DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential Election Campaigns 2016 part 3

George Bush - Dumb.
Sarah Palin - Dumber.
Donald Trump - OMG...

For the first time I can remember we have someone I think is diabolical vying for the Presidency. ShHe shows signs of being a real psychopath, a habitual liar and a narcissist; several of her actions and words lend undeniable credence to the fears that a Hillary presidency would be comparable to a third world strongman fascist dictatorship.

At this point it is beyond me how any sane person could be planning to vote for this woman. And the sad part is that apparently some 30-45 percent of the polled voters still intend to do so even after all he has said and done. I don't even recognize America right now.

Even the "new and improved" Donald Trump would need to become a pole vaulter to clear the bar of respectability.

At this point, I can't imagine how exhausting it would be to continue being a Trump supporter. At what point do you run out of excuses for this walking gaffe machine?

I just don't get it.

Haus, I agree.

Some discuss "respect" on this board. Truly, neither candidate has earned my respect.

My concern comes in with respect for the American people.

The last 8 years has provided nothing but further government dependence in oder to control, entitlement, deceit and a squeeze on the middle class.

All of the above create a society dependent upon the government. It's just very unfortunate that some do not understand that entitlment programs do not, and never will, empower the people of this nation.

But wasn't that one of the petty complaints people had about Obama? The teleprompter?

Yes it was, to his credit, he knew what he was good at and made it work for himself... he's a much better "improv" speaker now than he was 8 years ago... I guess 8 years of constantly speaking in front of people and cameras has a way of making you better.

You forgot Biden.



Fixed it for you.

See, everything you say about trump may be true, but it holds just as much, if not more, if you put Hillary in your paragraph.

Thread title: Presidential Election CampaginS, 2016.

Aside from Haus defending Trump, all I've read is how terrible trump is/would be.

I haven't read a single positive thing about clinton.

Don't tell me how bad trump is, tell me how good clinton is. And please, don't use "experience" as one of her assets.

Truthfully, I think an "experienced" politician should be voted out immediately (after their term, of course), because the only benefit with "experience" is, any of said politicians learn how to line their pockets.

Vote Johnson!

When Hillary Clinton spoke to an Orlando crowd, she was also speaking to a cheering Seddique Mateen. Mateen, father of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, was sitting directly behind the Democratic nominee and sported a grin from ear to ear.
Mateen’s support for Hillary, though, was not limited to assuming the role of a Muslim “Where’s Waldo” in a Clinton crowd. Mateen has made it clear that Hilary is the candidate he supports to be President of the United States.

“Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,” the gunman’s father told a local Orlando news station. It’s clear, Mateen is “with her.”

Though the Clinton camp spent most of the weekend dodging questions about Hillary’s health and her inability to ascend staircases, when it came to Mateen, Hillary was mum. Hillary had been endorsed by the father of a terrorist, and Hillary did not immediately disavow that endorsement.

But is it fair to require Hillary to immediately disavow Mateen? Is it fair to hold Hillary accountable for the attendees of her events? Is it unfair to link Mateen to his son’s act of terror?

The media and Hillary have already answered those questions. Much to their chagrin, the answer to each question is yes.

When David Duke, a controversial Louisiana politician with connections to the Klu Klux Klan, expressed support for Donald Trump earlier this year, the media pounced. For days Trump was asked to disavow an endorsement he didn’t even know he had earned. When Trump said he didn’t know anything about Duke’s endorsement, that was not enough. Trump was required to expressly disavow it and, when he did just that, he was told he waited too long.

Trump & the KKK filled the cable airwaves and was a question at Republican debates. The message was clear — if an unsavory person gives an unsolicited endorsement, it is the responsibility of the candidate to repudiate it immediately. Failure to do so will lead to an indictment of complicity.

Hillary, too, jumped on Trump. In doing so, she set a standard that she is not following with Mateen.

“I was very disappointed that he did not disavow what appears to be support from David Duke and the Klan,” Hillary said. “That is exactly the kind of statement that should be repudiated upon hearing it.”

Hillary’s words: “repudiate upon hearing it.” But is that what Hillary did when she was asked about Mateen being her latest cheerleader? She ignored the question. And to add insult to injury, the Clinton campaign released a statement deflecting Mateen. “The rally was a 3,000-person, open-door event for the public. This individual wasn’t invited as a guest and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event,” was the official Clinton camp response.

