POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[SirFozzie]

Something I wonder may be getting lost in that one-two footgun (the "will not accept"/"Nasty Woman" double shot)..

He said that he didn't apologize to Melania because he's done nothing wrong (re sex comments and assault accusers). Doesn't that kinda blow away even how vague his apology was from before?

[nol]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Precisely.

Yep.

Trump saying he will appoint SCOTUS justices to overturn Roe v. Wade caused his numbers with independents to tank. 📉 pic.twitter.com/HIwoPjpDHE

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) October 20, 2016

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Not watching because I can't stand to listen to it, but I am following a live transcript of it.

Did Trump really say the sentence: "It's happened bigly." ?

EDIT: And followed it up with "We'll speed up the process bigly."?

It turns out "bigly" is actually a word...

Merriam-Webster on Twitter: "Yes, "bigly" is in the dictionary. #GOPDebate https://t.co/OCf3CRs7Bp"

[SirFozzie]

read big league, he kinda slurs it so it comes out bigly.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by nol

Yep.

Trump saying he will appoint SCOTUS justices to overturn Roe v. Wade caused his numbers with independents to tank. 📉 pic.twitter.com/HIwoPjpDHE

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) October 20, 2016

But his base loved it!

[mckerney]

Great poll - thank you America! Once we #DrainTheSwamp, together we will #MAGA����#Debate pic.twitter.com/SvcjmrsHKD

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

He didn't even manage 75% in the Drudge poll.

[mckerney]

[SirFozzie]

He was losing the BREITBART poll last time I looked. (yes, Online self-polls with no selection break are stupid.. but still )

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

He didnt say anything about liberal

What was it Bush the Second said? "If you're not with us, you're against us"?

That's the Republican worldview in a nutshell. No such thing as "moderate." Anything to the left of "conservative" is "liberal."

[RainMaker]

He's running a campaign that is built for the primary. Tossing red meat to your supporters is fine and all but he can't win an election with just that base.

College educated Republicans are also not going for him as strongly as his economic policies are very far left.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What was it Bush the Second said? "If you're not with us, you're against us"?

That's the Republican worldview in a nutshell. No such thing as "moderate." Anything to the left of "conservative" is "liberal."

Trump isn't even a conservative though. He's probably the most liberal candidate on economic issues the GOP has nominated in half a century. He's been a long time supporter of nationalized health care. He differs greatly from conservatives on foreign policy and defense.

I don't think people are voting for him because he's a Republican. They are voting for him because of the cult of personality. Trump is a New York liberal that cherry picked a couple issues to frame himself as a Republican.

[stevew]

I wonder if the "Nasty Woman" thing is a setup for some piece of audio that Trump might be sitting on? Something like the Casey Kasum hot mic or the Chris Berman talking about smuggling Codeine across the US border from Canada. But like way worse? I doubt Trump has anything but you never know.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by 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.

That was exactly my thought when he said that - Obama has a really high approval rating at the moment, so comparing Clinton to him was a huge own goal for all apart from his hardcore supporters (whom he already has in the bag) ... then again I think he may realize he's lost and be preparing for his future as a televised rabble rouser milking money from his followers in the vein of many other successful "conservative" heads ..

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by stevew

I wonder if the "Nasty Woman" thing is a setup for some piece of audio that Trump might be sitting on? Something like the Casey Kasum hot mic or the Chris Berman talking about smuggling Codeine across the US border from Canada. But like way worse? I doubt Trump has anything but you never know.

I think they are saving something they think is really horrible for these last few days. Will the majority of Americans think so too? I expect every day pretty much there will be some new story or revelation. Good thing we have early voting in many states.

[Ben E Lou]

Eh, I think the "nasty woman" thing was just Trump being Trump. She got in a minor dig; he escalated it. That's just what he does.

[Thomkal]

So I think this probably the best Trump has done in the debates. He appealed to most Republicans with his Supreme Court and Abortion answers. But then it started going badly for him. Culminating in the accepting the results of the election answer (even when the moderator tried to give him an out on it), the "more respect for woman" answer. which is just laughable given the Access Hollywood tape, and the nasty woman comment. Those will hurt him with voters.

