IDBillzFan Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) He's been hitting her repeatedly about being corrupt. But there are only so many times you can say that in an appearance before you need to move onto other topics. Again he's trying to build the case against her being qualified because of her alleged strength in foreign affairs. Again listen to what he actually said/did and not how it was spun. And as for him being a Dem, if you're expecting a true Repub to ever be president again, you're deluding yourself. The social issues are retarded, considering they're rooted in religion, but even the Church is starting to change their stances slowly. So then you need to ask yourself who would be better for the economy and national security? IMHO it's clear. Again we're not dealing with great, or even good, choices here so it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils. I know what he was trying to say. Unfortunately, he's a dumbphuck who is incapable of making a coherent point. He actually makes me miss John McCain as Dorf. You think just saying "Crooked Hillary" makes his point? How in the phuck do you run for President of the US and NOT know enough to avoid talking about the virtues of someone like Saddam Hussein in ANY capacity? How do you not just pound the Hillary corruption bit over and over, with your spokespersons discussing it over and over. But no. The moron does stupid stuff, like lift ad material from an anti-Semitic website, or praise Saddam Hussein. Yes, I know. It's ALL crap. But I would like, for just one week, for Trump to stop being the embarrassing dolt that makes Hillary Clinton look like a good choice. Unfortunately, he has no idea how to do it because his brand is being an embarrassing dolt. And please...give the whole religious right stuff a break. Christians are being murdered left and right in the world, and absolutely no one gives a schitt enough to speak up for them. Same with Jews. The people you see changing their positions are doing so out of fear. That you don't believe in God is not a reason to expect people of faith to compromise that faith. EDIT: Here's a good, brief article from Ben Shapiro that pretty much breaks down my attitude. Edited July 6, 2016 by LABillzFan
B-Man Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) Reminder: Tweet from fauxahontas January 29, 2016 Elizabeth WarrenVerified account @SenWarren Jan 29 The next president can honor the simple notion that nobody is above the law, but it will happen only if voters demand it. Theory: Under orders to let Hillary skate, Comey decided to make her guilt clear: http://canadafreepress.com/article/theory-under-orders-to-let-hillary-skate-comey-decided-to-make-her-guilt-cl#.V30HqUTgeMM.twitter … . Edited July 6, 2016 by B-Man
keepthefaith Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 He's been hitting her repeatedly about being corrupt. But there are only so many times you can say that in an appearance before you need to move onto other topics. Again he's trying to build the case against her being qualified because of her alleged strength in foreign affairs. Again listen to what he actually said/did and not how it was spun. And as for him being a Dem, if you're expecting a true Repub to ever be president again, you're deluding yourself. The social issues are retarded, considering they're rooted in religion, but even the Church is starting to change their stances slowly. So then you need to ask yourself who would be better for the economy and national security? IMHO it's clear. Again we're not dealing with great, or even good, choices here so it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils. Republican candidates need to: embrace same sex marriage learn how to express the virtues and sound values taught by religion without making people feel they are imposing their religion on them better support a clean environment and recognize the benefits of that but continue to draw factual distinction from the fringe climate change crowd abortion, tough to solve that one
IDBillzFan Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 Republican candidates need to: embrace same sex marriage learn how to express the virtues and sound values taught by religion without making people feel they are imposing their religion on them better support a clean environment and recognize the benefits of that but continue to draw factual distinction from the fringe climate change crowd abortion, tough to solve that one Or they can... Leave it to the states Leave it to the states Leave it to the states Leave it to the states Over and over and over, repeat after me: "That's a states issue and I have no desire to make it a federal issue."