Translation: We cannot take responsibility for the people who come to our rallies. But is this the same standard Hillary, and the media, use on Trump’s rallies?

When there were outbursts of violence at Trump rallies — largely caused by liberal protestors sent there to disrupt — the claim was Trump held all responsibility. He was responsible because his rhetoric was attracting a roughneck racist crowd. He was responsible because he was the candidate.

“He set a bad example,” Clinton said of Trump about his rallies. “He created an environment in which it seemed to be acceptable for someone running for president to be inciting violence, to be encouraging his supporters. Now we are seeing people who are against it respond in kind.”

How is this not the same now? Hillary claims to be LGBT friendly, but when Mateen endorses her she puts forth a milquetoast statement that has the strength of a wet spaghetti noodle. How is Hillary’s failure to “repudiate upon hearing” Mateen not as “dangerous” as what she accused Trump of? By failing to repudiate, is she not giving a wink and a nod to Sharia Muslims who think tossing gays off of rooftops is Allah’s will?

Just look at who she is failing to repudiate. Days after Mateen’s son slaughtered innocent bystanders at a gay club, Mateen made it clears that the LGBT community was to be punished. In a Facebook post, Mateen wrote, “God will punish those involved in homosexuality,” adding, it’s “not an issue that humans should deal with.”

Put another way, Mateen was saying it was wrong for his son to kill gays because they will be punished by a higher power. Not exactly words of repentance.

And Mateen was not just some random straggler who photo-bombed Hillary. He was seated behind the candidate, and his place was prominent. Somebody on Team Clinton put Mateen there, and Hillary has opted not to do what she demanded of Trump when Duke was in play. How are we not to believe that Mateen was Hillary’s Muslim outreach?

Mateen highlights a core issue facing Hillary’s campaign. Hillary had hopped into bed with Islamic nations that not only tolerate, but approve of the killing of gays. She has routinely refused to condemn radical Islamic terrorism and appears to have a soft spot for Sharia lovin’ Muslims — a soft spot that puts the lives of LGBTs and women in jeopardy.

Hillary’s inability to confront radical Islam and sharia law on the campaign trail is a clear sign that she will not confront it if she is sitting in the Oval Office. And the fact that the media cared more about a washed up white supremacist than a terrorist’s father who believes gays are worthy of punishment tells America exactly what is at stake in this election.

The dad is a terrorist?

Can I get a link?

So David duke, a confirmed racist, is somehow comparable to the dad going to a Hillary rally?

Obviously what the dad believes and what his son believed are two different things.

Sorry but I fail to see any point being made.

And even then, trump didn't act like he wanted David dukes endorsement.

This is a complaint on the media, but Clinton and trump themselves didn't do anything wrong.

Next.

He said "once elected", and then followed with second amendment comments.

No other way to read that, Haus.

This is what you said:

"Yet, the secret service apparently allowed the Orlando shooters dad to sit directly behind Clinton. The clinton campaign has said "oh, we had no idea who he was". "

And that was in correlation with the secret service response to what trump said about the second amendment.

As if to say that the dad was a danger to Clinton.

By your own logic, we should end any Christian European immigration, because Christianity and gay rights aren't compatible either.

Remember, our country is secular. Maybe you and others need reminding of that.

Once again, your complaint sounds more like a media one and less of a Clinton problem.

I dunno if they invited him or not.

All I know is that the dad isn't a terrorist, hasn't done anything wrong.

Davis duke, however, is a terrible person.

Didn't Trump disavow Duke? Yes, right?

So once again, if you're trying to make a point, you're doing a terrible job of it.

By your own logic, we should end any Christian European immigration, because Christianity and gay rights aren't compatible either.

Remember, our country is secular. Maybe you and others need reminding of that.

Once again, your complaint sounds more like a media one and less of a Clinton problem.

I dunno if they invited him or not.

All I know is that the dad isn't a terrorist, hasn't done anything wrong.

Davis duke, however, is a terrible person.

Didn't Trump disavow Duke? Yes, right?

So once again, if you're trying to make a point, you're doing a terrible job of it.

Edit: did you really just try to make this about immigration now?

So, you aren't voting FOR someone, you're voting against Trump?

That's exactly why a third party candidate will never win.

Stop with the party politics. Help - use this election as a starting point for a real, true, viable 3rd party.

But, I do submit that you've been a hillary supporter for quite a while?

It's time for new people.