Trump's Speech

[DamnYankee]

We heard the same scare tactics from both Republicans and Democrats back in 2012. I realize our country will be just fine.

And yet here we are, worse off. With Crooked Hillary at the helm, there's no indication anything will improve. Just more division, corruption, and the same old same old.

 

[KLATTU]

Blatant fear-mongering. "America is all screwed up and only I can stop it getting worse!"

You want to see fear-mongering. Wait until next week!

Why do liberals pretend they don't do it??

 

[DamnYankee]

You want to see fear-mongering. Wait until next week!

Why do liberals pretend they don't do it??

8 Yrs ago Americans were warned leftist policies would harm the country, now look at us. More divided than ever, gov't corruption run amok, more debt, more people on food stamps, leftist violence across the country, a part-time work country, can we stand another four/eight years of this garbage?

 

[Ikari]

You cant just dismiss the importance of SC Justice appointments. Rights can be eroded away and once they are gone they are very unlikely to be restored.

I'm not, it's one reason why I'm voting for Gary Johnson. He'll make appropriate pics to the SC.

 

[Ikari]

8 Yrs ago Americans were warned leftist policies would harm the country, now look at us. More divided than ever, gov't corruption run amok, more debt, more people on food stamps, leftist violence across the country, a part-time work country, can we stand another four/eight years of this garbage?

Nope. But if you vote Trillary, that's what you'll get.

 

[Perotista]

When you have Crooked Hillary poised to make SCOTUS appointments that will effect the nation in negative ways for years to come, yes, this election IS far more important. More important than you realize.

The SCOTUS justices is something the Republicans should have thought of before they nominated Trump. I am very anti-Trump and anti-Clinton. I and probably most independents would have voted for almost any Republican other than Trump. The Republican Party in nominating Trump told all of America that making a statement was much more important than winning in November. If Clinton wins, the Republicans have only themselves to blame.

Looking at independents, 54% of them have a very negative view of both Trump and Hillary Clinton. 24% of all Republicans have a negative view view of both Trump and Clinton, 20% of all Democrats have a negative view of both Trump and Clinton. That is quite a lot of votes to pass up for nominating Trump. Go to the second table and see for yourself.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

The bottom line is that with a decent candidate, the Republican would be 10 points ahead today instead of five point behind. Independents make up approximately 40% of the electorate, Kasich was winning them 58-36 over Clinton, Rubio was winning them 52-42 over Clinton. Trump is tied at 35-35. That is the reason in poll after poll during the primary season both Kasich and Rubio were almost always beating Clinton. Trump was the only one always losing to her except for around five or six polls out of 60. So in their infinite wisdom, the Republicans nominate the one candidate that could lose to Hillary. They nominated the only candidate which was more disliked by the electorate as a whole than Clinton. I thought that was an impossible task. But somehow the Republicans pulled it off.

 

[Slyfox696]

You cant just dismiss the importance of SC Justice appointments. Rights can be eroded away

But I can dismiss:
A) The idea THIS election is so much more important than all others
B) That Hillary Clinton's selection for the Supreme Court would be more likely to erode rights than a Donald Trump selection.

We can argue which rights are more "under threat" (if you wish to call it that) between a Trump court nominee or a Clinton court nominee, but history shows that regardless if a court leans conservative or leans liberal, people are going to feel like their rights are under assault.

And yet here we are, worse off.

No we're not. The economy is stronger than 8 years ago. We're losing fewer American lives in overseas battles. Violent crime over the last 8 years has continued its downward trend. Our national deficit is half of what it was 8 years ago.

Are there some elements which are not as good as they were 8 years ago? Sure, but there's just as many, if not more, indicators which are better than 8 years ago.

 

[DamnYankee]

The SCOTUS justices is something the Republicans should have thought of before they nominated Trump. I am very anti-Trump and anti-Clinton. I and probably most independents would have voted for almost any Republican other than Trump. The Republican Party in nominating Trump told all of America that making a statement was much more important than winning in November. If Clinton wins, the Republicans have only themselves to blame.

Looking at independents, 54% of them have a very negative view of both Trump and Hillary Clinton. 24% of all Republicans have a negative view view of both Trump and Clinton, 20% of all Democrats have a negative view of both Trump and Clinton. That is quite a lot of votes to pass up for nominating Trump. Go to the second table and see for yourself.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

The bottom line is that with a decent candidate, the Republican would be 10 points ahead today instead of five point behind. Independents make up approximately 40% of the electorate, Kasich was winning them 58-36 over Clinton, Rubio was winning them 52-42 over Clinton. Trump is tied at 35-35. That is the reason in poll after poll during the primary season both Kasich and Rubio were almost always beating Clinton. Trump was the only one always losing to her except for around five or six polls out of 60. So in their infinite wisdom, the Republicans nominate the one candidate that could lose to Hillary. They nominated the only candidate which was more disliked by the electorate as a whole than Clinton. I thought that was an impossible task. But somehow the Republicans pulled it off.

