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

Not that it matters really, but I disagree with your premise that hillary was a gimme.

First, you have about 1/3 of the country that would vote for her no matter what.

Nah, I think she'd be in the running regardless of who the GOP put up.

No it's an insane election, in an insane country, in an insane world with a potentially insane candidate that might become the most powerful man in that world. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only sane person left.

and another 1/3 that is voting for a GOP candidate no matter what.

thats how it works. that how it has always worked.

the battle is for that last 1/3. the moderates, independents, or however they identify themselves.

and that is what Pit is talking about. that last 1/3 should've been easy picking for the GOP.

Romney, Jeb Bush, or Kasich would've mopped the floor with Hillary.

I think even Cruz or Rubio would've gave her a run for her money.

but no, instead, for some unholy reason, Trump emerged out of the pool of candidates?

this is what people are talking about. Hillary is bad, yet somehow, someway, the GOP- and lets not forget, the conservative VOTERS- found the ONE dude worse than Hillary.

Bro, i can get on a public bus right now, blind fold myself, spin around 10 times, point, and that person i pointed at would be a better candidate than Hillary.

But no, by some black, foul sorcery, the GOP managed to find the one person in America worse than her.

jesus, it's like the GOP competes for who can put up the most crazy.

The liberals get a break here because Hillary obviously cheated to win the nomination... what excuse does the GOP have? half of the party thinks Trump is unfit to be president yet they stand behind him, how nuts is that?

Well, I agree that somewhere around 1/3 would vote GOP as well.

But I disagree with most of the rest of your post.

The clinton name, the clinton "power", it's real. I think the GOP could've had a better selection/option, no doubt.

But hillary would've been favored against anyone else. JMO.

Yes, the same thing every other politician is trying to do when they state, restate, and defend their lies, half-truths, and extreme exaggerations... create doubt in your mind about the opposition.. Trump just sucks at it.

And that's where we disagree.

Against a better candidate, she wouldn't had been favored.

If Romney ran again, he'll, I'd probably already been calling this election over. Romney would've drilled her in the debates.

Im equally amazed that intelligent people like you actually believe that Hillary isn't a liar and think she would make a good presdent

He has not said anything negative about any race in this entire election season. Saying that a segment of illegal immigrants are bringing crime and drugs into the country is not racist for at least two reasons:

1) Neither immigration status nor country of origin (especially from a racially diverse country such as Mexico) should imply race. If you hear "Latino" when somebody talks about illegal immigrants or Mexico, maybe that is your own confirmation bias at work. Show me when he said something meaningful and negative about any race!

2) Truth is the ultimate defense and illegal immigrants are, indeed, causing some problems. There was some discussion on here a while back about where heroin is coming from with some people suggesting Afghanistan. The majority of heroin that is used in the United States crosses over our southern border! Look it up. The rape comment? I already posted the stats that, among Latin American women and girls crossing into the United States, 80% get raped.

How sad would it be that the one candidate who had the balls to bring up such a terrible problem, was silenced and slandered as a racist for having the audacity to bring that up? See in the world I want to live in, people can bring up sensitive issues and people would talk about them like adults. Such heinous crimes wouldn't be ignored for fear of offending the wrong people.

I don't think she's a liar?

Can I get a quote as proof?

I don't think Hillary was a gimme for the GOP. I don't think any Democrat would be a gimme for any Republican quite frankly. The demographics are just not that favorable for Republicans in the presidential race where people are more likely to show up to vote.

I get what you're saying though. I think Cruz would have a better chance of beating Hillary if he had won the nomination, for example. I certainly don't think it would be a landslide victory even if he did win though.

Trump had the most votes in the primaries but that probably had more to do with him being different rather than him being necessarily better. Those who liked Trump, voted for Trump. Those who didn't like Trump split their votes among several other candidates (Trump ended up with a plurality of votes).

"The judge is Mexican, I'm building a wall".

Blatantly saying that he can't do his job properly because he's Mexican.

You have either failed to respond to that, or just simply act like it never happened.

That is blatant racism. Even your GOP leaders said it.

That's why I have a problem with trump supporters. The guy is racist and you're still defending him.

Arch, there's your answer to why people support/will stomach Hillary.
Because at the end of the day, the majority of people rather deal with her than a racist POS like Trump.

Nobody told trump to say those things. Nobody wants a racist representing our country.

My bad, nobody except trump supporters.

At least provide the proper context. He was not saying he couldn't do his job because he was Mexican. He was pointing out the inherent conflict of interest in having a judge that is a member of a group that is decidedly pro-immigration, including giving citizenship to illegal immigrants, presiding over a case involving a candidate who is anti-illegal immigration.

