POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

lol

When has Trump not hired yes men?

The closest I can think of is when he hired Joan Rivers in the second season of the Celebrity Apprentice.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by tarcone

No, its not.

But I bet Trump is more willing to bring in cabinet members who are leadrs in the various areas of government. While HRC is more likely to bring in a bunch of yes-men and women.

She isnt winning the presidency to let other people tell her what to do.

You are living in a complete fantasy world.

I am sorry that your hatred of HRC is driving you to post such nonsense, but that's exactly what it is.

I am voting for Hillary because I agree closely with her vision for the country. The cabinet is supposed to help her implement her vision, not be a bunch of obstructionists. I would expect there will be some mild disagreements, but if she hires a bunch of people that are going in twelve different directions, then isn't that the sign of a worse leader than one who hires based upon the person's ability to implement her vision?

The answer is "yes".

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Butter

You are living in a complete fantasy world.

I am sorry that your hatred of HRC is driving you to post such nonsense, but that's exactly what it is.

I am voting for Hillary because I agree closely with her vision for the country. The cabinet is supposed to help her implement her vision, not be a bunch of obstructionists. I would expect there will be some mild disagreements, but if she hires a bunch of people that are going in twelve different directions, then isn't that the sign of a worse leader than one who hires based upon the person's ability to implement her vision?

The answer is "yes".

You are living in a fantasy world for even thinking of voting for HRC.

She is the most corrupt politician that has walked our lands. And this blind loyalty is absolutely terrible.

I guess it comes down to: If you are satisfied with the status quo, vote HRC. If you are looking for something different, vote Trump.

But what I believe is not nonsense to me. Im sorry your blindness doesnt allow you to see the history of this corruption. Its disgusting and scary. What wont she do to get elected?

I think she would do anything that would guarantee an election. And I do mean anything.

[SackAttack]

I just wonder how much deference to her Cabinet selections a putative President Clinton can expect from the Senate. The Democrats won't have the filibuster-proof majority they had when President Obama took office, and if the vulnerable GOP incumbents manage to win in spite of Trump, she might face an actively obstructionist Senate instead of a passively obstructionist Senate.

I'm not sure we can make any assertions right now about what sort of Cabinet she'd be able to assemble. If you think the Republican Party is going to just drop the last 20 years' worth of Clinton hatred just because she wins an election, I have some ocean front property in Denver to sell you.

[tarcone]

I would love to see cabinet choices. I think that would really solidify the candidates vision for the future.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by tarcone

She is the most corrupt politician that has walked our lands.

Show your work.

And this blind loyalty is absolutely terrible.

As opposed to marching to the same rhythm the Republican Party has been drumming against the Clintons since 1992? Because Clinton?

Look: if the Republicans had found ANYTHING more than THIS LOOKS SUSPICIOUS FEAR AND CORRUPTION WHAARGARBL her husband would have been removed from office following his impeachment, and there would have been some kind of post-office prosecution against one or both during the Bush years to forestall even the possibility of a Madame President.

They've had 20+ years and all they've come up with is special prosecutions that go nowhere, insinuation and slogans on a t-shirt.

Blind loyalty from whom, now?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I just wonder how much deference to her Cabinet selections a putative President Clinton can expect from the Senate.

I'd figure most would get only token resistance, as they'll be chosen largely from her various cronies. Meaning they won't be perceived as being all that effective, not worth using a lot of effort over.

More resistance would likely be used for the worst 1-2 of the lot, or maybe one she was most invested in.

[tarcone]

You see, Im not a sheep in the GOP. Im voting Johnson.

And HRC is teflon. Absolutely nothing sticks. Doesnt mean its not there. It means she is just that good.

I trust her about as far as I could throw her. And the Democrats being so loyal and blind to these things is scary.