Hillary started out ok on abortion and Supreme Court. I think it was smart to not say she would nominate liberal judges. And that Congress needed to confirm Garland. After that she missed a couple chances to really stab Trump where it hurt-such as the "I respect women" line, and repeated too many things from her previous debates, though she did add new stuff like undocumented workers building Trump Tower. I like that she didn't "freak out" on anything, staying calm and looking Presidential for most of the debate. I don't think there should be any questions about her stamina after this, but I'm sure Rudy and others will try.

Trump lost his sniffles, and I don't think he will have anything to say about the mics this time. But knowing Trump, he will blame something other than himself for what he said during it.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Eh, I think the "nasty woman" thing was just Trump being Trump. She got in a minor dig; he escalated it. That's just what he does.

But does it make him look more Presidential?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Eh, I think the "nasty woman" thing was just Trump being Trump. She got in a minor dig; he escalated it. That's just what he does.

Agree. Plus, the Trump team hasn't done much with debate sound bites to cut quick ads. Instead they've put out really dramatic militaristic pieces.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So I think this probably the best Trump has done in the debates. He appealed to most Republicans with his Supreme Court and Abortion answers. But then it started going badly for him. Culminating in the accepting the results of the election answer (even when the moderator tried to give him an out on it), the "more respect for woman" answer. which is just laughable given the Access Hollywood tape, and the nasty woman comment. Those will hurt him with voters.

Hillary started out ok on abortion and Supreme Court. I think it was smart to not say she would nominate liberal judges. And that Congress needed to confirm Garland. After that she missed a couple chances to really stab Trump where it hurt-such as the "I respect women" line, and repeated too many things from her previous debates, though she did add new stuff like undocumented workers building Trump Tower. I like that she didn't "freak out" on anything, staying calm and looking Presidential for most of the debate. I don't think there should be any questions about her stamina after this, but I'm sure Rudy and others will try.

Trump lost his sniffles, and I don't think he will have anything to say about the mics this time. But knowing Trump, he will blame something other than himself for what he said during it.

Like I said during the debate, I thought he did well in reassuring waffling conservatives during that first 30 minutes. Both spoke well to their expecting voters bases during that time, but given that he has more to gain with his "expected base" than she does, I think the winner of that time (in terms of votes) was Trump.

However, there were so many bad moments for him during the last 60 that will dominate the news, galvanize the left, and hurt him with some on the right, that I think that overall he will lose a little ground, and he couldn't afford that. Even Fox News is headlining with his refusal to say that he accept the results. (I didn't check it myself yet, but I also saw some chatter on Twitter that Fox News pundits' "heads were exploding" over that.)

[tarcone]

I do find it intersting that Trump is getting hammered on his treatment of women, yet HRC accepts millions of dollars from countries that abuse women and give them no rights. Yet this is just ignored.
Why is that?

HRC is the "pro-gay, pro-womens rights" candidate. Not one of you had decried the fact she is under the influence of countries that are vehemently against those two groups.

Cant wait for the spin.

[Easy Mac]

The obvious response is she's not under their influence, but I feel that wouldn't be accepted as a response, so there's generally no point in trying to refute it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I do find it intersting that Trump is getting hammered on his treatment of women, yet HRC accepts millions of dollars from countries that abuse women and give them no rights. Yet this is just ignored.
Why is that?

HRC is the "pro-gay, pro-womens rights" candidate. Not one of you had decried the fact she is under the influence of countries that are vehemently against those two groups.

Cant wait for the spin.

This speaks to Trump's biggest issue: the outlandish stuff that comes out of his own mouth. He did address that, and I thought he made a good point there. To be fair, both parties have remained in bed with, say, Saudi Arabia and their human rights abuses. However, as a political "outsider," he gets to claim the moral high ground in that area, and his "return the money" comment was really good. If he makes that point, sticks to it, and doesn't create other negative headlines that drown out the discussion of it, it might gain some traction.

But he continually creates situations for himself that drown out virtually all talk about real issues. And again, this isn't just "the liberal media." I just checked: Fox News, Drudge, and the Blaze all have the refusal to say he'd accept the results as one of their top three stories. It's #1 on The Blaze and Fox, #3 on Drudge. Drudge does have the "return the money" comment as #2.

