This election is NOT about Trump Vs Hillary

[Top Cat]

My candidate is Gary Johnson and I think I was very specific. Trump is a BAD candidate. He is a nightmare. I dont blame him...I blame the people that voted for him. But as I said this isnt about Trump vs Hillary...this election is about Trump vs 'movements'.

Every time he opens his mouth I feel a movement coming on.

 

[Slyfox696]

Her lead???

Yes, her lead.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

I don't think she'll be having much of a lead. Heck, she's pretty much in a statistical tie with Trump now.

She currently has a lead. I think it will get tighter as it goes on (they always do), but she has the lead and I think she'll keep it.

Never hurts starting the ballgame on 3rd base

No doubt about that...having the umps on your side doesn't hurt either.

But I think one thing we can ALL agree is that after November we are all going to be glad its over and we are all going to need a long hot shower and lots and lots of disinfectant soap.

Yes, yes we will.

Well, my list for a good candidate starts with:

No lying.

No caring more about your own political future than about your job in the government.

No tendency to soak the taxpayers for your own monetary enrichment.

No using your public government job for your own monetary and political enrichment.


Sorry, Slyfox696, Hillary fails on all four requirements. I judge her to NOT be a good candidate.

:roll:

I'd say this was funny, but it's really not. You just took things you can use to criticize Hillary and claimed they are criteria for a good candidate (almost all of your list would fall under "trustworthy" criteria). In other words, you just wasted both of our time.

General qualities in a good candidate is, in no particular order, intelligent, well-spoken, sharp in debates, good fund-raiser, energetic, hard working, honest/trustworthy, appeal to broad demographics, etc. Obviously her honest/trustworthy is suspect and maybe we could quibble over energy, but she basically checks off all the other things.

 

[MTAtech]

I don't agree with that. I think Hillary is a very strong politician. I just think she's a horrible person.

I believe that Clinton's negative perception is largely the result of decades of a smear campaign and not actual bad behavior. Her policy positions are unmistakably pro-middle class, even though she is in the elite and will pay more taxes from her own tax-plan.

Trump, on the other hand, is a horrible person. According to Tony Schwartz, who ghost wrote, Trump's "The Art of the Deal," “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.” If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”

In 1985, he’d published a piece in New York called “A Different Kind of Donald Trump Story,” which portrayed him not as a brilliant mogul but as a ham-fisted thug who had unsuccessfully tried to evict rent-controlled and rent-stabilized tenants from a building that he had bought on Central Park South. Trump’s efforts—which included a plan to house homeless people in the building in order to harass the tenants—became what Schwartz described as a “fugue of failure, a farce of fumbling and bumbling.” An accompanying cover portrait depicted Trump as unshaven, unpleasant-looking, and shiny with sweat. Yet, to Schwartz’s amazement, Trump loved the article. He hung the cover on a wall of his office, and sent a fan note to Schwartz, on his gold-embossed personal stationery. “Everybody seems to have read it,” Trump enthused in the note, which Schwartz has kept.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, her lead.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

She currently has a lead. I think it will get tighter as it goes on (they always do), but she has the lead and I think she'll keep it.

Oh...you are talking electoral college. I think it's a bit too early to be considering that. Wait till October.

I'd say this was funny, but it's really not. You just took things you can use to criticize Hillary and claimed they are criteria for a good candidate (almost all of your list would fall under "trustworthy" criteria). In other words, you just wasted both of our time.

General qualities in a good candidate is, in no particular order, intelligent, well-spoken, sharp in debates, good fund-raiser, energetic, hard working, honest/trustworthy, appeal to broad demographics, etc. Obviously her honest/trustworthy is suspect and maybe we could quibble over energy, but she basically checks off all the other things.

shrug...

I'd say those qualities you list are okay...but without the trustworthiness...without the tendency to be in it for themselves...your qualities will only enable a really crappy person to get elected. In actuality, your qualities...without honesty and trustworthy...simply means the candidate will have an easier time playing the voters and donors for suckers.

btw, Hillary's lack of honesty and trustworthiness isn't "suspect". It's a certainty. As is her tendency to soak taxpayers for her own monetary enrichment and using her government job for monetary and political enrichment.

 

[Mycroft]

I believe that Clinton's negative perception is largely the result of decades of a smear campaign and not actual bad behavior.