Again, no one found anything because she is that good or has things on members of the House and Senate (This is probably the truth), they dont touch her. just throw things in the wind and act like they are doing stuff.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Again, no one found anything because she is that good

Good enough to not leave anything she can actually be hooked for but not good enough to prevent 20 years worth of RAWR RAWR CLINTON BAD dribbles?

or has things on members of the House and Senate (This is probably the truth), they dont touch her. just throw things in the wind and act like they are doing stuff.

"Go ahead and tarnish my political reputation with talk radio screeds and campaign trail insinuation, and I won't do anything with this blackmail material I've got, but if you ever actually move against me, I release everything"? That's what you're going with? That whatever blackmail she's got isn't enough to keep them from spending taxpayer dollars on investigations that never bear fruit, but it IS enough to keep them from actually moving on her?

Right.

No, seriously. Show your work. You don't get to declare her the most corrupt politician ever and then say "well she's Teflon nothing sticks."

That's bullshit. If you're going to make a statement like that, show your work. If you can't, go crawl back under your temporarily embarrassed Republican - I mean Libertarian - rock and leave the political discourse to the adults.

[Kodos]

I'm sorry, tarcone, but your beliefs are insane.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You are living in a fantasy world for even thinking of voting for HRC.

She is the most corrupt politician that has walked our lands. And this blind loyalty is absolutely terrible.

I guess it comes down to: If you are satisfied with the status quo, vote HRC. If you are looking for something different, vote Trump.

But what I believe is not nonsense to me. Im sorry your blindness doesnt allow you to see the history of this corruption. Its disgusting and scary. What wont she do to get elected?

I think she would do anything that would guarantee an election. And I do mean anything.

Coming from a Republican this is rich. GW Bush was one of the most corrupt stealing having stolen an election and sacrificing many vets lives for his fucking oil money.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Coming from a Republican this is rich. GW Bush was one of the most corrupt stealing having stolen an election and sacrificing many vets lives for his fucking oil money.

Up your dosage. Or have them change your meds.

I mean, clearly they aren't working since you forgot to include the obligatory Hitler reference.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Show your work.

He did a month or two ago...

Originally Posted by tarcone

HRC is the bitch that your buddies take turns banging. Until one of them starts dating her. But then he ends up with slashed tires, because of a perceived slight.

[larrymcg421]

Jesus is love.

[Butter]

I'm not a blind homer for Clinton. I've gone on record on here saying I'd much rather have had Biden run. I voted against her in 2008, and not even for Obama.

Yes, she has flaws. Big ones.

But these lies you are telling yourself that you are some kind of free thinker because you are voting Libertarian are just that: lies. Because there is no bigger baa baa sheep moment than this hatred of Clinton that had been perpetuated for nearly a quarter of a century.

Shit, they built a whole god damn news network around it! What would they have had to talk about for fifteen years if not to just continue to drag her through the mud that whole time. As already said, the fact that she hasn't been prosecuted on SOMETHING means that she is the best criminal mastermind of all fucking time... Or maybe, just MAYBE there isn't anything prosecutable there. Maybe she's morally and ethically lax at times... But criminal? Constantly? The proof beyond torturously circumstantial just isn't there.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Up your dosage. Or have them change your meds.

I mean, clearly they aren't working since you forgot to include the obligatory Hitler reference.

Haha

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Butter

I'm not a blind homer for Clinton. I've gone on record on here saying I'd much rather have had Biden run. I voted against her in 2008, and not even for Obama.

Yes, she has flaws. Big ones.

But these lies you are telling yourself that you are some kind of free thinker because you are voting Libertarian are just that: lies. Because there is no bigger baa baa sheep moment than this hatred of Clinton that had been perpetuated for nearly a quarter of a century.

Shit, they built a whole god damn news network around it! What would they have had to talk about for fifteen years if not to just continue to drag her through the mud that whole time. As already said, the fact that she hasn't been prosecuted on SOMETHING means that she is the best criminal mastermind of all fucking time... Or maybe, just MAYBE there isn't anything prosecutable there. Maybe she's morally and ethically lax at times... But criminal? Constantly? The proof beyond torturously circumstantial just isn't there.

