DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Election Thread #13: November 8th needs to just arrive already

My bad, it was trump jr

Trump Jr.: Women who can't handle harassment 'don't belong in the work force'

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-jr-women-workplace/

It was a top story all over the news. Even Fox News.

To be fair, it was in 2913.... which doesn't really matter in the long run.

For your question: I don't know. I'm not a woman. I guess women will give you an answer about that on Election Day.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...ill-die?ref=yfp

Kasich should've been the guy.

I've tried to avoid the Juanita/Jones/Wiley accusations as I don't really know what happened in those situations, either. Others can duke that out if they wish. I did bring up the Kathy Shelton situation before, I think that is reasonable as Hillary Rodham actually was the defense attorney in that case. Indeed, she did her job and she did her job well. However, some might say that is that is the type of thing that gives lawyers a bad name (getting a 41 year old who raped a 12 year old and beat her so brutally that she was in a coma for 5 days off based on technicalities, attacking the mental health of the girl, etc.)

Which, by the way, for the record, I believe the accusations we are talking about in regards to Trump were actually about a 13 year old girl. I do not point this out to say that would be any more acceptable, but rather as an informational thing so we can keep all this stuff straight (others might get this accusation confused with the case that I described above.)

As far as Trump, what you are basically saying is that there is no proof of that alleged rape having occurred. You claim that the victim was threatened into silence; is it fair to assume that there is no evidence that DJT was involved in that, either? I would have to think that if there were evidence for that, you would have included that in your actual proof that DJT was involved in the initial crime although it's possible I'm jumping to conclusions on that. What do you think?

Well, there has yet to be posted proof about DJT's rape, but the case still hasn't hit the courts yet. I'm sure over the next 6 months we'll see a lot more come out. This just got its court case in December. But yes, there's no tangible proof in her case yet... Just like in Bill Clinton's cases.

I don't like all of the things that Kasich has done, but I think that he would have been ok for president, and probably would have defeated Clinton on an issues based campaign. Not this pile of elephant crap that is going on now.
Maybe in saying no to DJT he is setting up for 2020.

Yes, we must watch out for the future Trumps!

I'm partial to miniature ponies so my horse isn't all that high. Just saying...

Those are real?

You're a Brony dude, you should know this!

That made me laugh.

Yes minature horses are real.

Is that the same Epstein that's a friend of Bill Clinton and flew him out to his "orgy island"?

I've been saying this for an eternity. I'm sorry for guys like GM, but his issues don't affect me.

I mentioned this before. The Democratic Party is benefiting from not having their own internal civil war yet. Unfortunately, the Repulican Party is going through their own right now at the worst time.

Yea, Kasich is looking like that dude for 2020.

It could've possibly been Cruz, but he sold his soul and endorsed Trump after all that nastiness between them two. His reputation sunk like the titanic.

But I dunno. GOP had a report on what they needed to do to appeal to a significant portion of the American people after the 2012 election.

Yet they ignored every bit of it. So after trump, I'm not sure how they recover.

Just wait till the Centrist try to kill Warren in 2020.

Based off what? Most liberals, center left to far left, support Warren.

Policy isn't gonna destroy the Democratic Party. Ideology will.

Look at what's happening to the GOP. If you thought obama was born in America, you probabaly lost your seat by a tea party candidate. If you think obama is a Christian, you probabaly lost your seat to a tea party candidate.

Hell, trump accused Cruz of not being American, and their base rolled with that.

As of now, democrats have no such problem.

It can certainly happen, I'm not ruling anything out. But for their to be a destruction of the Dems, something crazy like that has to happen.

Right. It seems like what we have here is an accusation. What comes of it remains to be seen.

As far as Bill Clinton's cases, others can comment on those. I haven't done enough research to have a meaningful opinion on them.

but....but.....

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY. ALL 9 OF THESE WOMEN ARE WORKING TOGETHER.

You better be careful before vers calls you a kiddie, again.

I received my absentee ballot today, and I have decided how I am voting for President. I can't vote for any of the Presidential candidates, and I seriously considered writing in either "none of these" or GM's name. However, as I looked at the ballot, and saw Trump/Pence, I know who I was going to vote for. I am writing in Pence's name for President. I think that he is the best person running to be President, so he gets my vote. Man, if I thought that Trump was going to ne incompetent I could vote for him because Pence would have a lot of influence .... but the man is just a pig, and I cannot vote for him. Hillary should be in a court room defending herself against some pretty serious charges .... but she is very well connected politically, so she skates. Gary Johnson has no clue what is happening in the world, and Stein would double the deficit in year 1, if she could somehow push through her agenda.

I have decided that writing in Pence is the only rational thing for me to do.