I tend not to follow polls and I don't agree with some of your points, but that is what makes horse races. Incidentally did you see DJT's speech?

 

[polgara]

The SCOTUS justices is something the Republicans should have thought of before they nominated Trump. I am very anti-Trump and anti-Clinton. I and probably most independents would have voted for almost any Republican other than Trump. The Republican Party in nominating Trump told all of America that making a statement was much more important than winning in November. If Clinton wins, the Republicans have only themselves to blame.

Looking at independents, 54% of them have a very negative view of both Trump and Hillary Clinton. 24% of all Republicans have a negative view view of both Trump and Clinton, 20% of all Democrats have a negative view of both Trump and Clinton. That is quite a lot of votes to pass up for nominating Trump. Go to the second table and see for yourself.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

The bottom line is that with a decent candidate, the Republican would be 10 points ahead today instead of five point behind. Independents make up approximately 40% of the electorate, Kasich was winning them 58-36 over Clinton, Rubio was winning them 52-42 over Clinton. Trump is tied at 35-35. That is the reason in poll after poll during the primary season both Kasich and Rubio were almost always beating Clinton. Trump was the only one always losing to her except for around five or six polls out of 60. So in their infinite wisdom, the Republicans nominate the one candidate that could lose to Hillary. They nominated the only candidate which was more disliked by the electorate as a whole than Clinton. I thought that was an impossible task. But somehow the Republicans pulled it off.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

What choice did they have, Pero? Trump got the most votes - how can you get around that fact? They considered changing the rules and you saw what an outcry of "unfair and illegal" that provoked from the voters, with threats of lawsuits that would delay an election. Strange times indeed! :thumbdown:

 

[Ikari]

But I can dismiss:
A) The idea THIS election is so much more important than all others
B) That Hillary Clinton's selection for the Supreme Court would be more likely to erode rights than a Donald Trump selection.

I mean, who is Trump going to put in the SC? Maybe a Monsanto CEO, some GoldmanSachs banker, someone from one of his companies? Trump is a reality TV candidate, he just says what gets play, we have no idea what he'd actually do if he were to come to power. So what are his SC choices going to be vs. Hillary's? In the end each branch of the Republocrats wants to restrict freedom in some way, so either or, we're probably going to get judges that will rule in favor of Government power.

 

[Slyfox696]

I mean, who is Trump going to put in the SC? Maybe a Monsanto CEO, some GoldmanSachs banker, someone from one of his companies? Trump is a reality TV candidate, he just says what gets play, we have no idea what he'd actually do if he were to come to power. So what are his SC choices going to be vs. Hillary's? In the end each branch of the Republocrats wants to restrict freedom in some way, so either or, we're probably going to get judges that will rule in favor of Government power.

At best, Trump's Supreme Court nominee would be whomever the Republican leadership would tell him to nominate.

Keep in mind, that's the BEST scenario.

 

[Perotista]

I tend not to follow polls and I don't agree with some of your points, but that is what makes horse races. Incidentally did you see DJT's speech?

No, I don't watch the conventions anymore. No need, one can pick up all the goings on in five or ten minutes the next morning. Besides, I don't have a horse in this race. I want both Trump and Hillary to lose just like a lot of unaffiliated voters. I must admit this is a unique election, never before in our history has the two major political parties nominated two candidate that are disliked by the electorate as a whole then these two. That being the case, the uniqueness, it makes it hard to forecast. I truly expect a record low voter turnout, around 45% instead of the normal 55% mainly because quite a lot of people do not want to choose between Trump and Clinton.

I won't be watching the democratic one either. I already know the ending.

 

[ocean515]

i didn't vote for Obama either. So obviously it was an issue. Though, at the very least, Obama was a politician and senator so he did have experience in that realm that Trump does not. But he is a Chicago politician, and thus should never be trusted at any point.

Regardless, I didn't vote for Obama, and I won't vote for Trump. But thanks for stating that your guy is no better than Obama. I mean, it's obvious, the Republocrats are all alike in the end, but it's nice to hear you admit it.

Oh geeze. S can the projection BS. I asked a simple question. Trump has more experience and success at life than Obama could have invented, at the same stage.

 

[ocean515]

It's an argument the left can hit DJT on while ignoring BO's lack of experience 8 yrs ago.

It appears to me, they are so frightened, they'll throw anything out.

I would argue DJT has more political experience by multiple factors of 10, than BHO had when he was running for his first term.

It's a lame and desperate effort.

 

[ocean515]

It was to the GOP....8 years ago. Now it appears they've pulled an Obama and 'evolved'.

I think the voters did that for them.

Unlike the Status Quo Coronation Ball taking place next week, its not debatable that voters decided they had enough of establishment politicians, and want a different approach.

 

[Ikari]

Oh geeze. S can the projection BS. I asked a simple question. Trump has more experience and success at life than Obama could have invented, at the same stage.