Same here HRC would not be my first choice either but better than the alternatives and that includes you Gary Johnson.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I guess it comes down to: If you are satisfied with the status quo, vote HRC. If you are looking for something different, vote Trump.

First, in my head i hear Andy Dufresne when I read that...

I think you might be representing the great divide we have here. Clearly, for you, the way things are right now is not all right.

I'm not sure if it's literal pain like decrease in wages, savings, retirement, health care, etc. Or, if it's existential, like fear of being shot, loss of cultural identity, loss of your version of American faith, etc.

I do agree the left has done a miserable job of being empathetic towards groups who feel they have been left behind and feel like society is getting away from them.

i also wonder if the passion both sides show is taken seriously. Can someone who has health, family, and faith be truly violently angry at how the other side has destroyed their way of life?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I guess it comes down to: If you are satisfied with the status quo, vote HRC. If you are looking for something different, vote Trump.

Status quo isn't that bad. Economy is growing, country is safe, don't pay a lot in taxes. Sure there are things I'd like to see change but the government isn't dragging me down in any way. I'd rather stick to the status quo than have someone like Trump who knows next to nothing about domestic and foreign policy take charge.

[molson]

If the status quo sucks for you, isn't it up to you to change it? Instead of relying on the government to fix your problems? Isn't that closer to the conservative way of thinking?

[Neuqua]

The Clinton hatred is fascinating to me. I'm not a fan per say, but I think she is clearly the best option we have in November.

The "trust me, she's corrupt and she's just really really really good at not getting caught" crowd is mindboggling.

I'm very fiscally conservative, but as a brown man, there is zero chance I'm voting for *this* Republican candidate. I would genuinely fear for myself and my family.

[cartman]

For the first time in their 120 year history, the Arizona Republic will not endorse the Republican candidate for POTUS.

Endorsement: Hillary Clinton is the only choice to move America ahead

(word of warning, they embedded an autoplay video)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

The Clinton hatred is fascinating to me. I'm not a fan per say, but I think she is clearly the best option we have in November.

The "trust me, she's corrupt and she's just really really really good at not getting caught" crowd is mindboggling.

I'm very fiscally conservative, but as a brown man, there is zero chance I'm voting for *this* Republican candidate. I would genuinely fear for myself and my family.

I'm not a huge fan of Clinton, she's a political chameleon who changes positions a lot. But I think a segment of the diehard hatred toward her has to do with her being a woman. A huge chunk of the pro-life movement isn't anti-abortion, it's anti-woman. Just carries on to other areas of politics.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think she would do anything that would guarantee an election. And I do mean anything.

And yet she lost in 2008. Why did she let that happen?

[tarcone]

Because she ran into the Chicago Political Machine.

I dont trust HRC. I didnt mind Bill. He was a good dude. Rode a healthy economy and did some good things.
But this women is just a nasty person. Just nasty.

And, honestly, I dont want a 6-3 Supreme Court. 5-4 is cool. I dont want 6-3 either way. And I dont trust who HRC would put in there. She would put a monkey in there if it got her personal gain.

I guess I have seen too much about her past and how she just lies and lies. Not saying anyone else doesnt lie. But HRC is just about the best liar I have ever seen. And its scary.

[JPhillips]

How incredible that I was alive to see the most corrupt politician ever get beaten by an even more corrupt politician. What are the odds?

[tarcone]

One is a person. The other is an institution. But you get a pass for the inability to tell the difference. Being a sheep keeps you blind.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Because she ran into the Chicago Political Machine.

The Chicago political machine had little to do with Obama's campaign. It's odd that people connect him so heavily to Chicago politics when he had such a small role in it. Never held a position in the city or county. Axelrod is his main connection to Chicago and he had moved on to races outside Chicago by the time Obama ran.

