• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Rips Trump a New One

Neither is Trump my first choice. Too bad about Kasich. But I'll hold my nose and vote Trump before I'll vote Hillary or abstain.
(So claims that I'm Trump supporter are clearly incorrect).

It all comes down to an ability to read between the lines and get past the hype that I am beginning to believe is deliberate just to get the constant media coverage. In almost all cases he never actually says what everybody immediately assumes he says. He thinks out loud and plays along with the interviewers. Like with the nukes for South Korea and Japan, he threw nukes into the concept that these countries need to depend on us less--meaning they need to be prepared to defend themselves--or else they need to reimburse us for the protection we provide.

This has been his strong suit--making America great again instead of pandering to every country and special interest group and becoming everybody else's pawn to use as they wish and gradually suck us dry.

His supporters understand this. His opponents focus on the politically incorrect way he says it. So his opponents keep him in the news, and his supporters keep showing up for his rallies and voting for him.

The big picture of these things is usually the more accurate way to look at them. As an objective observer, I am beginning to believe he is no loose cannon but has carefully calculated every move. It sure seems to be working.
 
If you vote for him....you are a supporter. What part of that equation are you missing?

There is no difference between a reluctant voter and a supporter? I think there is.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd put one of his bumper stickers on my car, wouldn't I? I don't and I won't.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd put one of his signs on my front lawn, wouldn't I? I don't and I won't.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd buy one of his hats and wear it in public, wouldn't I? I haven't and I won't.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd be attending his rallies, wouldn't I? I won't be attending a single one, no do I have any desire to attend one.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd have sent him some money, wouldn't I? I have yet to send a single dollar to him.

So yes, I think there's a difference between a supporter and a reluctant voter.
 
lol...a lot of these will stick.
"This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia."

It scares me that Clinton would say this. The fact is that any country has the right to develop nuclear weapons and it is scary that Clinton would question this right. As much as we may not like the idea, it is not the role of the US to go to war to prevent countries from getting nuclear weapons. I do not want a President who think that is the role of our government.

Clinton is the scary one who is a threat to world peace. She was Sec of State to the only President who was a war throughout his administration and apparently she wants to continue this policy.
 
It all comes down to an ability to read between the lines and get past the hype that I am beginning to believe is deliberate just to get the constant media coverage. In almost all cases he never actually says what everybody immediately assumes he says. He thinks out loud and plays along with the interviewers. Like with the nukes for South Korea and Japan, he threw nukes into the concept that these countries need to depend on us less--meaning they need to be prepared to defend themselves--or else they need to reimburse us for the protection we provide.

This has been his strong suit--making America great again instead of pandering to every country and special interest group and becoming everybody else's pawn to use as they wish and gradually suck us dry.

His supporters understand this. His opponents focus on the politically incorrect way he says it. So his opponents keep him in the news, and his supporters keep showing up for his rallies and voting for him.

The big picture of these things is usually the more accurate way to look at them. As an objective observer, I am beginning to believe he is no loose cannon but has carefully calculated every move. It sure seems to be working.

This seems to be far more accurate, in that he's carefully calculating every move.
A sane person can pretend to be insane, but an insane person can't possibly pretend to be sane.
 
She is one of the most experienced and qualified presidential candidates, for either party, in U.S. history. She has international, domestic, senate, congressional, executive (both federal and state) experience.

Does that guarantee success? Of course not.

But surely it is preferable to zero experience.

Sure she has experience, we just need to overlook how poorly she did.
 
This seems to be far more accurate, in that he's carefully calculating every move.
A sane person can pretend to be insane, but an insane person can't possibly pretend to be sane.

You've never heard of a sociopath, huh?
 
The problem is.....they are not seperable. When you vote for one you get both. Everyone should think very carefully about whether they want this man with his finger on the button. If he gets as easily rattled by one Hillary Clinton speech as he clearly did last night....imagine how this man will react when he has his finger on the nuclear button.

It is all in the eye of the beholder. You see it as somebody who is rattled and somebody unstable with his finger on the button. Others see him as brilliantly playing people to keep everybody interested, talking about him, and on the front pages and leading every newscast.
 
They really need to get someone else besides Hillary to deliver these messages.

It was Rubio's Stump Speech. The media simply never showed it until he started making fun of Trump's hands. :doh
 
There is no difference between a reluctant voter and a supporter? I think there is.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd put one of his bumper stickers on my car, wouldn't I? I don't and I won't.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd put one of his signs on my front lawn, wouldn't I? I don't and I won't.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd buy one of his hats and wear it in public, wouldn't I? I haven't and I won't.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd be attending his rallies, wouldn't I? I won't be attending a single one, no do I have any desire to attend one.

If I was a Trump supporter I'd have sent him some money, wouldn't I? I have yet to send a single dollar to him.

