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

A lot. I do believe a lot of people will vote for Hillary because she's not Trump. There's no doubt about it.

My point here is talking about net votes. How does the above balance with traditionally Democratic blue collar workers and unions who will vote Trump, those on the right who feel alienated by the Republican party but who embrace Trump, etc. It's not so easy to sort all of it out.

i disagree.

also, i didn't forget anything. look at my post again that you just quoted.

the conservative base chose Trump over those two. guess who votes in the primaries? the conservative voters.

i don't know if i would've voted for either two because this hypothetical election didn't play out.

here's what i do know: the character concerns would've been non existent, especially in comparison to Trump.

Here's what i also know: guys like YTown wouldn't be talking about writing in someone's name on the ballot if Kasich or Bush was running.

you're right, Trump motivated the base.

here's the inconvenient detail you're leaving out: that same base already got smoked in the 2012 election. so he's motivating a base that already lost the last guy an election.

congrats, i guess.

if you can not appeal to a good portion of americans from ALL demographics, you're not gonna win any elections.

Bush and Kasich, while pure speculation, certainly had a shot to appeal to those demographics.

here's the facts: we know that Trump isn't. and he hasn't since day one.

alienated arabs

alienated hispanics

alienated women

alienated other minorities.

hell, he even managed to alienated politicians in his own party at a record pace. i never seen that pulled off before.

So again, we don't know if Kasich or Bush would've won, but at the same time, it couldn't POSSIBLY be any worse than whats currently happening with Trump.

Cruz also would have terrified many because of his constant mention of religion. I realize he would have appealed to many too (Evangelicals as well as some Latinos) but, his constant hammering, stubbornness that comes across as a bit slimy will alienate many. Somebody in here was mentioning "relatability" w/respects to HRC....if you use that as a measure for politicians I don't see Cruz as being relatable, at all!

Well, since we're just spouting off what we hear without links or credible references, I heard Hillary and Bill have a hit list of people they want to add to their death tally.

I can't speak for others but I wouldn't really call my views on Trump a love affair. I do think his ideas and policies are far and away better for the United States and for us citizens who are productive and want to improve out situations.

I do genuinely believe that the media has been exceptionally hostile to him and his words are often given the worst spin imaginable. I say this in addition to the fact that he has also said some outlandish and even foolish things that did not need to be spun at all.

Understand that I'm voting for a leader and a president. if I were voting for who I thought was the most ethical person, I would have been a Bernie guy all along and I'd probably begrudgingly vote for Jill Stein at this point. And that's not going to happen.

There have been so many reports that Trump has wanted to dump Pence ever since he was chosen by Trump. He did do a good job in that regard, but that's just not enough for me.

I don't trust Trump to do anything he has proposed, and let's face it, a lot of what he has put forth is rather liberal, and expensive ... so maybe that's a good thing. I find him to be a repugnant man, completely enamored of himself, and convinced that, like Hillary, the law, or rules of good behavior, don't apply to him.I am tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I did so with both McCain and Romney. I held my nose, and voted against Obama twice. I am not doing so anymore. I am not voting for a candidate who does not support my values, and who acts in an utterly disgusting manner with half the population of the country. I oppose Hillary because she feels that there is one set of laws and rules for her, and another for the rest of us peons. Trump has exhibited the same type of behavior.

I don't trust Trump to do anything he has said he would do. I don't trust Clinton either. I believe that both will say anything they have to in order to win. I cannot vote for either of them, and so I will not. No more voting for the lesser of 2 evils. If the Republicans want my vote, earn it. Likewise for the Democrats. Nominate a good candidate for President and I will definitely take a good look a them.

j/c

Beyond my distaste for the man (dating back 30+ years), he has a long history of rash decisions and questionable judgement. That so many people were so enamored of him during the primaries told me that:

1. they knew very little about him beyond his 'brand'
2. they knew, and just didn't care
3. they knew, and actually thought those were desirable traits for a world leader.