I mean Chicago is an incredibly corrupt city from a political standpoint. The Democratic Party holds enormous power. But Obama was never part of that and I always find it funny when people think he was.

[jbergey22]

"Dem damn Clinton's stole my last loaf of bread"

[larrymcg421]

This is all pretty funny, because pretty much every Hillary supporter in this thread has conditioned that support in one way or another. I know I've definitely said several times that Hillary isn't my ideal candidate. So we're not blind sheep, but just because Hillary has flaws doesn't make Trump a better option. I don't care whether what he says comes from an outsider or an insider, it represents the exact opposite of the values I care about the most.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont trust HRC. I didnt mind Bill. He was a good dude.

I guess I have seen too much about her past and how she just lies and lies. Not saying anyone else doesnt lie. But HRC is just about the best liar I have ever seen. And its scary.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've said. Bill is the ULTIMATE liar. He didn't get the "Slick Willy" nickname for nothing. He may be the most skilled liar in Presidential history.

[molson]

I don't think I want to president that's not at least a little slick. Obama was probably too idealistic and naive and could have been a little more Clinton-esque. Bush was too, in a different way. I think Bush was also idealistic and sincere (I'm sure people would disagree on that), and that caused some different problems for him.

[Izulde]

It amuses me how a large segment of the Libertarian base uses words like "sheep" or "sheeple", yet they themselves are no different - merely following a different party line. In their pretended enlightenment, they fail to see that they're largely unaware - perhaps even moreso than those they claim are, due to their own hubris.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And, honestly, I dont want a 6-3 Supreme Court. 5-4 is cool. I dont want 6-3 either way. And I dont trust who HRC would put in there. She would put a monkey in there if it got her personal gain.

Oh, the other fun bit? If 5-4 either way is REALLY what you want and not just a justification for why a President Clinton would be Just The Worst, then I have some bad news for you: you aren't *getting* 5-4 unless Clinton gets elected. Right now, what you've got is a 4-4 split. Kennedy is kind of swingy, but he leans conservative. So call it 4 liberals, 3 conservatives, 1 moderate at worst. The only way Hillary Clinton is getting anything but a moderate on the court to replace Antonin Scalia is if the Democrats win the Senate back and Schumer invokes the nuclear option for SCOTUS (previously, the filibuster was left in place for SCOTUS nominees and removed for lower federal court vacancies).

The same scenario holds true for Donald Trump - if he wins, Republicans probably retain the Senate, in which case he's not getting a True Conservative (tm) - and if you think he's a conservative, you're fooling yourself - unless Republicans dispense with the SCOTUS filibuster.

But let's say that's exactly what happens - no matter who gets elected, the nuclear option is invoked to get their preferred ideologue confirmed to the Scalia seat. Come January, you're looking at 5-4 either way, which is what you say you want.

But Ginsburg is going to be 84 soon, Breyer will be 80 in a couple of years, and Thomas will be 70. Absent unexpected death or retirement by the other five justices, those are the vacancies likely to occur in the next 4-8 years. Under Trump, that 5-4 conservative lean would - if you trust him to nominate conservative jurists - become a 7-2 split.

Under Clinton, it might start as a 5-4 tilt towards the liberal side of the court once the Scalia seat is filled, but just as Republicans are playing defense on the Senate map now, Democrats will have to do the same in 2018. Just to preserve a 5-4 split, Clinton would need Breyer and Ginsburg to retire prior to the midterms to allow Democrats to confirm their replacements. The nuclear option only helps them if they retain control of the chamber, which they almost certainly wouldn't. That means two years of either nonstop votes to deny confirmation to whomever Clinton nominates, or a surrender to the political realities in the Senate and a nomination of moderates to slight conservatives to fill those vacancies.

You REALLY want a 5-4 split on the Court? Vote Clinton. She's going to be hard-pressed to keep the Court that evenly divided. A vote for Trump (or a vote for Clinton's defeat, if you prefer) is almost certainly a vote for a shot at a 7-2 conservative majority.

