Archive

Trump vs. Hillary (NO OTHER OPTIONS)

  • bases_loaded
    Automatik;1806576 wrote:What is your point here?

    If a presidential candidate said that today they for sure would be getting bashed like Trump is now.
    You're right they would just be handed the Vice Presidency, I'm sure they hammered him with being a racist first for inferring he was going to shoot the first halfrican american president though...again JUST KIDDING

  • Automatik
    That's a long time ago in terms of media coverage....especially social media. Like I said, if that were today he'd get destroyed
  • QuakerOats
    Yet, some people do actually get taken out, but if it is done to protect Clinton or the dems, it is ok:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

    Assange implies murdered DNC staffer was source of leaks ....

    Wow - don't mess with the Clinton machine.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    like_that;1806570 wrote:Ptown, because he is too much of a coward to answer legitimate questions about Hillary. It's ok (I guess) to admit she sucks ass, but also vote for her as an anti trump vote. I get that, but don't be a puss and avoid reasonable questions about Hillary by deflecting back to Trump.

    I would categorize boatshoes as a liberal Quaker on a bit of lesser scale.
    Is she ideal, nope, but I do like a lot of her foreign policies. Her domestic and liberal leanings, especially late I am meh on. No one of them will happen, so it is pandering.

    But, her views and policies abroad are what I would most support. If you look at her time at SECSTATE she was the hawk with Bob Gates, especially on terrorism, the Arab Spring, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. She supported keeping troops in Iraq more, more troops in Afghanistan, going into Syria, being more aggressive with China, going into Libya more, and she was very forceful on the Bin Laden raid.
    Bob Gates says in working with her as SECSTATE, she was professional, knowledgeable, and very prepared and analytical in discussing the issues.

    I just feel, given her record and views, she would handle foreign policy better than Trump as she has more of a grasp of the complexities of the issues. She also knows the stakes for taking action and the actual process of sending in troops or forces, or taking out a bad guy. Given that, that is why I would take her way more than Trump.

    bases_loaded;1806571 wrote:Does Ptown work in DC?
    Yeah. Federal contractor out here in the area.
  • bases_loaded
    QuakerOats;1806583 wrote:Yet, some people do actually get taken out, but if it is done to protect Clinton or the dems, it is ok:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

    Assange implies murdered DNC staffer was source of leaks ....

    Wow - don't mess with the Clinton machine.

    LOLZ IT WASN'T A DNC INSIDER IT WAS THE RUSSIANS FOR DONALD TRUMP DUH....the media already planted that seed weeks ago...
  • Dr.Pizza
    i am with all of you on the msm (mainstream media0 They are deceiptful as they come and are trying to divide people on lots of issues. especially race issues and on gun rights. You cant trust anything at all that they tell you!
  • sleeper
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806566 wrote:other than isadore, I don't think anyone is telling you Hillary is the answer...hell I don't think anyone else is saying she's a good candidate. However, when you compare the two idiots... there's no question, to me, she's more fit to be president. She's actually developed policy, shes actually worked in congress to pass said legislations, and she's done it on both sides of the aisle. Does her policy reflect mine?... no.. well it does when she started stealing Bernie's.. but overall no b/c it's just bullshit to get votes. But there's no question she'd be a billion times more effective than Trump. Not to mention she doesn't lose her shit whenever someone talks about her.. which is pretty important for President.
    Hate to agree with Zwick, but this.
  • O-Trap
    Dr.Pizza;1806478 wrote:Its comical that some of the people on here who i wont put on blast that use infowars as a actual source of information and media. Alex Jones is a whacky bat! haha no offense but i would trust him more than i could toss him and that is being modest. If you want to lost all credibility with me than you should you can keep using alex jones as a reliable source for information cause i for one am not a fan of his!
    Broken clocks. If Alex Jones says that the earth is round, he's not wrong.

    I'm not an InfoWars fan, and even I think Alex Jones is too far to the tinfoil hat side of things, but that isn't to say that everything he says is wrong.
    Automatik;1806527 wrote:But he's so not PC bro! Don't you love it?
    Anytime I hear someone say something like this in a serious tone, I realize that I am incapable of rolling my eyes hard enough to convey my thoughts.

    Not being PC has become synonymous with sounding like a moron.
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806548 wrote:What the Donald did was called an inference. Inferring gun right nuts should/can do something about Hillary.
    Actually, it's called an implication. He was implying that gun right "nuts" should/can do something about Hillary.

    We are inferring his meaning. Inferring is what a person does when he interprets someone else's words. Implying is what a person does when he says something that is meant to convey a specific interpretation.

    As long as we're actually taking the time to identify these terms, we should do so correctly.
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806566 wrote:other than isadore, I don't think anyone is telling you Hillary is the answer...hell I don't think anyone else is saying she's a good candidate.
    I still maintain that neither is fit to be president. However, if anyone is getting upset that those who support neither candidate are spending more time on The Donald, this is why. There are very few vocal apologists for Clinton. Even those who sound as though they'll be voting for her are treating her like a bitter pill. It's harder to argue with someone who is forthright about the fact that their choice isn't a particularly good one.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    O-Trap;1806603 wrote: I still maintain that neither is fit to be president. However, if anyone is getting upset that those who support neither candidate are spending more time on The Donald, this is why. There are very few vocal apologists for Clinton. Even those who sound as though they'll be voting for her are treating her like a bitter pill. It's harder to argue with someone who is forthright about the fact that their choice isn't a particularly good one.
    Probably. Still...one of them will be our next president though.
  • QuakerOats
    O-Trap;1806603 wrote:I still maintain that neither is fit to be president. However, if anyone is getting upset that those who support neither candidate are spending more time on The Donald, this is why. There are very few vocal apologists for Clinton. Even those who sound as though they'll be voting for her are treating her like a bitter pill. It's harder to argue with someone who is forthright about the fact that their choice isn't a particularly good one.
    Except.................no one here has ever said Trump is the greatest candidate of all time and has no imperfections, which you are implying, and I inferred.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1806610 wrote:Except.................no one here has ever said Trump is the greatest candidate of all time and has no imperfections, which you are implying, and I inferred.
    That is not what I implied. You're putting my words into a false dichotomy. The options are not only "unfit" or "the greatest candidate of all time [without] imperfections."