Well... here's a little something they should know before heading to the polls on 11/8:

___________________________

Trump's refusal to accept intelligence briefing on Russia stuns experts

Former senior U.S. national security officials are dismayed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's repeated refusal to accept the judgment of intelligence professionals that Russia stole files from the Democratic National Committee computers in an effort to influence the U.S. election.

The former officials, who have served presidents in both parties, say they were bewildered when Trump cast doubt on Russia's role after receiving a classified briefing on the subject and again after an unusually blunt statement from U.S. agencies saying they were "confident" that Moscow had orchestrated the attacks.

"It defies logic," retired Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency, said of Trump's pronouncements.

Trump has assured supporters that, if elected, he would surround himself with experts on defense and foreign affairs, where he has little experience. But when it comes to Russia, he has made it clear that he is not listening to intelligence officials, the former officials said.

"He seems to ignore their advice," Hayden said. "Why would you assume this would change when he is in office?"

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Several former intelligence officials interviewed this week believe that Trump is either willfully disputing intelligence assessments, has a blind spot on Russia, or perhaps doesn't understand the nonpartisan traditions and approach of intelligence professionals.

In the first debate, after intelligence and congressional officials were quoted saying that Russia almost certainly broke into the DNC computers, Trump said: "I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?"

During the second presidential debate, Trump ignored what a U.S. government official said the candidate learned in a private intelligence briefing: that government officials were certain Russia hacked the DNC. That conclusion was followed by a public and unequivocal announcement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security that Russia was to blame.

"Maybe there is no hacking," Trump said during that debate.

"I don't recall a previous candidate saying they didn't believe" the information from an intelligence briefing, said John Rizzo, a former CIA lawyer who served under seven presidents and became the agency's acting general counsel. "These are career people. They aren't administration officials. What does that do to their morale and credibility?"

Former acting CIA director John MacLaughlin said all previous candidates took the briefings to heart.

"In my experience, candidates have taken into the account the information they have received and modulated their comments," he said. Trump, on the other hand, "is playing politics. He's trying to diminish the impression people have that [a Russian hack of the DNC] somehow helps his cause."

On Thursday, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said information she received has led her to conclude that Russia is attempting "to fix this election." She called on Trump and elected officials from both parties "to vocally and forcefully reject these efforts."

Trump has consistently adopted positions likely to find favor with the Kremlin. He has, for instance, criticized NATO allies for not paying their fair share and defended Russian President Vladimir Putin's human rights record.

"It's remarkable that he's refused to say an unkind syllable about Vladimir Putin," Hayden said. "He contorts himself not to criticize Putin."

Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, said in the vice-presidential debate last week that the United States should "use military force" against the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Trump disagreed. Rather than challenge Assad and his Russian ally, Trump said in the second debate, the United States should be working with them against the Islamic State. "Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS," he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State. Russia and Syria have mostly been targeting opposition groups as well as civilians trapped in Aleppo - not the Islamic State.

"That's the Syrian, Russia, Iranian narrative," Hayden said of Trump's assertions.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...1014-story.html


This should be of deep concern to anyone serious about casting a vote this year. This... "candidate" has been getting regular intelligence briefings from the very type of advisers who would be speaking to him in the oval office. And he doesn't seem to care about a word they say. This is a deeply troubling trait, no matter WHO the candidate is, or what letter rests beside his/her name.

Dude's denser than a sack of doorknobs.
Do you see Pence, Kasich, Bush, or even Li'l Marco completely ignoring/blowing off intel like this?

Haus: in my itemized screed about why I don't like him (and would never vote for him), one of those items was: "He lacks intellectual rigor." What that means is this: he's not curious, he doesn't do his homework, and he is unconcerned about the things he DOESN'T know.