But, hey, don't let me distract you from your Clinton hatred. Keep fucking that chicken.

[clemsonfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not a huge fan of Clinton, she's a political chameleon who changes positions a lot. But I think a segment of the diehard hatred toward her has to do with her being a woman. A huge chunk of the pro-life movement isn't anti-abortion, it's anti-woman. Just carries on to other areas of politics.

You're right. This race is showing sexism plain and simple. Yes, I'm a woman. And yes, I am excited about Hillary. Not just because she's a woman either. Among other things, she's smart, experienced and cares about the issues I value.

But if she were a man, a lot of people wouldn't have as big of an issue with her. Just like when someone mentioned they like Bill more. Sexism.

[tarcone]

Wow. Not once have I mentioned sex. I could care less if she is a woman or an alien. In fact, I was excited when Sarah Palin was put on a ticket a few years ago. But, wait, she isnt a Dem. So its name calling and put downs. Typical liberal bullshit. You dont think like us so your [insert word]-ist.

[Butter]

"HRC is the bitch that your buddies take turns banging. Until one of them starts dating her. But then he ends up with slashed tires, because of a perceived slight."

That goes beyond sexist, it's downright misogynist.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think it does kind of go along that thought process. The old who would you have a beer with?

Trump is the dude that spouts out the non politically correct stuff in your crowd. Anywhere, anytime. Yeah, he can be embarrassing, but he can be right also.

HRC is the bitch that your buddies take turns banging. Until one of them starts dating her. But then he ends up with slashed tires, because of a perceived slight.

Originally Posted by tarcone

Nah. Trump is male. I do females. And I think he does too, based on his selection of hot wives.

I wouldnt date HRC. I would truly be afraid too.

If you don't see how these quotes suggest that you have issues with powerful women...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Izulde

It amuses me how a large segment of the Libertarian base uses words like "sheep" or "sheeple", yet they themselves are no different - merely following a different party line. In their pretended enlightenment, they fail to see that they're largely unaware - perhaps even moreso than those they claim are, due to their own hubris.

I wouldn't use the term sheep for any Clinton supporters (or even Sanders in the primaries). I also wouldn't use it to describe Cruz/Kasich/Bush/Paul etc supporters in the primaries. Donald Trump has absolutely zero concrete ideas on what he will do as president. Anyone planning on voting for Donald Trump is voting only for the "R" and (for the most part) in misogynistic fear of a powerful woman and is without question a sheep.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by panerd

Anyone planning on voting for Donald Trump is voting only for the "R" and (for the most part) in misogynistic fear of a powerful woman and is without question a sheep.

That's certainly not true. Here's a sampling of other reasons people would vote for Trump:

- A way to register an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the current political powers (both R and D). The election process is so long that it is understandable to forget this, but he still is an outsider, and a symbol of that.
- A belief that who is president isn't as important and who the president surrounds himself/herself with
- A mistrust of Clinton, genuinely aside from gender issues
- A simple desire to watch the world burn

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by clemsonfan

You're right. This race is showing sexism plain and simple. Yes, I'm a woman. And yes, I am excited about Hillary. Not just because she's a woman either. Among other things, she's smart, experienced and cares about the issues I value.

But if she were a man, a lot of people wouldn't have as big of an issue with her. Just like when someone mentioned they like Bill more. Sexism.

I would vote for Elizabeth Warren against Trump without hesitation despite disagreeing with her political positions significantly. I'll still do so for Clinton, if the race is close enough that I find it necessary, but there's something about HRC that I find unlikable. I can't truly place a finger on it. It may simply be the fatigue of having her in the spotlight for so long, but I think it's just something about her personality that has always seemed fake and untrustworthy. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not in the minority on that.

I do know it's not sexism. The country I would most like to move to is Germany and Merkel has been excellent as far as I'm concerned.

