything until backed into a corner and advised by staff that an 'apology' would play better with drones they buy votes from

I very much suspect any sincerity from Hillary on any of her vast mistakes.  (Perhaps deep down she just HAS to feel some guilt over threatening Bill's molestation victims....I hope there is at least that much humanity in there.  I doubt it, but I hope so)