Here's the bottom, the absolute bottom line on this, and then I'll quit:
Competent professionals of the highest caliber see this guy as a buffoon. So... before you try to argue with me about my anti-Trump bias (which I freely cop to), why not listen to what the experts say about him?

peace/out/I'm done,
Clem

I'm going to have to do some research on this Russia intel stuff; sorry but you will have to forgive me for not really trusting what one media outlet writes. I've seen so much garbage reported this election season that it makes me wary.

That said, about intellectual rigor: what is amazing is how much success Trump has had in his life, from real estate and other high-risk businesses, to positive relationships with a great many people, to being a TV star, and besting a deep Republican field in the primaries. I don't understand how someone can have such success in that many fields while lacking intellectual rigor.

Think about how he speaks about foreign policy. It's clear that he is quite well educated on the topic. Compare that to Gary 'what is Aleppo' Johnson. Yeah. Of course, the more relevant comparison is to Hillary herself, and she is indeed more knowledgeable about foreign policy than Trump is. That was her job for several years. And despite that, she still did a miserable job as Secretary of State as having knowledge and experience in a field does not necessarily mean that a person has good judgement.

"Peace out I'm done" says increasingly frustrated Clem for the 23rd time . You'll be back... this politics thing always brings people back in.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

From the article:





How patriotic...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...-speech?ref=yfp

Y'all gotta watch this video of Glenn beck talking about Michelle obamas speech.

Lmao

Indians up 2-0, I got straight A's so far this semester, trump's campaign in a tail spin, crash and burn.

God is good, y'all.

I love what the Indians are doing. The pitching has just been outstanding. There's a lot of credit to go around but how about Andrew Miller.. wow

Congrats on the straight A's.. that is something to be proud of

Trump's campaign is in a tail spin, I can't disagree with that but the 'reward' is Hillary being the president. That and there are going to be a lot of really pissed off Trump supporters. That's not really a good situation.

I have a question, given the fact that neither of these two candidates have any redeeming qualities that would endear either of them to a rat, and given that both of their scandals either real or imagined make them the most untrustworthy people we've ever seen seek the office of the president, why don't we all vote for a 3rd party candidate (and I mean nationwide) that best represents whatever value system we ascribe to and kick these two parties to the curb?

Are you watching the Buckeyes? You got less than 30 minutes to make a true conversion or it's on you if they lose!

Well if Gary Johnson wasn't such a ditz and had a few different views on policy, I might consider it

Jill Stein... I actually still need to read up more on her policy positions. I know what the Green party generally stands for but sometimes the candidates depart from that (Look at Trump, Hillary, and Gary)

There's also the overriding issue that any fracture is likely to come from the Republican party. You have Libertarians, Conservatives, Religious Right and many other groups all kind of tugging in different directions. There is some of that too from the left but it's not as severe.

So say that many Republicans band together and vote Libertarian. That's great and all, you earned yourself the right to hear Gary Johnson make an idiot out of himself at the debates but you also just guaranteed that Hillary (or perhaps the next Democrat if we're talking about 2020) would win. I don't like that solution. Look at what a typical Democrat-controlled city devolves into and I don't think much further needs to be said.

lol!!

but for your other question, the problem is that the 3rd party candidates suck as well.

Jill stein is....ok i guess. but man have you seen Gary johnson lately? man hell no. everytime the libertarian party gains a little bit of steam, they remind the country as to why nobody takes them seriously.

i've mentioned this before, we need political reform.

what has to happen is that the GOP and Dems need to be broken up. they just have swallowed up too many parties.

the Tea party should really be its own stand alone party. but they even got swallowed up by the GOP. their opposite, socialist, it's pretty much swallowed up by the Dems.

i seriously believe we could really have between 5-7 parties with their own identities.

But all we're doing (and have done for decades actually) is voting to keep the one we fear out of office.

I know what democrat administration does, I remember the Carter years very well.

No one on either side of the aisle can point to one thing about Trump or Clinton and say, 'that's an admirable trait! We should vote for that person!'

What I'm suggesting is that no one vote for either an R or a D. That's the only way we change the course of the country.

Rand Paul should have ran for the Libertarian Party.