So yes, I think there's a difference between a supporter and a reluctant voter.
Then we disagree. If you cast a vote for someone, you are supporting that candidate whether you want to admit it or not. The bigger question you should be asking yourself is assuming you want to adopt your argument....why would you vote for someone that you are quick to deny support for. That is very telling in and of itself.
 
It is all in the eye of the beholder. You see it as somebody who is rattled and somebody unstable with his finger on the button. Others see him as brilliantly playing people to keep everybody interested, talking about him, and on the front pages and leading every newscast.

Anyone who saw his response last night knows that he was clearly rattled. It was obvious.
 
This seems to be far more accurate, in that he's carefully calculating every move.
A sane person can pretend to be insane, but an insane person can't possibly pretend to be sane.

That's absolutely untrue. Many insane people are very good at masking themselves and coming off sane until you look at them carefully.
 
They really need to get someone else besides Hillary to deliver these messages.

LOL....you wish. The reality is that across the board people are calling this an incredibly powerful speech....and not just the "mainstream media"....this is coming from even Trump supporters who are very concerned about this.
 
Then we disagree. If you cast a vote for someone, you are supporting that candidate whether you want to admit it or not. The bigger question you should be asking yourself is assuming you want to adopt your argument....why would you vote for someone that you are quick to deny support for. That is very telling in and of itself.

Not so much. As I said, a reluctant voter.
 
LOL....you wish. The reality is that across the board people are calling this an incredibly powerful speech....and not just the "mainstream media"....this is coming from even Trump supporters who are very concerned about this.

Yes I do wish because Hillary is just awful.
 
Yes I do wish because Hillary is just awful.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion....but the reality is.....the overwhelming majority of people felt differently. Such is life.
 
You are certainly entitled to your opinion....but the reality is.....the overwhelming majority of people felt differently. Such is life.

The message is fine and will resonate with people, but the messenger, ugh.
 
The message is fine and will resonate with people, but the messenger, ugh.

Again....certainly your opinion and you are entitled to it....but the overwhelming majority of people watching it felt differently.
 
Again....certainly your opinion and you are entitled to it....but the overwhelming majority of people watching it felt differently.

Did they respond to the message or the messenger? Trump leaves a lot of low hanging fruit around, not too difficult to pick it. I don't care for Trump and think he'd make a horrible if not dangerous president, but the speech didn't engender me to Clinton. The best she's got going is for her is selling Trump would be worse.
 
Did they respond to the message or the messenger? Trump leaves a lot of low hanging fruit around, not too difficult to pick it. I don't care for Trump and think he'd make a horrible if not dangerous president, but the speech didn't engender me to Clinton. The best she's got going is for her is selling Trump would be worse.

Which is more than enough, when comparing the two.
 
Anyone who saw his response last night knows that he was clearly rattled. It was obvious.

I just took a bit of time to listen to Hillary's 'major foreign policy speech'. It was billed by everybody as a 'major foreign policy speech'. What I heard was a long LONG litany of Donald Trump's 'sins'. Somebody counted it--she evoked Donald Trump's name 52 times. 52 times!!! And I didn't hear a single thing that would be her foreign policy. (I have already seen quite enough of what her foreign policy has been though.)

Was he rattled? I caught some, I think most, of his speech last night. He didn't sound all that rattled to me. But she handed him a mountain of ammunition to use later.

I think he will emerge the winner in that exchange.

And I want a medal for having to sit and listen to a whole Hillary Clinton speech. That's almost above and beyond the call of duty.
 
Stupid, stupid, stupid! If Hillary thinks that she can gain anything by attacking The Donald, she is even more inept than I thought. This is classical "feeding the troll", and he has grown big as a mountain already. Trump must be dismissed as a annoying clown, with one humorous mention per speech, at most. She needs to talk policy (in simple terms, of course), make persistent repetitive "I am planning to do this and that" statements, and - above all! - to be relentlessly positive and optimistic. You cannot out-Trump Trump. But you can out-Reagan him.

Of course, it's Hillary Clinton we are talking about...We are so doomed.
 
I just took a bit of time to listen to Hillary's 'major foreign policy speech'. It was billed by everybody as a 'major foreign policy speech'. What I heard was a long LONG litany of Donald Trump's 'sins'. Somebody counted it--she evoked Donald Trump's name 52 times. 52 times!!! And I didn't hear a single thing that would be her foreign policy. (I have already seen quite enough of what her foreign policy has been though.)

Was he rattled? I caught some, I think most, of his speech last night. He didn't sound all that rattled to me. But she handed him a mountain of ammunition to use later.

I think he will emerge the winner in that exchange.

And I want a medal for having to sit and listen to a whole Hillary Clinton speech. That's almost above and beyond the call of duty.

LOL....that's a stretch. Even Donald Trump supporters across the board have admitted that he was clearly rattled last night. I think they've recognized that it is so obvious that it make strategic sense to admit it and move on. How you can sit there and saw that he "didn't sound all that rattled" is just sheer desperation.
 
Back
Top Bottom