POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[kingfc22]

Hillary needs to stop with the jabs. Feels like she is stooping to his level and doesn't come off as natural. You're ahead. Just keep going.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Putting our boots in the sand has not made us safer and it still cost us a few trillion dollars.

There's a big difference between eliminating diplomacy and deciding not putting boots in the sand.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Did he jsut say "such a nasty woman?"

Ayup.

[Ben E Lou]

Holy hell. And he followed it up with "your husband disagrees with you."

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Putting your head in the sand the ignoring world events puts the planet at risk. It's a much bigger cost than a few trillion dollars.

I disagree. How more unsafe can it be? We just sent a couple suitcases of money to Iran and opened up their ability to sell oile to Russia and China. Iran becomes a huge player in the world. North Korea has a nut running th ecountry and are trying really hard to get long range missiles. Russia is back to where they were before Reagan broke them up. The Middle East isnt any better. China is a superpower that is building islands around their country for defense from any navy in the world. And has the human resources to do what they want. As well as the financial resources.

The US dumping money into problems hasnt done much to stop these things.

Why continue?
Start imposing huge tariffs on foreign goods. Give breaks to companies that keep jobs here. And companies that innovate. And create. Use our huge military-industrial complex and build a defense from missiles.

We are hated by everyone in the world right now. What have our Imperialist policies gotten us?

[PilotMan]

Hillary lacks the ability to think quickly on her feet. She's not as aggressive in defending and attacking as she should be. For example she says "If he can't find some way out of it." When she should have said "If he decides he actually going to start paying taxes again, like the rest of America." It's all in the phrasing. She just isn't nimble enough.

[digamma]

Need a Jim Ross my gawd.

[Ben E Lou]

1. Might not accept results.
2. Such a nasty woman.
3. Your husband disagrees with you.

Congrats to President-Elect Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

There's a big difference between eliminating diplomacy and deciding not putting boots in the sand.

And when we are safer. Then we negotiate on our terms. We negotiate from strength.

We get used and abused by every country in the world. Our big brother diplomacy has failed in the last 50 years. Its time to try something new.

[sabotai]

"We can't take 4 more years of Barrack Obama and that's what you get with her."

Well Trump just sold me on Clinton.

All things considered, I think Obama's done a pretty good job as President (though I certainly don't agree with everything he's done), so if the 1st term of Clinton will be fairly close to a 3rd Obama term, sign me up.

[SirFozzie]

Hey Trumpenstein, did ya just call Hillary a nasty woman?

No her first name ain't baby, it's Hillary, Mrs Clinton if ya nasty... (and ya, Trump is a nasty boy)

Janet Jackson - Nasty Boys (Official Music Video) - YouTube

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

1. Might not accept results.
2. Such a nasty woman.
3. Your husband disagrees with you.

Congrats to President-Elect Hillary Rodham Clinton.

OR Trump just got back all those that voted for him and some. I dont think these are things that the common man is going to find a turn off.

I definitely dont think thise 3 statements are the tipping point. He just made Clintons supporters more pissed off and Trump supporters happy.

I dont think the undecideds are going to be swayed to greatly by these statements. Esp. after the beat down she took on the open border comments. And being paid $250k to say them.

[stevew]

yeah, "such a nasty woman". Does Trump never answer any of the questions asked? I can't stand to watch more than a few minutes of this.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I disagree. How more unsafe can it be? We just sent a couple suitcases of money to Iran and opened up their ability to sell oile to Russia and China. Iran becomes a huge player in the world. North Korea has a nut running th ecountry and are trying really hard to get long range missiles. Russia is back to where they were before Reagan broke them up. The Middle East isnt any better. China is a superpower that is building islands around their country for defense from any navy in the world. And has the human resources to do what they want. As well as the financial resources.

The US dumping money into problems hasnt done much to stop these things.