keepthefaith Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 I know what he was trying to say. Unfortunately, he's a dumbphuck who is incapable of making a coherent point. He actually makes me miss John McCain as Dorf. You think just saying "Crooked Hillary" makes his point? How in the phuck do you run for President of the US and NOT know enough to avoid talking about the virtues of someone like Saddam Hussein in ANY capacity? How do you not just pound the Hillary corruption bit over and over, with your spokespersons discussing it over and over. But no. The moron does stupid stuff, like lift ad material from an anti-Semitic website, or praise Saddam Hussein. Yes, I know. It's ALL crap. But I would like, for just one week, for Trump to stop being the embarrassing dolt that makes Hillary Clinton look like a good choice. Unfortunately, he has no idea how to do it because his brand is being an embarrassing dolt. And please...give the whole religious right stuff a break. Christians are being murdered left and right in the world, and absolutely no one gives a schitt enough to speak up for them. Same with Jews. The people you see changing their positions are doing so out of fear. That you don't believe in God is not a reason to expect people of faith to compromise that faith. EDIT: Here's a good, brief article from Ben Shapiro that pretty much breaks down my attitude. Trump has a golden opportunity running against Hillary but he just can't articulate his own positions or her weaknesses very well. I'm really surprised he has communicated so poorly over so many months. He was never a top choice for me but I did expect better campaigning from him. Or they can... Leave it to the states Leave it to the states Leave it to the states Leave it to the states Over and over and over, repeat after me: "That's a states issue and I have no desire to make it a federal issue." Leaving it to the states is not a winning play but yes that's what they are doing.
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 Trump has a golden opportunity running against Hillary but he just can't articulate his own positions or her weaknesses very well. I'm really surprised he has communicated so poorly over so many months. He was never a top choice for me but I did expect better campaigning from him. Leaving it to the states is not a winning play but yes that's what they are doing. Leaving it to the states SHOULD be the winning play, since it's the Constitutional one.
IDBillzFan Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) Trump has a golden opportunity running against Hillary but he just can't articulate his own positions or her weaknesses very well. I'm really surprised he has communicated so poorly over so many months. He was never a top choice for me but I did expect better campaigning from him. It's not that he can't. It's that he doesn't want to. In all the presidential campaigns I have watched, never have I ever seen a candidate get taken down so publicly and with such undeniable proof of corruption as you watched Comey do to Hillary yesterday. A person who want to beat her...who genuinely wants to beat her...would have ridden that pony all day long. He would have pointed to her specific lies, over and over and over, and then sent his fanboys out to tell everyone else about each specific lie. He would have spent the entire day talking only about the FBI comments, and he'd have ads running for prime time last night. But he simply does not want to, and I can only assume this is for two reasons: (1) he never expected to win in the first place and is playing a TV role to promote his brand or (2) he knows he can hand the WH to Hillary, which whom he is close personal friends, and to whom he has donated millions. I guess there's a (3) he's just a dumbphuck moron. Leaving it to the states is not a winning play but yes that's what they are doing. This is precisely what the right should be pointing out: limited government. Get the feds out of your life and leave key issues to the states. It's the easiest and best message, but you won't get it from Trump because he is a big government Democrat in word and deed. Edited July 6, 2016 by LABillzFan
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 It's not that he can't. It's that he doesn't want to. In all the presidential campaigns I have watched, never have I ever seen a candidate get taken down so publicly and with such undeniable proof of corruption as you watched Comey do to Hillary yesterday. A person who want to beat her...who genuinely wants to beat her...would have ridden that pony all day long. He would have pointed to her specific lies, over and over and over, and then sent his fanboys out to tell everyone else about each specific lie. He would have spent the entire day talking only about the FBI comments, and he'd have ads running for prime time last night. But he simply does not want to, and I can only assume this is for two reasons: (1) he never expected to win in the first place and is playing a TV role to promote his brand or (2) he knows he can hand the WH to Hillary, which whom he is close personal friends, and to whom he has donated millions. I guess there's a (3) he's just a dumbphuck moron. This is precisely what the right should be pointing out: limited government. Get the feds out of your life and leave key issues to the states. It's the easiest and best message, but you won't get it from Trump because he is a big government Democrat in word and deed. At this point, the Republican Party should nominate someone else, since it's blindingly clear that Trump either can't or won't campaign against Hillary. Of course, if he'd just shut up, her campaign would probably implode under her own incompetence and dishonesty. But of course, all she has to do is not talk, and HIS campaign will implode... This is a very weird political season.