You either don't know about...or, more likely, you choose to ignore...Hillary's bad behavior.

 

[MTAtech]

You either don't know about...or, more likely, you choose to ignore...Hillary's bad behavior.

Yeah, I know, decades of non-scandals and allegations that have fizzled away when investigated.

 

[kamikaze483]

Ah yes, don't look at our candidate, just look at the problems with the other guys candidate. Nothing to see over here, move along...

Both of the candidates are terrible. But this election will be a referendum on capitalism vs. socialism.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, I know, decades of non-scandals and allegations that have fizzled away when investigated.

Not hardly.

Decades of scandals and events that she has managed to slither out from under...a very capable snake.

 

[MTAtech]

Both of the candidates are terrible. But this election will be a referendum on capitalism vs. socialism.

Really? Which one is which? Clinton favors a market based health care system and Trump wants to use the power of government to unnaturally support the coal industry.

 

[kamikaze483]

Really? Which one is which? Clinton favors a market based health care system and Trump wants to use the power of government to unnaturally support the coal industry.

As always, Hillary supports a single payer system. She now appears to support free college (though she just stole that from Bernie trying to earn his votes). She has also indicated her eagerness to continue Obama's policies which have been leaning socialist. There is no way that Trump is not a capitalist. So the question of which is which is easy.

 

[MTAtech]

As always, Hillary supports a single payer system. She now appears to support free college (though she just stole that from Bernie trying to earn his votes). She has also indicated her eagerness to continue Obama's policies which have been leaning socialist. There is no way that Trump is not a capitalist. So the question of which is which is easy.

Obama a socialist? He's barely a liberal. You paint 'socialism' with a broad brush. By your measure, Nixon was a socialist. Nixon created the EPA and instituted wage and price controls. Nixon even expanded the welfare state by expanding its regulatory reach of new government agencies.

In the real world, free college was commonplace in the 1960s and many capitalists nations, such as Germany and Israel, have free government run health insurance.

In the 1950s, Eisenhower was more liberal than Obama would be. Ike angered his fellow Republicans, who wanted nothing more than to repeal Roosevelt’s New Deal, root and branch. And with control of both the House and Senate in 1953 and 1954, he could have undone a lot of it if he wanted to. But Eisenhower not only refused to repeal the New Deal, he wouldn’t even let Republicans in Congress cut taxes even though the high World War II and Korean War rates were in effect.

By 1995, Clinton was working with Republicans to dismantle welfare. In 1997, he supported a cut in the capital gains tax. As the benefits of his 1993 deficit reduction package took effect, budget deficits disappeared and we had the first significant surpluses in memory. Yet Clinton steadfastly refused to spend any of the flood of revenues coming into the Treasury, hording them like a latter day Midas. In the end, his administration was even more conservative than Eisenhower’s on fiscal policy.

Skipping forward a few presidents, liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.

Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism:

• His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary;
• He continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary;
• He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals;
• He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever;
• And he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans.

 

[Slyfox696]

I believe that Clinton's negative perception is largely the result of decades of a smear campaign and not actual bad behavior.

The Clintons are shady. I don't think it's as simple as "she's been in the political public eye for a while".

Oh...you are talking electoral college. I think it's a bit too early to be considering that. Wait till October.

That doesn't make sense. I said she had a lead. And she does. :shrug:

shrug...

I'd say those qualities you list are okay...but without the trustworthiness...without the tendency to be in it for themselves...your qualities will only enable a really crappy person to get elected. In actuality, your qualities...without honesty and trustworthy...simply means the candidate will have an easier time playing the voters and donors for suckers.

Doesn't change the fact Hillary is a strong candidate. :shrug:

 

[Harshaw]

Doesn't change the fact Hillary is a strong candidate. :shrug:

She's leading, and if I were going to bet, I'd put my money on her winning.

But that doesn't make her a "strong candidate." It only means she's less weak than the orangutan on the other side.

 

[Slyfox696]

She's leading, and if I were going to bet, I'd put my money on her winning.

But that doesn't make her a "strong candidate." It only means she's less weak than the orangutan on the other side.

Her leading isn't what makes her a strong candidate. It's the fact she has a good number of qualities you look for in a candidate, qualities which I've already listed.