Why continue?
Start imposing huge tariffs on foreign goods. Give breaks to companies that keep jobs here. And companies that innovate. And create. Use our huge military-industrial complex and build a defense from missiles.

We are hated by everyone in the world right now. What have our Imperialist policies gotten us?

We aren't though. You think for a second that Putin doesn't put up the Iron Curtain II if we back away? Putin has already been on a course to expand Russian influence worldwide. Influence makes the world go around. The more countries that are in our sphere of influence the safer we are worldwide.

A trade war with Europe and China causes an immediate economic collapse. Sure it might recover in 20 years, but at what cost in between? Is that worth it? It would certainly crush any forward movement that we've seen since 08-09.

[tarcone]

But the "Nasty woman" remark kind of takes away from his "I respect women" remark, doesnt it?

[NobodyHere]

I think Trump actually did pretty well in this debate. However it was nowhere near the knockout blow he needs to win the election.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont think these are things that the common man is going to find a turn off.

No, the common man won't find them as a turn-off. There are plenty of common men out there supporting Trump. They are, in fact, *very* common.

But the respectable women in states that actually matter (i.e. not yours) will pull away from him even more.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We aren't though. You think for a second that Putin doesn't put up the Iron Curtain II if we back away? Putin has already been on a course to expand Russian influence worldwide. Influence makes the world go around. The more countries that are in our sphere of influence the safer we are worldwide.

A trade war with Europe and China causes an immediate economic collapse. Sure it might recover in 20 years, but at what cost in between? Is that worth it? It would certainly crush any forward movement that we've seen since 08-09.

What forward movement? Russia expanding? ISIS expanding? Iran becoming stronger than its ever been? How is this forward? this is backewards.

Yep, the world crumbling might make people realize they need the USA. And not as a hammer.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

But the "Nasty woman" remark kind of takes away from his "I respect women" remark, doesnt it?

Well you're kind of assuming that people had stopped laughing so hard at the "I respect women" remark that they heard the "nasty woman" comment.

[QuikSand]

FYI, prediction markets moved 1-2c toward Clinton during the debate.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

No, the common man won't find them as a turn-off. There are plenty of common men out there supporting Trump. Very common.

But the respectable women in states that actually matter (i.e. not yours) will pull away from him even more.

Again, you are calling only liberal women respectable. That is a terrible characterization.

There are going to be plenty of women out there who think HRC is nasty. And have heard their husbands talk like they were in a lockerroom.
And these are in the states that matter.

Do not undersell women and how they feel towards certain types of men, because you only see feminists through your tunnel vision.

[jbergey22]

CNN is making too big of an issue with the "Ill let you know after the election, keep you in suspense" comment. Trump said a few of his usual dumb things but that was just one of his normal arrogant statements.

[Butter]

Seems like the statement about not necessarily accepting the results of the election might be killing Trump with undecideds. As well it should. Two different channels' panels off voters brought it up as being wildly against it.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Again, you are calling only liberal women respectable. That is a terrible characterization.

There are going to be plenty of women out there who think HRC is nasty. And have heard their husbands talk like they were in a lockerroom.
And these are in the states that matter.

Do not undersell women and how they feel towards certain types of men, because you only see feminists through your tunnel vision.

He didnt say anything about liberal

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

CNN is making too big of an issue with the "Ill let you know after the election, keep you in suspense" comment. Trump said a few of his usual dumb things but that was just one of his normal arrogant statements.

It's the potential far-reaching implications of it that make it such a big deal.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah, everyone, WSJ, Politico, CNN, MSNBC (all except Fox of course) are running with the not necessarily accepting the results thing.

Edit: Apparently that's the website, all the pundits on Fox News are saying that Trump lost and made HUGE missteps

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Butter

Seems like the statement about not necessarily accepting the results of the election might be killing Trump with undecideds. As well it should. Two different channels' panels off voters brought it up as being wildly against it.