And I did respond to that before. Let me refresh your memory:

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.ph...ers#Post1134711

They weren't thinking. They just wanted to throw the most ridiculous, most racist, most bigoted candidate out there because they suffered so badly being led by our black president that they felt the need to use Trump as their retaliation and revenge.

Nice Spin. Sieg Heil!

Other people can decide for themselves whether I am spinning things or just plainly stating facts.

My bad. I forgot how wack your response is.

How is it a conflict of interest when the fraud case has NOTHING to do with immigration?

Don't worry, I'll help you out:

Both cases before Curiel are class-action lawsuits from former students, claiming fraud and demanding their money back. One lawsuit was filed in 2010 by students in California, Florida and New York, and the other in 2013 by a plaintiff who alleged he was misled and upsold to pay for a $35,000 upgrade.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact...lowing-the-law/

Conflict of interest is pure BS. But keep defending the racist. The judge has done everything by the book.

But lemme guess, if the judge was white and handled it the same way, it's all good right?


Edit: yes, you're absolutely spinning. I agree with PS.

Anyways

http://nypost.com/2016/08/12/trump-if-gop-drops-me-ill-stop-funding-the-republican-party/

I get what Trump is saying, however I don't know if he's aware that he needs the GOP, not the other way around.

Even if you say that Trump was out of line, and I already suggested that it was probably not a good idea to make such a comment about a federal judge, it's still really not about race. Mexican is neither a race nor an ethnicity.

If you just said that Trump got carried away with the rhetoric there and needlessly disrespected a judge, then I'd agree. If you already think he is racist and are looking for comments to prove it with, then yeah I can see where you're going with the confirmation bias. A better case could be made that the comment was 'nationalist', maybe, but that doesn't work for liberals because that word lacks the punch in our society that the word 'racist' has.

But that's nothing close to what he said. Let's look at exactly what he said and see just how close you actually got to it.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

He wouldn't even actually say that some immigrants were good people. Now I don't mind people trying to accurately describe what a person said. But what you posted was extreme hyperbole at best and a totally inaccurate description at worse.

And secondly, when did Mexico decide to select who they "send" here?

Fox News just referenced the Latino population having a potential record turnout for the election.

If you need a source, turn your TV on right now.

In my loudest "cackle" voice: What difference does it make now?"

Hillary: I didn't do anything wrong with e-mail.

Evidence comes out: I didn't send or receive any classified documents. (even though, as sec. of state, she used no other server. So, what the hell is the s.o.s. doing if she didn't send or receive any classified e mails?)

Then, it was: I didn't send or receive any marked classified at the time.

Then, it was: I was never hacked.

And then it was : The hackers didn't get any classified e-mails

It just keeps going with her.

And in the mean time, she deleted and erased 30,000 give or take, e-mails.

Benghazi was about some youtube video.


Damn - and people support this lady?

It took her, with no experience, only 10 months to turn $1000 into $100,000 trading cattle futures?

Anyone know what the cattle futures business is like?

If you don't like Trump, vote against him, NOT by voting for hillary, but by voting for Johnson. I will be.

...a distinction without a difference, as far as his target audience is concerned. He knew exactly what he was saying- and he knew exactly how it would land. Do you honestly think that those voters who shout "Trump, Trump, Trump!" are sophisticated enough to split hairs and parse words like you're doing? Race/nationality/ethnicity? Please. You're working way too hard at this.

Trump is manipulating a swath of Americans who have been ripe for this kind of talk for more than 40 years. He speaks to them in 1950's monosyllabic rhetoric, pumps them full of sociopolitical outrage, and promises them that he'll "make America great again"... and it's only fooling those same types who'd dump their life savings into his pyramid scheme of a 'university.' He's P.T. Barnum for the 21st century. The only thing missing is the big tent just outside of town.

_________________

As adept as you are with the "Trump Two-step," it's a shame that you aren't on his national damage-control team. You've been working hard enough on this message board to actually be collecting a paycheck (just make sure it's actual legal tender, and not 'Trumpbux').

It's impressive, to say the least- and you have my respect for being all-in. Too bad it's in service to someone who isn't even trying as hard as you.

Obama: "founder of I.S.I.S."
really.

I might agree with calling my comments minor hyperbole. The fact is that the majority of heroin in the U.S. comes over the Mexican border. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statement...mexican-border/

80% of women get raped crossing into the U.S.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html

So... who is doing the raping? I don't have a clear answer to that question, and the reason I don't have a clear answer to that is because many people got so immediately offended by Trump's insensitive comments that the issue was shut down altogether. 80%. of. women. get. raped. crossing. into. the. US. Why is that not a bigger deal than the very crass way Trump brought that up more than a year ago? It is insane. Do people really think he was just a crazy racist and just started popping off randomly about drugs and rape? No! These are real problems!