Juror#8 Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) <p> Republican candidates need to: embrace same sex marriage learn how to express the virtues and sound values taught by religion without making people feel they are imposing their religion on them better support a clean environment and recognize the benefits of that but continue to draw factual distinction from the fringe climate change crowd abortion, tough to solve that one In order to remain viable, Republicans need to do nothing more than repudiate racist and bigoted comments by people who are associating themselves with the party. They can also realize that the party doesn't have to be traditionalist or monolithic to survive. This country will be minority-majority by 2045. Fact bitches. Minorities are voting democratic at like an 80% clip. The crotchety, cantankerous, out-of-touch anglos (that comprise the echo chamber of this board) are becoming a fading political voice. To be sure, these same folks keep !@#$ing up election prognostications, and guessing wrong on political trends, and don't realize that their gut feeling around 'the pulse of the nation' is actually gas and indigestion. Republicans can build a thriving political party with a 25% minority contingent that actually agrees with 75% of their views but instead they want to welcome white nationalists into the mainstream party dialog and label Republicans as "liberal" who think that the aca, or social services for the indigent are good programs. Out of touch crotchety mo!@#$ers are going to tank the Republican Party that I call home. I'll just go back to reading the articles that bman plagiarizes, in lieu of actual individual thoughts on topics of political moment, and remind myself that these are the folks who want to be the grassroots voice of the party. Edited July 6, 2016 by Juror#8
IDBillzFan Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 At this point, the Republican Party should nominate someone else, since it's blindingly clear that Trump either can't or won't campaign against Hillary. If you watched events unfold yesterday, particularly in the world of social media, two things were going on after the Comey press conference. The first was "Where is Trump?", who should have had his own presser immediately ready to go with canned responses for the two most possible outcomes from Comey. The second was "Trump's gonna screw this up by saying something stupid and change the narrative," which is precisely what happened. The final proof for me yesterday came last night, when I finally had a chance to surf the news channels. What does he do? A phone interview with Bill Freaking O'Reilly. No one else. Nowhere else. He's literally phoning it in. Minorities are voting democratic at like an 80% clip. Why do you think this is?
Juror#8 Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) If you watched events unfold yesterday, particularly in the world of social media, two things were going on after the Comey press conference. The first was "Where is Trump?", who should have had his own presser immediately ready to go with canned responses for the two most possible outcomes from Comey. The second was "Trump's gonna screw this up by saying something stupid and change the narrative," which is precisely what happened. The final proof for me yesterday came last night, when I finally had a chance to surf the news channels. What does he do? A phone interview with Bill Freaking O'Reilly. No one else. Nowhere else. He's literally phoning it in. Why do you think this is? I don't vote democratic. I haven't since 2000 (gore) and 2010 in a statewide election. But I would guess it has something to do with racial separatists in statewide elections as republicans, and Republicans legislators fighting the removal of the confederate flag from government state houses - the same confederate flag that white nationalists use as part of their uniform to protest black and brown folks living in "their" country. And probably to some degree members of the kkk saying "vote republican and support trump; he is our best hope ..." (paraphrasing). I'm not sure. Call it in a shot in the dark. But something about those things seems antithetical to the self interest of many black and brown folks. And may tend to make them steer clear of that party even though the republican platform, in my estimation, is more naturally aligned with, specifically, black cultural interests. Edited July 6, 2016 by Juror#8
keepthefaith Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) Leaving it to the states SHOULD be the winning play, since it's the Constitutional one. That doesn't address some of the beefs the same sex marriage crowd has such as spousal SS benefits which is a big one for that group. On that basis I think it should be addressed federally. I agree though that states' rights are very important and have unfortunately been eroded over time. In order to remain viable, Republicans need to do nothing more than repudiate racist and bigoted comments by people who are associating themselves with the party. They can also realize that the party doesn't have to be traditionalist or monolithic to survive. This country will be minority-majority by 2045. Fact bitches. Minorities are voting democratic at like an 80% clip. The crotchety, cantankerous, out-of-touch anglos (that comprise the echo chamber of this board) are becoming a fading political voice. To be sure, these same folks keep !@#$ing up election prognostications, and guessing wrong on political trends, and don't realize that their gut feeling around 'the pulse of the nation' is actually gas and indigestion. Republicans can build a thriving political party with a 25% minority contingent that actually agrees with 75% of their views but instead they want to welcome white nationalists into the mainstream party dialog and label Republicans as "liberal" who think that the aca, or social services for the indigent are good programs. Out of touch crotchety mo!