I can see this. As there has never been an issue, besides Gore throwing a fit, with the elction results and the smooth transfer of power. That seems to be a hallmark of our republic democracy.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Yeah, everyone, WSJ, Politico, CNN, MSNBC (all except Fox of course) are running with the not necessarily accepting the results thing.

Then again, these are all wildly liberal outlets and will spin it in their favor. As Fox will soin it in their favor.

So, really, we wont know until Nov. 8.

EDIT: with the exception of the WSJ. Interesting with that one. Gives it a little more credibility.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

He didnt say anything about liberal

Please.

[Ben E Lou]

"No one respects women like I do. I call them 'nasty women' and tell them 'your husband disagrees with you.'"

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Please.

Many "Conservative" women hate trump also.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What forward movement? Russia expanding? ISIS expanding? Iran becoming stronger than its ever been? How is this forward? this is backewards.

Yep, the world crumbling might make people realize they need the USA. And not as a hammer.

ISIS is not expanding. They have been losing pretty steadily (losing badly in Iraq, more of a stalemate in Syria) for the last year and half, with Mosul being their last major holding in Iraq. If the assault on Mosul goes well for the Iraqi's, there might not even be an ISIS anymore (they'll lose a letter) by the time the next President takes office.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Again, you are calling only liberal women respectable. That is a terrible characterization.

Of course not. There are plenty of conservative women who aren't common. I personally know very few common conservative women, for that matter. He has struggled with college-educated suburban white women in swing states.

This. Will. Not. Help.

Period.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Many "Conservative" women hate trump also.

yes, and Im sure that was the group he was talking about. You bet.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Then again, these are all wildly liberal outlets and will spin it in their favor. As Fox will soin it in their favor.

So, really, we wont know until Nov. 8.

EDIT: with the exception of the WSJ. Interesting with that one. Gives it a little more credibility.

Bret Stephens on Twitter: "Trump's answer on accepting the outcome of the vote is the most disgraceful statement by a presidential candidate in 160 years."

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Many "Conservative" women hate trump also.

Several notables have spoken out lately. Even Beth Moore.

More will join the chorus in the coming days. No question. Big mistake there.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by sabotai

ISIS is not expanding. They have been losing pretty steadily (losing badly in Iraq, more of a stalemate in Syria) for the last year and half, with Mosul being their last major holding in Iraq. If the assault on Mosul goes well for the Iraqi's, there might not even be an ISIS anymore (they'll lose a letter) by the time the next President takes office.

The statement was since 08-09. And that was when ISIS started and started kicking ass.

As soon as ISIS dies, some other group will step up. Its the Middle East after all.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by tarcone

yes, and Im sure that was the group he was talking about. You bet.

I am not a liberal. I am talking about educated conservative women.

I am a college football fan who is now actively rooting for his team to get blown out so that the incompetent Head Coach will get fired and his ardent supporters will go away with him.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Several notables have spoken out lately. Even Beth Moore.

More will join the chorus in the coming days. No question. Big mistake there.

Again, its the Us. vs. Them feeling though. The people that are voting for Trump dont care about name people. They care about building a wall and keeping immigrants out.

These women dont care about Beth Moore.

If Trump can get his voters out it will be closer than you think. Will he win? Doubtful. But I dont think its a 8 or 9 point spread.

[Butter]

Women are polling at 55-60% for Hillary. Some of those have to be conservative. Math is tremendous.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What forward movement? Russia expanding? ISIS expanding? Iran becoming stronger than its ever been? How is this forward? this is backewards.

Yep, the world crumbling might make people realize they need the USA. And not as a hammer.

Russia expands at the expense of it's own economy. It's all a front. They are mired in one of the biggest economic recessions in the current world economy. The world turns, you can't turn back clocks, you can't stop it. You either back off and let it do its thing, which is what you are suggesting, then you allow Russia, Iran, North Korea, China and whoever else to fill in the vacuum that is left. Or you actively stick yourself out there as a bulwark against evil, a light of leadership and a support in the world where there isn't any.