There's gotta be someone out there that someone can vote for that doesn't turn their stomachs.

I'm thinking of Evan Mcmullin myself.

That's for sure!

In this day and age, probably not.

Somebody is always gonna have problems with whoever is running. People forgot how to compromise.

Well, we could definitely come up with some better people to put out there. There would still be a huge divide on ideology though. I'm not sure how you could really resolve that as some views are just incompatible. For example, you can't really reconcile anti-gun and pro-gun positions except sometimes on the margins.

Or take some other issues. Let's use equality. I believe that employment and college admittance should be granted to the best and most qualified people, without regard to race, gender, etc. Many people on the left disagree with that. I'm not sure how to bridge that divide. I'm certainly not going to change my views on that.

As pivotal as a presidential election is, if these two were people of high moral character regardless of ideology we could vote for whichever we voted for and have respect for those we disagreed with.

As it stands, we're left scratching our heads at how the other side can vote for, much less try to defend their candidate.

I'm voting 3rd party because I'm not afraid of either of these two.

Because as far as big ideas, I agree with Clinton.

But I'm paying more attention to the state and local levels as this effects my daily life way more.

I'm still cool with people regardless of whether they vote for Hillary or anybody else. It's important to be able to respectfully disagree with someone and just leave it at that. If others choose to look at things differently.. that's on them.

Why? There's no reason to do so. You elect a nominee during that process, not a VP. Honestly, it'd be pretty poor form of her to do so imo. It'd make her look so much more pompous.

As for the pick, Kaine was a major donor for her campaign. I'm not surprised she said something early. Virginia has a lot of money.

I'm not sure if I am done puking after reading that comment yet.

I would have voted for Hillary before I voted for Kasick.

just catching up:

-Glenn Beck: He can take his stupid sweaters and stupid face and go pound sand. He's a snake oil salesman making a buck. However, he does do a nice job digging in to little known historical events and people on occasion.

-Gary Johnson: The more I hear from him, the more I realize he doesn't have much of a clue. His foreign policy goes beyond non-interventionism. It's much like an ostrich where he can put his head in the sand and figures "it'll all work out".

Some of the analysis of Johnson I've seen over the last few weeks is that he's been focusing his efforts on appealing to liberals and there's a concern that he may actually take votes from Hillary, that he'd absorb the millenial Bernie supporters.

-Libertarian Party: The problem with the Libertarian Party is that it's schizophrenic. You have all these micro-groups: Big "L" Libertarians, little "L" libertarians, anarchists, min-archists, a number of other "ists" and occasionally the Constitutionalist. It's also marred by an amazing amount of infighting. One faction would say Rand Paul is a Libertarian, but another says he isn't. You have a lot of them who will debate whether or not it's the govt's role to build and maintain roads/sidewalks as seriously as foreign policy. Not only that but there a number of issues debated form within that rival debates between Dems and Reps like abortion. One half believes the gov't has no right to control what a woman does with her body, but the other half believe the baby is a life and is included in the Non-Aggression Principle.

There's not even a consensus amongst Libertarians that Gary Johnson IS a Libertarian!

I've personally become more libertarian in my views over the years, but as a Party I'm turned off by them.

I'm still trying to figure out what kind of idiot tries to tell us that Arm Rests didn't go up in the 80's.

I agree, the Tea Party should have become it's own party. And while I disagree with virtually everything about Socialism, Bernie has shown that it has grown enough clout that it should be a viable party.

Breaking the 2 party system is what this country desperately needs.

This might sound crazy to some of you guys, but I seriously think we need to double the number of representatives we have in the Federal gov't. Right now we have:

1 President
9 (currently 8) SCOTUS Justices
100 Senators
435 Congressman

For a total of 545 people deciding the direction and fate of this country of 350 million people. That's too much power concentrated in to the hands of a few.

I believe that the House should be at a minimum doubled to 870, if not tripled. I also think the Senate should be doubled to 200 as well. By increasing these numbers you also increase the opportunity for alternative parties to have a seat at the table which in turn provides better representation of The People.