I would encourage everyone who is disgusted with the rest of the options to do the same. I think that Pence would be a fine President, and I suspect that he will be the nominee in 2020. (unless, of course, Trump somehow, miraculously, wins this election)

Well you are your own man and you can vote for whoever you want.

The only thing I'd suggest is that we should all think about whose good judgement it was to bring Mike Pence onto the ticket.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-vice-president.html

Good judgement, or forced on him?

Pence wasn't his first, nor his second choice.

Pence was about as "top" of a choice for Trump as Pettine was to the Browns.

So who forced the VP decision on Trump? Who were his first and second choices?

We've seen this several times where some media tries to sow the seeds of discord between Trump and Pence. We saw it most recently during the second Presidential debate, where some were speculating that Pence had removed himself from the ticket. While all that speculation was going on, Mike Pence himself tweeted, "Congrats to my running mate @realDonaldTrump on a big debate win! Proud to stand with you as we #MAGA."

I seem to recall some similar nonsense happened over the summer (somewhat referenced in the article you linked) but I'm not convinced there was much to it.

However Pence was chosen I actually think it was a stroke of genius...not sure I can give that credit to Trump though. Nevertheless, with 35%+ of the hardcore GOP electorate being the Evangelicals...somebody on Trump's campaign knew they had to get them on board. Pence's appointment immediately appeased them and made them feel better. I think even those who are not overly religious and question Trump were probably pleasantly surprised with Pence's performance in the VP debate.

That said, I was listening to NPR while driving home and there was a piece on Pence speaking to an audience in the deep south about the various sexual harassment allegations and that video tape...he sounded more like a tv pastor/minister talking about "sins" and "forgiveness". It was pretty uncomfortable and cringeworthy. Thankfully, I had a good CD in the car to switch over too.

I really do have issues with religion creeping into politics.

His aids, probabaly the GOP to make sure he got the conservative base as well as the TE's party base.

Remember, his campaign went hard after Kasich for the bid, who ended up not wanting anything to do with him.

And just like the article said, he wanted his boy Christie in.

Pence wasn't even on his radar. I see you're already forgetting how that whole situation played out.

It's ok. If I was a trump supporter, I'd try and forget, too.

Hey, it has been a long election season, I've followed things closely in spurts and simply haven't had the time to follow things closely at other times. It's also hard to sort through what is real, what is political, and what is biased media crap. If I forgot something (like Trump going after Kasich as VP), you'll have to forgive me.

PDX, entertain my thoughts for a minute. try and follow me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

So i was looking at the results from the 2012 election....I'm reading over the results, and Trump's comments about mitt romney losing a "winnable" election is.....how?

Obama beat him in the popular vote by 5 million.

obama SMOKED his ass in the electoral vote 332 to 206. obama even won states like Florida and Iowa. hell, Romney couldn't even win in his own state. Obama took that, too.

then if you scroll further down, you see the demographics.

Obama took the women vote at 55%

Whites overall Romney had at 59%

but when you start going down the list:

Obama won blacks 93%
obama won Asian 73%
obama won other 58%
obama won hispanics 71%

so i'm looking at the demographics and going....Where is trump's advantage outside of white males?

there is none.

i know at this point we're playing the prediction game, but:

Hillary is probably taking no less than 90% of the black vote.

the asian vote might stay the same, might go up to 75%, might go down to 70%

other? this demographic includes Arabs, indians, native americans, and other smaller minority groups. She might just put up 85% or higher on Trump.

Hispanics? she'll probably pull 80% or higher.

and the biggest kicker of them all: she's gonna get more than 55% percent of the women vote. it will probably be closer to 70% if not, higher.

here's why:

for all the talk that people, specifically men, that like to talk highly of mike pence, at the end of the day:

he wants to defund planned parenthood

he wants abortions to be banned

he passed the religious freedom bill.

Women have been talking about that all over social media since the day Pence was announced VP.

i mean look:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/...rnors.html?_r=0

he doesn't even have a positive approval rating in his own state. hell, he's on the lower end on that list. thats of july 2016.

So when people talk of Pence, the reality is that Pence only secured the typical conservative base. combined with the tea party base....well....those two bases already got smoked in the 2012 election.

Pence was already getting smoked by women before any of these sexual harassment/assault allegations started hitting Trump.

Trump got all the attention to the point where i dont even think conservative voters was aware of that little nugget.

Candy said the GOP is on life support. This election might be the time that the plug gets pulled.

Some people think it's gonna be a close election. I think it's gonna be an ass whoopin. i kinda feel bad for conservatives.

kinda.

So would it be fair to say, regardless of whether Pence was Trump's first, second, or third choice, that it was ultimately Trump's decision to have him on the ticket?

I guess I don't get the logic behind those who say..

1) Trump doesn't listen to his advisers. He is dangerous!
2) Trump had nothing to do with the great selection of Mike Pence as VP

... not realizing the disconnect.