@#$ers are going to tank the Republican Party that I call home. I'll just go back to reading the articles that bman plagiarizes, in lieu of actual individual thoughts on topics of political moment, and remind myself that these are the folks who want to be the grassroots voice of the party. I still believe that if you put 100 people of mixed politics, age and race in a room and factually present the big issues we face as a nation the vast majority of those people once informed will find themselves more agreeable to what many consider conservative positions on those issues. Most people can't very well explain their stance on the economy, debt, entitlements, immigration and national security. Both political parties deliberately don't educate voters well on issues which benefits liberal polititions more IMO. If you watched events unfold yesterday, particularly in the world of social media, two things were going on after the Comey press conference. The first was "Where is Trump?", who should have had his own presser immediately ready to go with canned responses for the two most possible outcomes from Comey. The second was "Trump's gonna screw this up by saying something stupid and change the narrative," which is precisely what happened. The final proof for me yesterday came last night, when I finally had a chance to surf the news channels. What does he do? A phone interview with Bill Freaking O'Reilly. No one else. Nowhere else. He's literally phoning it in. I felt Trump should have had only a short initial response yesterday and then should respond in a larger and more prepared way in a few days. His first seat of the pants fire-ready-aim responses don't usually serve him or his party well. Edited July 6, 2016 by keepthefaith
dpberr Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 I see that Clinton is going after Trump's "Saddam killed terrorists very well" remarks. Although not articulated smartly, Trump is right. Guys like Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad kept the lid on the pot of all these Islamic jihadists and it was these war mongers like the Bushes and the Clintons who have effectively removed that firewall by removing bad dictators. However, those dictators served a strategic purpose to the United States. I watched the Frontline that detailed the run-up to the Iraq War and how the United States tried tying Zarqawi to Saddam. What an eye opener. The CIA analysts are going "there is no NO WAY Saddam would let a guy like Zarqawi run around Iraq" yet guys like Cheney and Libby insisted there must be a connection. With Clinton, I just see more international mess making and destabilization. She'll double down on removing Assad and then go for a big fish like North Korea or some field trips to Africa.
Doc Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 I know what he was trying to say. Unfortunately, he's a dumbphuck who is incapable of making a coherent point. He actually makes me miss John McCain as Dorf. You think just saying "Crooked Hillary" makes his point? How in the phuck do you run for President of the US and NOT know enough to avoid talking about the virtues of someone like Saddam Hussein in ANY capacity? How do you not just pound the Hillary corruption bit over and over, with your spokespersons discussing it over and over. But no. The moron does stupid stuff, like lift ad material from an anti-Semitic website, or praise Saddam Hussein. Yes, I know. It's ALL crap. But I would like, for just one week, for Trump to stop being the embarrassing dolt that makes Hillary Clinton look like a good choice. Unfortunately, he has no idea how to do it because his brand is being an embarrassing dolt. And please...give the whole religious right stuff a break. Christians are being murdered left and right in the world, and absolutely no one gives a schitt enough to speak up for them. Same with Jews. The people you see changing their positions are doing so out of fear. That you don't believe in God is not a reason to expect people of faith to compromise that faith. EDIT: Here's a good, brief article from Ben Shapiro that pretty much breaks down my attitude. Again, you're listening to the spin. Do you believe that Donald meant to be anti-Semitic? Do you think he was praising SH for anything other than his ability to bring stability to the region? Your anger should be directed more at the media who spins these things and gives HiLIARy a pass for saying things like "CPT" or "off the reservation," never mind being a criminal. And as for Christians being murdered (which is obviously wrong), that has nothing to do with Repub candidates' positioning themselves as religious bastions, specifically WRT abortion and homosexuality. And moreover, those issues are not what is getting them killed. When Repub candidates start talking about outlawing abortion, it automatically turns off a large percentage of voters. Same sex marriage turns off even more people. But they all keep stupidly doing it when it's obvious attitudes about these things have shifted. What they should say is "I'm not a proponent of it, but I'll let the states/courts decide." Period, end of story. They don't. And as a result, they probably will never win the general election again.
IDBillzFan Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 I see that Clinton is going after Trump's "Saddam killed terrorists very well" remarks. Although not articulated smartly, Trump is right. Guys like Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad kept the lid on the pot of all these Islamic jihadists and it was these war mongers like the Bushes and the Clintons who have effectively removed that firewall by removing bad dictators. However, those dictators served a strategic purpose to the United States. It wasn't even articulated "kinda" smartly. It was stupid as schitt. Tell us how YOU, Mr. Trump, will deal with terrorists. Not Saddam. Then tell us what Hillary did while SoS, then explain how you'll be better and smarter and more professional than the woman who laundered foreign funds from terrorist nations through her non-profit foundation in exchange for uranium deals. Intead we get "Let me tell the good things Saddam Hussein did.