[ISiddiqui]

I hear about how Hillary Clinton has a fake an untrustworthy personality... why does Bill Clinton always get a pass? It's like people acknowledge that Bill is untrustworthy and at times not really genuine, but they give him a complete pass. Even when he was president, the right liked to go after Hillary as some sort of power behind the throne.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I hear about how Hillary Clinton has a fake an untrustworthy personality... why does Bill Clinton always get a pass? It's like people acknowledge that Bill is untrustworthy and at times not really genuine, but they give him a complete pass. Even when he was president, the right liked to go after Hillary as some sort of power behind the throne.

Have you forgotten about Ken Starr? The impeachment?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I hear about how Hillary Clinton has a fake an untrustworthy personality... why does Bill Clinton always get a pass? It's like people acknowledge that Bill is untrustworthy and at times not really genuine, but they give him a complete pass. Even when he was president, the right liked to go after Hillary as some sort of power behind the throne.

Did you actually live through 92-00? Bill was hounded incessantly by every right leaning news outlet and several of them began/grew in large part because of the crap they stirred against him. I honestly can't think of anyone who gives Bill Clinton a pass.

If things seem to have softened against him, I'd wager it's because he's no longer consistently in the spotlight while Hillary has remained there.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Wow. Not once have I mentioned sex. I could care less if she is a woman or an alien. In fact, I was excited when Sarah Palin was put on a ticket a few years ago. But, wait, she isnt a Dem. So its name calling and put downs. Typical liberal bullshit. You dont think like us so your [insert word]-ist.

Except for that time you called HRC a bitch...

And it's you're.

(You're welcome, cuervo.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Have you forgotten about Ken Starr? The impeachment?

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Did you actually live through 92-00? Bill was hounded incessantly by every right leaning news outlet and several of them began/grew in large part because of the crap they stirred against him. I honestly can't think of anyone who gives Bill Clinton a pass.

If things seem to have softened against him, I'd wager it's because he's no longer consistently in the spotlight while Hillary has remained there.

And did you see how it never really affected his poll numbers or approval ratings? He even got higher in the polls after the impeachment! Slick Willy was almost used in a knowing smiling nod. He was even applauded for outflanking the Republicans.

And you see it now, where folks like tarcone are like, will Bill lied, but it was NOTHING like Hillary.

And FWIW, Ken Starr's appointment began to investigate Whitewater, which was considered more of a Hillary scandal than a Bill scandal.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We need to bring our jobs back, we need to give them to OUR current citizens in need, and we need to remove the criminals. If we do those three things, the inner city communities can actually progress. Most corporations would rather move their business to Mexico than to Detroit. That's got to stop.

But we have to incentivize work. Ive been trying to hire 5 basically unskilled positions for 3 months, for a very competitive wage. ($22/hr fwiw) in Greenville and Columbia South Carolina. Through the roughly 200 applicants. Maybe 30 have shown up on time for an interview. We've extended 5 offers. 2 failed drug screens. 2 came back with outstanding warrants and 1 accepted the offer but quit the first day because it was too hot.

I am not sure we have a job problem, at least not in my area, there are jobs everywhere and we cant find a person to take them.

[panerd]

I would say most of us on this board are around the same age. So whenever somebody says it really got worse during Clinton's years my guess is that is just when most of us were at an age started to take an interest in politics. I can't imagine liberals were throwing a ticker tape parade for Reagan or Nixon and Republicans were that fond of Carter or Kennedy.

[CU Tiger]

Dola

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And how many right out of college grads do you know that get hired as CEOs?

A few.
I mean immediately coming to mind are: Zuckerber, David Rusenko, Aaron Levie, and Jack Abraham ...though to be fair they are all in the IT space

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

2 came back with outstanding warrants

out of curiosity, what's the protocol on those situations. is law enforcement automatically notified? would you be considered aiding a criminal if you didn't notify the authorities?