Meanwhile, apparently Tim Kaine was selected as VP no later than July of 2015, per the Podesta emails. That is a little odd. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786208142665191424

i don't see what's odd about that.

everybody knew she was running. she knew she was running. she decided to go ahead and get her VP pick out of the way. That's smart policy. no controversy, no beating around the bush, maybe play to the media for a little bit like everybody else, and let that issue be done and over with.

she didn't have to do a public interview trying to get people to run with her like Trump did.

Totally agreed on all of the above. I think the Pence nomination was because within their own party they worried they might not get the evangelicals. If Trump or any GOP loses them...that is nearly 40% of the party who TURN UP. Trump was quoting the Corinthians the other day and it sounded so incredibly bogus. So, they needed Pence.

59% of whites voted for Romney? Wow...quite surprised by that. It seems high to me...

BUT, I completely agree from where I sit....I don't see Trump winning. I really don't. I know I am up here in the Liberal PNW but, I can't see large percentages of any minority group voting for him, I can't see the majority of women voting for him, I don't see many college kids voting for him, and those lefty/Sanders Liberals...even if they have issues with HRC many are voting for her because of the SCOTUS.

Those moderate Republicans/Dems who don't like either may swing or many may vote for Johnson or Stein. Ultimately, that could hurt both but, I see Trump and the Republicans losing more centerists than the Dems.

Mathematically, how does he win the General?

He's probably going to lose. I hope I'm wrong but I don't know where the votes are going to come from.

The thing is that it's not just Trump. I constantly read this stuff about how if the Republicans had just nominated such and such, they'd be a shoo-in to win... no they wouldn't be. The demographics are unfavorable. The media is against them, etc (the internet is changing this some as the internet continues to grow; classic media has lost some of its grip and Trump dominates in online polls and internet engagement stats.)

Not me.

I do think both viewpoints are healthy for the debate but, the Conservatives need to soul search and decide the fate of their party. Do they want to embrace that society is organic and ever changing and grow/change/adapt or, do they want to continue resisting change and ignore the young generation? If they do the former...they may survive. If they continue with the latter and keep putting forward ridiculous candidates...their days are numbered and many will splinter off.

Potentially, the Libertarian party could benefit if the GOP begins to splinter.

I think it's a little odd that he was picked as VP in July 2015 and it was announced in July 2016. Agree to disagree I guess. To tell you the truth, I'm not really sure why I think it's odd. At the very least, voters in the primaries deserved to know that information if the decision was already made.

As I posted above...I don't think it is the media, Haus...it is the fact that the GOP have refused to change with society AND they ignore the young. But, putting up bad and polarizing nominees (in past Primaries (Santorum immediately comes to mind), VP Palin, Trump etc.) also doesn't help.

we won't ever know because it's hypothetical and pure speculation from all of us.

but i'm telling you this: a Kasich or bush main ticket couldn't possibly be any worse than what we're currently seeing.

maybe Kasich or Bush wouldn't had won. But the GOP came with the report after the 2012 election on how to appeal to more of the american population.

Those two candidates represented that.

And yes im dead ass serious when i say that policy vs policy and track record vs track record, Clinton would've gotten trashed against Kasich, and Bush would've certainly given her a run for her money.

but you and the rest of your conservative base didn't want that. you chose Trump.

that's all on you guys, bro.

The guy the GOP had high hope for was Rubio. They had hoped he would appeal to Latinos and the young and counter past criticism of the party. Yet, the public chose the exact opposite w/Trump.

Not saying Rubio was necessarily a good candidate or how well he would have fared in the General had he won the nomination but, he was/is at least respectable.

You're forgetting an inconvenient detail: Kasich and Bush got annihilated by Trump during the primaries. Who is to say that either one of those (or a ticket with both of them) would be doing any better right now? Media would have months to paint them in a negative light, various scandals would miraculously reveal themselves weeks before the general election, etc. Think about it.

Maybe you think that because you find both of those men to be more tolerable of a choice, you think that necessarily translates into a net gain of votes. It's unclear if that is actually the case. "Not alienating the moderates" is a common talking point and one that I parrot from time to time, but motivating the base is a huge factor as well and Trump has done that marvelously.

Let's put it this way, would you vote for Kasich or Bush? I highly doubt it. How many people do you know who are going to vote for Hillary would vote for Kasich or Bush if one of them were the Republican nominee? I'm guessing not many, probably zero.

How many people voting for Hillary are doing so because they're terrified of Trump? Do you feel this would happen if Kasich was the opponent?

IN all honesty, I don't like Clinton, but I can't stand Trump. so if Kasich or Bush had made it this far, I'd be voting for either of them over Clinton. NO Question about it.

I do not understand the love affair with Trump. I just don't get it. I do understand the hatred for Clinton.