PFFFFFT, Obama had WAY more success and experience at politics than Trump. Trump has more experience with the bankruptcy courts though.

 

[Ikari]

It appears to me, they are so frightened, they'll throw anything out.

I would argue DJT has more political experience by multiple factors of 10, than BHO had when he was running for his first term.

It's a lame and desperate effort.

You could argue, but then I'd say, what political offices has Trump won. Obama was a state senator then a US senator before becoming president. What offices has Trump held? I mean, if you want to argue that he has more political experience by multiple factors of 10 than Obama.

 

[Ikari]

I think the voters did that for them.

Unlike the Status Quo Coronation Ball taking place next week, its not debatable that voters decided they had enough of establishment politicians, and want a different approach.

Yeah...that's why they're going with a Corporate Republican politician as opposed to the Corporate Democrat politician the DNC is putting up. Really bucking the system there :roll:

 

[Perotista]

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

What choice did they have, Pero? Trump got the most votes - how can you get around that fact? They considered changing the rules and you saw what an outcry of "unfair and illegal" that provoked from the voters, with threats of lawsuits that would delay an election. Strange times indeed! :thumbdown:

Trump was the choice of 40% of the GOP primary voters, he won early and especially on super Tuesday winning most states with 35% of the vote. I agree, he won. Now the GOP has to live with him. It was the angry early voters that put Trump on his path to victory. Not the party faithful as a whole. But that was all it took with so many candidates.

It goes back to it being much more important to make a statement to the GOP establishment than choosing a winning candidate. The Democrats handed this election to the Republicans on a silver platter. All they had to do was accept it. They refused and went with Trump. That is their problem. Actually it will be the entire USA problem. But that is who they decided on. No doubt about that.

The Republican Party was between a rock and a hard place. A no win situation.

 

[ocean515]

PFFFFFT, Obama had WAY more success and experience at politics than Trump. Trump has more experience with the bankruptcy courts though.

IMO, not even debatable. His record in Chicago amounts to little, and as a Junior Senator, his record reflects the same level of accomplishment. If I recall, he announced his run for the White House 18 months after taking his Senate seat.

Trump's business requires massive political effort, both domestic and international. He openly admits he's played the political game, working politicians to achieve results. Obama's CV didn't approach that kind of experience.

 

[DamnYankee]

Besides, I don't have a horse in this race. I want both Trump and Hillary to lose just like a lot of unaffiliated voters.

We're doomed. LMAO

I won't be watching the democratic one either. I already know the ending.

I'll watch it. I need the laughs.

 

[Ikari]

IMO, not even debatable. His record in Chicago amounts to little, and as a Junior Senator, his record reflects the same level of accomplishment. If I recall, he announced his run for the White House 18 months after taking his Senate seat.

Trump's business requires massive political effort, both domestic and international. He openly admits he's played the political game, working politicians to achieve results. Obama's CV didn't approach that kind of experience.

Yeah, being a State Senator and then US Senator doesn't mean anything compared to Trumps ZERO ELECTED POSITIONS. Yeah...makes sense.

You're right, this isn't even debatable. Trump has zero political experience, Obama was at least a senator at both the State and the US level before being president. No one can honestly argue that Trump has more political experience than Obama.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yeah, being a State Senator and then US Senator doesn't mean anything compared to Trumps ZERO ELECTED POSITIONS. Yeah...makes sense.

In fairness, you're debating this with someone who claimed parts of Melania's speech wasn't plagiarized and then later said he never claimed parts of Melania's speech wasn't plagiarized.

In other words, if you're looking for an objective debate, I'm not sure you'll find it here.

On the other side, I do think ocean does have a point, in that Trump obviously would have worked the political side to get done some of the things he did. Does the equate to "multiple factors of 10" more experience than Obama? No, I don't think so. But I do think it would be erroneous to say Trump is lacking in any experience when it comes to working with politicians.

 

[Ikari]

In fairness, you're debating this with someone who claimed parts of Melania's speech wasn't plagiarized and then later said he never claimed parts of Melania's speech wasn't plagiarized.

In other words, if you're looking for an objective debate, I'm not sure you'll find it here.

On the other side, I do think ocean does have a point, in that Trump obviously would have worked the political side to get done some of the things he did. Does the equate to "multiple factors of 10" more experience than Obama? No, I don't think so. But I do think it would be erroneous to say Trump is lacking in any experience when it comes to working with politicians.

Trump would have worked the business side of things. Particularly in bankruptcy court. But he has no experience at government, and has displayed no ability for diplomacy. Business and government are two very different beasts.

 

[Slyfox696]

Trump would have worked the business side of things.

Yes, but the business side of things is routinely tied with the political side of things, at least when you're talking about the high level Trump has dealt with.

But he has no experience at government

He has no legislative or government executive experience, I agree. I do not agree he doesn't have experience with politics.

Business and government are two very different beasts.

Agreed.