    I see people defending Trump as a good candidate, and someone who would make a good president.

    I don't really see anyone saying Clinton is a good candidate or would make a good president. The biggest compliment I've seen of her is that she's the better option, but most of the people saying that still don't treat her like a good option.
  • QuakerOats
    Spock;1806480 wrote:the media is blowing this out

    Wait just a minute, the same media that fawned over the 2006 movie in which G.W. Bush was assassinated?

    Say it ain't so.
  • Automatik
    They also fawned in '96 when Bill Pullman joined the fight against the aliens. Were you pissed about that too?
  • majorspark
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806548 wrote:That's called an idiom that's been used for years. I'm sure when you watched that video, it wasn't the first time you had heard that saying.
    I get that. Point is candidates for president say things they probably should not. Obama has said he has done so himself. He has criticised Trump for being on a different level.
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806548 wrote:What the Donald did was called an inference. Inferring gun right nuts should/can do something about Hillary.
    I would not flip out about either comment. The problem is the Donald has made himself and his big mouth the focus. Everyone in the Media is just waiting for the next slip. So these little statements are blown up out of proportion. The ones people should really be disturbed by is his comment concerning nuclear proliferation. Like having to walk back statements about South Korea and Japan nuking up.
  • CenterBHSFan
    I found this interesting: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/team-clinton-now-outspending-trump-ads-52-million-0-n626236
    $91 million for Team Clinton, versus $8 million for Team Trump
    People are about equally divided in their distaste for both candidates, yet one is getting much more facetime. Why is that?
  • Dr.Pizza
    Theyve have won there last 8 games and have been one of the best teams since the break. A lot of people were writing them off at the break but they rebounded well. Arrieta needed a win and he got it. The bats have come to life as late. I dont think it is out of this world to say Kris Bryant is the NL()national league MVP.
  • Automatik
    Amazing.
  • O-Trap
    Dr.Pizza;1806641 wrote:Theyve have won there last 8 games and have been one of the best teams since the break. A lot of people were writing them off at the break but they rebounded well. Arrieta needed a win and he got it. The bats have come to life as late. I dont think it is out of this world to say Kris Bryant is the NL()national league MVP.
    Umm ...
  • Spock
    Dr.Pizza;1806641 wrote:Theyve have won there last 8 games and have been one of the best teams since the break. A lot of people were writing them off at the break but they rebounded well. Arrieta needed a win and he got it. The bats have come to life as late. I dont think it is out of this world to say Kris Bryant is the NL()national league MVP.
    you are killing this internet thing
  • Belly35
    dr. Pizza .... take it to the sport baseball forum ...mofo :)
  • QuakerOats
    CenterBHSFan;1806633 wrote:I found this interesting: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/team-clinton-now-outspending-trump-ads-52-million-0-n626236



    People are about equally divided in their distaste for both candidates, yet one is getting much more facetime. Why is that?

    Trump raised $80 million in July. Struck a nerve with Team Corruption: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Clinton-Campaign-Trump-July-Fundraising/2016/08/08/id/742681/
  • BoatShoes
    like_that;1806567 wrote:I would place partisan coward ptown and liberal apologist boatshoes in that group as well.
    It is pretty simple. As Bloomberg put it Hillary is competent and sane.

    I do think Hillary will be a better president than Obama in the sense that you can tell Obama's lack of political experience really hampered his ability to work with Congress. Republicans who would've never voted for Obama will secretly vote for the Goldwater Girl.

    She won't have the contempt for Republicans that Obama did as she has been taking the shit for 30 years and knows it is part of the game.

    Don't see her being a transformatively great president though.

    Of course she still has to get passed Trump who could still easily win this thing. I would vote for Rob Portman over Ted Strickland if he would disavow Trump like Kasich has.
  • BoatShoes
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806569 wrote:Really? I guess I don't pay attention too much. I know isadore definitely does. Of my liberal friends, there's not one who isn't holding their nose and voting for her. And I know that's how some Republicans feel about voting for Trump and not Hillary. But I don't know any people personally who are excited for either candidate. I mean i see people on Facebook I guess.. but no one I personally talk to supports either one wholeheartedly.
    I would say I support Hillary wholeheartedly and think she will be a decent president. That doesn't mean I am not painfully aware of her many flaws and that there aren't people I would rather take to the dance.
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1806747 wrote:Trump raised $80 million in July. Struck a nerve with Team Corruption: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Clinton-Campaign-Trump-July-Fundraising/2016/08/08/id/742681/
    Lot of working man money to pay Mar-A-Lago as a vendor with.

    Crowd funding campaigns is the greatest scam going.
  • bases_loaded
    BoatShoes;1806755 wrote:. I would vote for Rob Portman over Ted Strickland if he would disavow Trump like Kasich has.
    LOL of course, the compromise always has to be to the left. Lets compromise, you agree with me and we'll agree to agree.