[JPhillips]

Trump doesn't have the discipline to hold on to something and wait for the right time to spring it. If he had anything truly hurtful to Clinton he would have released it as soon as possible.

[Kodos]

"High fastballs. She can't hit them, can't lay off them."

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I do find it intersting that Trump is getting hammered on his treatment of women, yet HRC accepts millions of dollars from countries that abuse women and give them no rights. Yet this is just ignored.
Why is that?

HRC is the "pro-gay, pro-womens rights" candidate. Not one of you had decried the fact she is under the influence of countries that are vehemently against those two groups.

Cant wait for the spin.

A lot of the undecided's and Indys probably dont even know or think about this. In a nutshell this is why Trumps campaign has been so stupidly ran. He has 30-35 percent loyal followers as Hillary has her 35-40 loyal supporters. That leaves about 25-35 percent of the people that could swing either way. Trump has turned these people against him(numerous issues) and this is what will cost him the election.

Trump has spent more time sucking up to his already loyal supporters than trying to reach the 15-20 percent of the undecided's that are going to decide the election. As others have said his outlandish bold statements worked fine in the primaries but is not gaining him any points at this point.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

He didn't even manage 75% in the Drudge poll.

Well no surprise he would tweet the Drudge Poll. You notice though (at least in the parts I saw) he didn't bring up polling at all during the debate, which was pretty telling for him. Clinton didn't either to her credit, which would have made her look like she was rubbing his nose in it. Made it seem that the outcome was still very much in doubt in order to get out the vote.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Cant (sic) wait for the spin.

The spin:

Clinton isn't a great candidate.

Trump is a worse candidate.

The Democrats aren't perfect. But their platform accords much more with my values than the GOP platform.

So I support Clinton, and I support the Democrats.

It really is that simple.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The spin:

Clinton isn't a great candidate.

Trump is a worse candidate.

The Democrats aren't perfect. But their platform accords much more with my values than the GOP platform.

So I support Clinton, and I support the Democrats.

It really is that simple.

+1

[Kodos]

+2

At worst, Hillary will be a thoroughly average President.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The spin:

Clinton isn't a great candidate.

Trump is a worse candidate.

The Democrats aren't perfect. But their platform accords much more with my values than the GOP platform.

So I support Clinton, and I support the Democrats.

It really is that simple.

+3

No candidate is perfect, but I'll take the one who has spent decades in service of women's and children's issues over the one who literally has sexually assaulted women.

[Trump Twitter Auto-Post]

If elected POTUS - I will stop RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM in this country! In order to do this, we need to #DrainTheSwamp! pic.twitter.com/hfrRusrTy0


More...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Trump Twitter Auto-Post

If elected POTUS - I will stop RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM in this country! In order to do this, we need to #DrainTheSwamp! pic.twitter.com/hfrRusrTy0


More...

Tarcone is that you?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Trump Twitter Auto-Post

If elected POTUS - I will stop RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM in this country! In order to do this, we need to #DrainTheSwamp! pic.twitter.com/hfrRusrTy0


More...

Yet he still hasn't used the words RADICAL CHRISTIAN TERRORISM about the bomb plot the FBI stopped in Kansas. How can he fight domestic terrorism if he won't even call it what it is?

[mckerney]

Donald Trump: 'I will totally accept' election results 'if i win'

[lighthousekeeper]

Headline: Man Refuses to Predict Future, Nation Loses Its Collective Shit

Trump's refusal to predict how he'll react to an unknown future is one of the most common sense things he has said all election cycle. Who knows, maybe Hillary-backed thugs will fire bomb polling stations in Leawood, Sugar Land, Rumson, and Castle Pines. You never know with complete certainty how the future will unfold.

[digamma]

I can't believe he's also not getting more praise for using the term "nasty woman" rather than bitch. He showed a remarkable amount of restraint. Truly a character defining moment.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sabotai

It turns out "bigly" is actually a word...