The second option is hard. Sure it opens you up to criticism, but it's also the only option where your country matters in the world. The first option is easy to yell and stomp your feet about, and it sounds really nice, but it's completely backward. If everyone else is willing to take up the mantle we leave behind, don't you think it's a little more important than you're giving it credit?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I am not a liberal. I am talking about educated conservative women.

I am a college football fan who is now actively rooting for his team to get blown out so that the incompetent Head Coach will get fired and his ardent supporters will go away with him.

But thats not his core. There are a lot more less educated, not a conservative, not a liberal, these are the isuues I like, women out there then there are educated conservative women.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Then again, these are all wildly liberal outlets and will spin it in their favor. As Fox will soin it in their favor.

So, really, we wont know until Nov. 8.

EDIT: with the exception of the WSJ. Interesting with that one. Gives it a little more credibility.

The Journal is definitely right leaning.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Russia expands at the expense of it's own economy. It's all a front. They are mired in one of the biggest economic recessions in the current world economy. The world turns, you can't turn back clocks, you can't stop it. You either back off and let it do its thing, which is what you are suggesting, then you allow Russia, Iran, North Korea, China and whoever else to fill in the vacuum that is left. Or you actively stick yourself out there as a bulwark against evil, a light of leadership and a support in the world where there isn't any.

The second option is hard. Sure it opens you up to criticism, but it's also the only option where your country matters in the world. The first option is easy to yell and stomp your feet about, and it sounds really nice, but it's completely backward. If everyone else is willing to take up the mantle we leave behind, don't you think it's a little more important than you're giving it credit?

Not at all. Let the world sort themselves out. Will there be problems? absolutely. Will the world end? Doubtful.
But why do we continue to cripple ourselves in the name of democracy? It s a losing proposition. We have been the leader of the world since WW2. And we are economically crippled and viewed as a bully by most of the world. And hated in the hot spots. Which makes sense. So let us stop with the charade. The world took care of itself for thousands of years before we stepped in. Its not going to implode because we step out. History shows us that.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The Journal is definitely right leaning.

Yeah, caught that after i typed it. My edit was in respose to the WSJ being included.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by tarcone

But thats not his core. There are a lot more less educated, not a conservative, not a liberal, these are the isuues I like, women out there then there are educated conservative women.

He can't win a general election without educated white women, because he's driven away every minority in the country. The numbers are simply not there. It's a dagger.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Will there be problems? absolutely. Will the world end? Doubtful.

Donald?

[ISiddiqui]

Well that would explain a lot. Maybe Donald, Jr. though...

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Not at all. Let the world sort themselves out. Will there be problems? absolutely. Will the world end? Doubtful.
But why do we continue to cripple ourselves in the name of democracy? It s a losing proposition. We have been the leader of the world since WW2. And we are economically crippled and viewed as a bully by most of the world. And hated in the hot spots. Which makes sense. So let us stop with the charade. The world took care of itself for thousands of years before we stepped in. Its not going to implode because we step out. History shows us that.

That's the exact attitude I'm railing against. It's straight up ignorant. We have enough weapons on the planet that legitimately put human life at risk. As in the entire human existence. To simply state that you don't believe that it will end the world isn't good enough. The phrase "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" is used for good reason. It's not "fuck everyone, they can handle themselves."

We are hated in spots, but we are loved in many more. You're never going to get on the good side of every person worldwide and to think that by leaving that's going to improve is a unicorn's dream. For an economically crippled country we are doing pretty damn good. The amount of individual wealth owned by American citizens is phenomenal. Even our bottom 25% is in the top 1% worldwide. Our friends around the world would only view us as pompous bastards on the hill shutting out the masses because we don't have the time or energy to help or participate. That's not the message you're trying to get out there I'm guessing.

Ignorance is not a successful policy.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by bronconick

He can't win a general election without educated white women

Precisely.