Just spit balling here, but when it comes to Presidential Elections, if your party is formally represented in either the House or Senate, then that Party automatically has a spot on the ballot come November. It would still be up to the parties to decide HOW they choose their candidate.

They would also get a spot for Presidential Debates under the equal time laws already out there.

Just off the top of my head.

Not sure if I am understanding you completely on this but, if I am this sounds like how the British get their PM. The public vote for the party....the party decides who the leader will be. 9/10 the public know who that leader most likely will be, more often than not it is the leader of the party (Conservative/Labour/Lib Dem). However, as we saw this summer when PM David Cameron decided to step down with immediate effect the party, not the people, decided who would continue to lead them and almost immediately Theresa May became the new PM with no public say. Also, it is the ruling party who can decide when to hold a General election. It was Cameron's downfall when he said that the people could choose the fate of Europe and he decided to toss it to a General Election, which blew up in his face.

I quite like aspects of their Govt. It keeps the voting public more focused on the party rather than falling for the cult of personality. But, my wife who is now a dual citizen really likes how much voting power she has here in the US. Especially when it comes to local elections as well as various tax measures on ballots. The British public have very little say in certain policies. Many in the UK even feel the public should never have been allowed to vote on the future of Europe. The argument there is that Politicians who understand all the pros and cons, more so than the public, should have a say in huge matters such as "Brexit". Not sure where I stand on that. I see the argument on both sides pro/against.

I agree, and I would like to add the fact that our surpreme court justices should be strictly constitutionalist and nothing else. There should be no political leanings, such as conservative or liberal.

And the election season needs to be toned wayyyy back. This crap last longer than series on TV. It's absolutely rdiciculous how long the election season last.

I couldn't agree more.

I also think the amount of $$$ spent on a campaign is disgusting. Imagine all that dosh going into education. Imagine.

I don't know a whole lot about the British Parliamentary system so I can't say if what I'm proposing mirrors it.

I don't like the idea of voting for a Party who then puts out what it thinks is the best candidate as a system. If that is how the Party wants to do it, that's fine. We already see elements of that between the Dems and Reps.. the Dems with Super Delegates and the Reps with uncommitted delegates. I just think it smacks of elitism. When we talk about "class" in American society most often it revolves around economics. What often goes missed is what I see as the political class trying to establish an American nobility of sorts. We have legislators that become millionaires because they don't follow the same laws you and I do. Also just look at the arrogance many of them display.

What I find really interesting is your comment about your wife liking how much voting power our system lends to the citizenry. This is something about our system of gov't that it seems you have to be an outsider to fully appreciate. In America we've come to view our votes as a Win or Lose proposition. We feel that if our candidate doesn't win, our vote didn't mean anything. The pressure to be on the winning side overrides many people from voting their conscience.

Think about how many people who get in to politics that are just on the outside. Good people who end up getting pushed out because they either don't have the favor of one of 2 political parties, OR they don't have enough of their party's favor. How often do we have a libertarian or independent with a solid showing not be able to compare to the political machines of the Reps and Dems?

Adding another thousand representatives to our political process may very well cause some problems, probably see more gridlock. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing because maybe we'll have to ask ourselves how much do we really need the gov't in our lives?

Super delegates seem incredibly dangerous. They get touted to protect us from candidates like Bernie or Trump, but that seems to go against the foundations of our beliefs.

Man oh man.

Michelle Obama's speech is currently trending world wide. A ton of women are sharing, tweeting, etc.

Michelle could very well be the dagger to Trumps campaign.

Republican Headquarters in Orange County, North Carolina got firebombed.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article108627627.html

Hopefully there is video or some other evidence to find the perpetrators. This type of behavior is something we should all be very concerned about.

Classy, real classy. And we preach tolerance and accpetance?

Like he wan't enough of one already.

Pretty digiusting of them to do.