Merriam-Webster on Twitter: "Yes, "bigly" is in the dictionary. #GOPDebate https://t.co/OCf3CRs7Bp"

"In a swelling, blustering manner: haughtily, pompously" Actually seems to fit really well!

Originally Posted by tarcone

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.

So Obama/HRC are at fault for not recognizing that ISIS specifically was the group to target, but if they're defeated another group will take their place? Will Obama/HRC then be at fault for the new terror acronym du jour then, seeing as they "created a power vacuum" if they finish off ISIS? It's almost like you're setting up to blame them regardless of the tactics they choose or outcomes we see (since presumably liberal democracies that respect human rights and avoid sectarian conflict aren't on the table in the next decade.)

[larrymcg421]

No longer running for President...

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I do find it intersting that Trump is getting hammered on his treatment of women, yet HRC accepts millions of dollars from countries that abuse women and give them no rights. Yet this is just ignored.
Why is that?

HRC is the "pro-gay, pro-womens rights" candidate. Not one of you had decried the fact she is under the influence of countries that are vehemently against those two groups.

Cant wait for the spin.

Well what do expect from a foundation the was established in a country where they kill babies?

[Jas_lov]

The "if I lose it's rigged, if I win it's not" is the argument of a child. It's such a losing argument with most voters.

[cartman]

Jiminy Freaking Christmas. The Trump-bots are out in force claiming that Hillary spilled vital state secrets when she said it takes 4 minutes from an order to launch nukes to their actual launching. That has been common knowledge since at least the Cuban Missile Crisis, if not before.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Donald Trump: 'I will totally accept' election results 'if i win'

Too bad he couldn't have said it that way last night, instead of having his team stay up late, trying to find a way out of what he said.

[Trump Twitter Auto-Post]

Want access to Crooked Hillary? Don't forget - it's going to cost you! #DrainTheSwamp #PayToPlay pic.twitter.com/qjMBZkEnK9


More...

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Too bad he couldn't have said it that way last night, instead of having his team stay up late, trying to find a way out of what he said.

Huh? That statement is just as bad as what he said last night.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Huh? That statement is just as bad as what he said last night.

See what Trump has done to me They had to know his rigged election comments would come up, so what he said today (well apart from accepting if he wins) was what he should have said last night, not "keep you guessing"

[ISiddiqui]

Saying "well apart from accepting if he wins" is the entire point of what he said.

So what you are saying is that what he should have said last night is that I will accept the election results... which is something Trump won't actually do.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

"In a swelling, blustering manner: haughtily, pompously" Actually seems to fit really well!
So Obama/HRC are at fault for not recognizing that ISIS specifically was the group to target, but if they're defeated another group will take their place? Will Obama/HRC then be at fault for the new terror acronym du jour then, seeing as they "created a power vacuum" if they finish off ISIS? It's almost like you're setting up to blame them regardless of the tactics they choose or outcomes we see (since presumably liberal democracies that respect human rights and avoid sectarian conflict aren't on the table in the next decade.)

I didnt blame Obama or HRC. In fact, I said Bush never should have taken Hussein out. That caused the vacuum that was filled by ISIS. But, yes, since 08-09 they have been the problem in the Middle East. Or at least the most aggressive problem. So, yes, HRC and Obama do share the blame in their inefficient handling of the problem. Would any leader have done better? Who knows, but those in charge catch their share.

[larrymcg421]

Trump is at 18 cents on PredictIt. That seems to be about the floor right now, and I guess it's "the polls are wrong" money. I think the .84 for Hillary is a good buy.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Saying "well apart from accepting if he wins" is the entire point of what he said.

So what you are saying is that what he should have said last night is that I will accept the election results... which is something Trump won't actually do.

I don't disagree with you, but I think if he had just said of course I will accept the results, once I've looked into any cases of voter fraud, I don't think many of us would have had a problem with it. When/if Hillary wins, I don't think she will really care if he accepts the results or not if he doesn't fight against them (lawsuit). But given Trump's history with lawsuits (i think someone used a figure of around 3,000), I doubt will we be so lucky.

[Trump Twitter Auto-Post]

'Trump won the third debate' https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/10/19/trump-won-tonights-debate/?utm_term=.db187b0862de …


More...