As far as Mexico deciding who they send here, I will admit that I am not very knowledgeable about Mexico's policies on such. However, it seems as if this is something that both Trump and Hillary agree on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK6ixvKxw7E

Hillary: "The Mexican governments policies are pushing migration north", along with several other comments about immigration that sound strangely similar to Trump

I've also read some conservative leaning sites that have shown the Mexican government did not want to accept some of the illegal immigrants that were previously deported out of this country but I don't really know how reputable those are (again, I don't claim to know much about Mexico's immigration policies).

I really don't have any reason to try to dispute your points Arch. None.

But there are people actually trying to dispute and make excuses for the things Trump does. I don't see anyone doing that for Hillary.

There are no excuses for either one. That's my point. I'm voting for Johnson. Not the perfect candidate but not near the train wreck the other two represent.

I just wish you would understand. I would never vote for Hillary just like I'd never vote for Trump. But I don't see anyone trying to make excuses for Hillary.

http://ijr.com/opinion/2016/08/259153-no...p;utm_term=prm6

Hate the source all you want - debate the points. They are factual. (well, minus the 30,000 e-mails the russians probably have that we don't know about)

But, support her all you want. National security is beneath Queen Hillary. Power is her realm, and by God, she'll get it any way she can.

Certainly, one year ago Trump was far and away the most effective persuader in the Republican field. Or the Democratic field. I also think you're just slightly underselling his supporters in regards to his target audience.

I've written on here several times how most of the Trump supporters I know are just regular dudes who work and don't cause much trouble. I think you and I have a completely different character profile, if you will, of what a Trump supporter is like.

This is fun to me man. I wouldn't call it hard work. It is taking up too much of my time though so I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to be able to do this. However if Team Trump wants to offer me a cushy, well paying job, maybe they'll send me a PM!

Volunteer..

I disagree completely. With the bulk of the media in their pocket, the dems are ALWAYS going to look like they show very strong even if they don't... Republicans have run some turds over the last 20+ years, dems have run some turds.. the media has always done what it can to make the dem turd look prettier.. Trump is just making it easier than most years.

Yeah, that's a big part of it.

The Labor Laws didn't change w/out a fight.

--Little kids were not going to school. They were getting arms ripped off in textile mills. They were being beaten by older teens w/iron rods in the coal mines if they talked or took a break.

--Factories were unsafe. Untold numbers died or were crippled. Multiple ladies burned to their death in a sweatshop because there were no fire escapes. Working hours were outrageously long and the pay was a joke.

Changes did not occur because the politicians and factory owners wanted to do good deeds. People wrote about it. An example is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. They took pictures. They sang songs. The gave speeches. They made drawings. The outrage was palatable. People spoke up and they didn't vote for the status quo.

It took time. It took a change in how our society looked at things. It took a huge commitment.

The Civil Rights movement is another story. I wanna talk about it, but I'll probably bore everyone w/my ongoing rant. But, does anyone think that blacks and women got to vote because the politicians suddenly started caring about those two groups> Did education for blacks improve because the powers that be wanted the blacks to be more educated? What about segregation?

When the public sits back and says things like we can't make a change or it will take too much time or I gotta support this candidate because the other one will win if I don't or it's not affecting me as much as others, etc, etc......than nothing gets done and the politicians and the people who fund them win!

It takes time. It takes resolve. It takes effort. It takes a commitment to right a wrong.

I do not think too many people are happy w/the current system. The choices the two-party system offers us. Look at the arguments on these threads. This one is worse than the other one. Back and forth, back and forth goes the tennis ball that doesn't focus on the issues, but rather on hurling insults at the other candidate...on the political court. Not sure if that last sentence made sense...LOL

I think those of us who are dissatisfied can open some eyes in this election. If we are not happy w/either candidate than we have to make that known. We need to demand changes in how things are done in this country.

I am not speaking to the extremists on either side. Some do love Trump. Some love Clinton. That is their right. And I would never try and change their minds.

However, I think a vast majority of American citizens are baffled how we ended up w/these two candidates. I believe many of us are upset w/the two-party system. I believe many of us would rather have the issues addressed rather than the constant attacks on the other candidate. Many of us would like to see the parties and the said politicians to actually work together to better our nation rather than fighting each other.

It's time to make a damn stand. Yeah, it won't be easy and there will not be immediate changes, but changes to the Labor Laws and Civil Rights did not change immediately either.

Thank God we had people who cared enough to see the battle through!!!