Doc Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 I see that Clinton is going after Trump's "Saddam killed terrorists very well" remarks. Although not articulated smartly, Trump is right. Guys like Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad kept the lid on the pot of all these Islamic jihadists and it was these war mongers like the Bushes and the Clintons who have effectively removed that firewall by removing bad dictators. However, those dictators served a strategic purpose to the United States. I watched the Frontline that detailed the run-up to the Iraq War and how the United States tried tying Zarqawi to Saddam. What an eye opener. The CIA analysts are going "there is no NO WAY Saddam would let a guy like Zarqawi run around Iraq" yet guys like Cheney and Libby insisted there must be a connection. With Clinton, I just see more international mess making and destabilization. She'll double down on removing Assad and then go for a big fish like North Korea or some field trips to Africa. Like I said above, it's the spin that's the problem, not what he said (at least in this instance). He praised Saddam for killing terrorists and keeping the region stabilized. How else was he supposed to say it?
B-Man Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 It wasn't even articulated "kinda" smartly. It was stupid as schitt. Intead we get "Let me tell the good things Saddam Hussein did. You're doing just what we complain about LA, you're only giving a portion, to try and influence the whole. “Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Right? He was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights — they didn’t talk, they were a terrorist, it was over,” Trump said as many in his audience of about 2,000 laughed on Tuesday evening. “Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist, you go to Iraq. It’s like Harvard. Okay? So sad.” Trump’s insistence that Hussein should have remained in power, to “kill terrorists,” is actually one of his most consistent lines. It clashes completely with the Washington consensus, but taps into voter anger at how the Iraq War, sold as a quick-and-easy crusade against evil, destabilized the Middle East and allowed groups like ISIS to form and grow. Trump began saying this at his campaign rallies last summer. Now................the day of Hillary/Comey..............it's all of a sudden picked up by the media as new . Shocker: Media suddenly fascinated by foolish, months-old Trump trope on Saddam .
Dorkington Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 Why? I find both to be distasteful and dishonest. But Hillary likely lines up with my social stances more closely. I'm only giving Trump my vote because I absolutely, categorically refuse to vote for Royalty. I have a feeling the vast majority don't like the person they are voting for in this election. It's something else, that's for sure.
IDBillzFan Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 Again, you're listening to the spin. Do you believe that Donald meant to be anti-Semitic? Do you think he was praising SH for anything other than his ability to bring stability to the region? Your anger should be directed more at the media who spins these things and gives HiLIARy a pass for saying things like "CPT" or "off the reservation," never mind being a criminal. This has nothing to do with spin and everything to do with strategy. Think of the old adage "If you're explaining, you're losing." He's constantly having to explain stupid stuff. I don't care if the point he is trying to make is right or wrong...if it's presented in a way that is undisciplined and forces him to spend more time explaining his comment than explaining his point, he's losing. Throw in a media begging for any stupid thing, and you're screwed. They're unforced errors, against the weakest Dem candidate in years. And he's getting his ass handed to him because his brand is, intentionally, "Look at me while I say politically incorrect (i.e. stupid) stuff." That works for a TV show. It does not work for a presidential candidate, which is why he is getting his ass kicked in every poll in the free world.
4merper4mer Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) This has nothing to do with spin and everything to do with strategy. Think of the old adage "If you're explaining, you're losing." He's constantly having to explain stupid stuff. I don't care if the point he is trying to make is right or wrong...if it's presented in a way that is undisciplined and forces him to spend more time explaining his comment than explaining his point, he's losing. Throw in a media begging for any stupid thing, and you're screwed. They're unforced errors, against the weakest Dem candidate in years. And he's getting his ass handed to him because his brand is, intentionally, "Look at me while I say politically incorrect (i.e. stupid) stuff." That works for a TV show. It does not work for a presidential candidate, which is why he is getting his ass kicked in every poll in the free world. I get what you're saying, especially with Trump, but this was going to happen with any candidate. Mitt Romney had to explain college pranks and Hillary goes unquestioned when she lies to the faces of the parents of fallen heroes. It's just the way it works whether Trump is the nominee or not. If George Washington were running against her, he'd have hell to pay for the environmental havoc he caused by chopping down that cherry tree. Edited July 6, 2016 by 4merper4mer
Recommended Posts