Yeah it's always the media right up to the point when they report a bunch of stuff on Bangazi, archived emails, and all the people the Clinton's have murdered.

You are talking about a narrow segment of the media.. when it comes to the people the Clinton's have had killed it's not even media, it's glorified bloggers masquerading as "media"... which is why the Clinton's have never, and will never, be asked if they don't find the coincidences odd... Just because something official looking pops on your social media page doesn't make it from "the media"...

As for Bengazi.. most of what I see from CNN and MSNBC and basically anybody but Fox is, Why won't they let this go already?

A republican does something stupid and they report on how stupid republicans are for days.
A democrat does something stupid and they report on it for hours and then start reporting on how stupid republicans are for making a big deal out of it.

So, you're saying that It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World?

Yes.

Vote for me. Oldcold endorses me. You read it on the internet, so it's true.

I humbly thank you for your vote.

It's a good point. More and more I have been trying to seek out non-mainstream sources (or just dig up info myself) for information. At the very least, it's not bad to find biased sources to counterbalance the obvious biases that most mainstream sources have. And there are also things that mainstream media simply won't touch.

Bias alert: ABC News helps Clinton borrow Olympic glory

When Hillary Clinton sought to burnish her campaign with some borrowed Olympic glory, one television news network was there to help, a media watchdog reported.

With Olympic Games in full swing in Rio, Clinton drew a contrast between Team America’s competitiveness and rival Donald Trump’s views on trade. Media Research Center noted the spin came as the networks all but dropped coverage of damning reports that emails showed Clinton’s closest aides may have mixed federal business with Clinton Foundation work.


“If team USA was as fearful as Trump, Michael Phelps and Simone Biles would be cowering in the locker room, afraid to come out to compete,” Clinton told supporters at a Thursday rally in Detroit. “Instead, they're winning gold medals. America isn't afraid to compete.”

ABC News gushed over Clinton’s “Olympics strategy,” posting her photo with the phrase “Going for Gold.”

“Her campaign saying Donald Trump has, quote, ‘an aversion to the truth,’ after he labeled the president the founder of ISIS,” stated anchor David Muir on World News Tonight with the Olympic-themed phrase to his left.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/...mpic-glory.html

The liberal lemmings are easily manipulated.

You are missing the point.

Trump and the Clintons have been personal friends for decades.

I could never be friends with a person who espoused hateful, racist rhetoric. However, the Clintons were very good friends of his.

I guess that he only became racist once the money stopped flowing in.

That is my point.

If Trump is a racist, then what are the people who are his close friends, and who have taken his campaign contributions for decades? So far as I can tell, not one Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) ever turned down a single dollar from this "racist". So, are these people, like the Clintons, also racists, or just hypocrites? Is the news media who suddenly finds racist actions by Trump dating back decades just dishonest, or are the completely morally bankrupt, because they evidently looked the other way for so long, when he was giving millions to their preferred candidates?

This kind of stuff is why the rhetoric about the system being corrupt resonates with so many people ... because it is. However, the media only seems to care about the corruption when it is someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum from their own. The political elite only care about racism and other issues when it is someone on the other side, or when someone moves to the other side of the political spectrum.

The system is corrupt, and broken, and dishonest. The system; the political elite, the media insiders, and many at the top of the largest industries are hopelessly corrupt.

However, people still think that Hillary Clinton is anything but corrupt, despite the cesspool of political corruption continues to swirl all around her, and her actions.

I disagree completely.

The hatred for Obama and the hatred for Hillary that people have would've made this election easy pickings for any republican worth a damn.

So we won't see eye to eye.

But here's a cold hard fact: there were other republican candidates running that was better than trump.

But the majority of conservative voters chose Trump anyway.

Sorry, but by your own admission, the GOP candidate has made it easy pickings for this liberal media you speak of.

They don't even have to speculate. The media is simply reporting the things that come out of Trump's mouth.

Romney made one terrible comment. The 47% nonsense.

Trump has surpassed that at least 15 times already.

Look at Haus. He might as well be Paul Ryan on these boards. Haus stays trying to play damage control for Trump. It's the "I endorse him buuuuuuttt......."

That's the candidate that your fellow conservative voters decided to present to the public.

The liberal media was too busy playing damage control for Hilary's emails. The entire American public was focused on that.

Bush, Kasich, Romney even Cruz would've had a huge advantage going into the general election.

Kasich especially would've smoked Clinton in the debates.

Buy you know what? I digress. That's all speculation. We won't really know, and you know why?

Because at the end of the day, conservative voters and the GOP trotted out the worst presidential candidate on EITHER side, in history.

Us liberals has the worst candidate in DNC history.

Yet conservatives managed to one up us, again.

/golfclap. Congrats