Donald vs Hillary

[Guest]

Odd that Fox, that fair and balanced source, spent so much time covering the allegations in the Benghazi investigations but so little on the results. I guess the fact that Hillary couldn't have changed a thing but GOP security funding cuts could have wasn't the results they were hoping for.

Though to be honest, I think they know their audience lost interest in truth or evidence years ago.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Guest

[Argus]

Odd that Fox, that fair and balanced source, spent so much time covering the allegations in the Benghazi investigations but so little on the results.

I don't spend a lot of time on FOX but it seemed like they would never stop talking about it. And my impression, it seems, was correct. This is from 2014 so the numbers are obviously much greater now but still...

Fox News' evening lineup ran nearly 1,100 segments on the Benghazi attacks and their aftermath in the first 20 months following the attacks. Nearly 500 segments focused on a set of Obama administration talking points used in September 2012 interviews; more than 100 linked the attacks to a potential Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential run; and dozens of segments compared the attacks and the administration response to the Watergate or Iran-Contra scandals. The network hosted Republican members of Congress to discuss Benghazi nearly 30 times more frequently than Democrats.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/16/report-foxs-benghazi-obsession-by-the-numbers/200694

[BubberMiley]

I think it's only those who are particularly uninformed who bring up Benghazi at all anymore. Republicans who are actually paying attention seem to avoid that subject altogether.

[segnosaur]

Just out of curiosity, do you ever have an original thought of your own?

Eh? Because I quoted a news item - which btw, was brought up on tv with two news people grilling Kane about that!

That's how I found out, btw.....and I googled about it.

So what do you mean by original thought? Make up my own story?

By "original thought" I mean post something substantial, in your own words.

Very frequently, you cut and paste from various sources while giving no (or minimal) exposition of your own. An intelligent, rational, thoughtful person would post something of a topic, maybe a few lines of a reference article, then some of their own thoughts on the matter. You just cut and paste what other people say. If that's all you're doing, why are you here?

And take a look at your response to my posting. I debunked your posting over and over again. In multiple ways. I also challenged you with a couple of direct questions. All of which was ignored, just so you can go back to cutting and pasting from various sources.

That's the same line given by Kane - that she's given interviews - but the news people pointed out, that's not the same!

First of all, you are also ignoring the fact that she's also done multiple media scrums. And town hall meetings. Where journalists have had free reign to ask questions.

Secondly, yes, an interview and press conference are different. But they can lead to the same result. About a month ago Clinton gave over 2 hours of press interviews. Including interviews with Fox, which has been hostile to her. On the other hand, Trump regularly turns down interviews with people who won't be nice to him.

If not, why won't she oblige, once and for all, put this matter to rest?

Its already been explained... some politicians prefer one method of media contact over another.

Once again, I will ask.... why does it matter to you. She's not ducking the media. She's still giving information to the press, but in a different format.

[Guest]

I think it's only those who are particularly uninformed who bring up Benghazi at all anymore. Republicans who are actually paying attention seem to avoid that subject altogether.

Still, when a lie is repeated often enough people will believe it. Even when shown the truth, many of those who prefer the lie will continue to repeat it.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Guest

[segnosaur]

I think it's only those who are particularly uninformed who bring up Benghazi at all anymore.

Sadly, that seems to include the majority of Trump supporters who are uninformed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sadly, that seems to include the majority of Trump supporters who are uninformed.

Trump would still have millions of "supporters" even when so informed. If by informed you mean matching your own understanding and biases, that's not a realistic expectation from across the border. Hillary Clinton is a very flawed candidate, just like Trump, and Benghazi is fair game for a presidential election campaign...it is part of her record in public office. Trump has done none of these things, because he has never been elected or appointed to high office.

[segnosaur]

Trump would still have millions of "supporters" even when so informed.

Granted, Trump would still have the support of white racists and neo-Nazi supporters and religious hypocrites. But anyone who is actually honestly considering the candidates, and evaluating their background and policies would stop supporting trump. Trump would just be left with people who are t a lying sack of crap, voting for Trump because they're racist but falsely claiming "Oh its because of his policies".

Look at the number of Trump supporters who claim he is more honest that Hillary, even though Politifact shows just the opposite, and that Trump lies a lot more than Clinton.

Look at the number of Trump supporters who claim that he's a "good businessman" even though his past history shows a history of failures.

If by informed you mean matching your own understanding and biases, that's not a realistic expectation from across the border.

Look at many of those who are critical of Trump. Many of them on this board (myself included) have voted Conservative in Canadian elections. Many actual republicans in the states have likewise condemned Trump. Does that really sound like "bias"?

Hillary Clinton is a very flawed candidate, just like Trump...

Nobody is claiming Clinton is perfect. Just far and above a better candidate than Trump.

...and Benghazi is fair game for a presidential election campaign...it is part of her record in public office.

An Accurate account of Benghazi would be fare game. One that included the findings (from multiple investigations from a Republican dominated congress) that Hillary was not to blame. Yet that's not what we keep hearing from Trump supporters.

Trump has done none of these things, because he has never been elected or appointed to high office.

You are right, he hasn't. done any of those things. But, look at what he has done. He has: seen multiple businesses of his fail, been engaged in possible fraud over Trump University, and seen his "wealth" falter and increase slower than it would had he just stuck his money in the stock market.

As a businessman he is largely a failure... The one thing he is supposed to be good at, and he is not. And you want to put him in charge of the country.

At least Clinton helped broker a peace deal between Palestinians and Israelis. And she was Secretary when bin Laden was killed. (If you're going to accuse her of failure on Benghazi just because she happened to be was Secretary at the time, you should also praise her for bin Laden.)

[bush_cheney2004]

Granted, Trump would still have the support of white racists and neo-Nazi supporters and religious hypocrites. But anyone who is actually honestly considering the candidates, and evaluating their background and policies would stop supporting trump. Trump would just be left with people who are t a lying sack of crap, voting for Trump because they're racist but falsely claiming "Oh its because of his policies".

It is nonsense to claim that all of Trump's voters (not just "supporters") are racists and Nazis. Americans vote for different candidates for many different reasons...they are not locked into any version of "honesty" projected from north of the border. And even if some Trump voters are racist, they still have the right to vote for him. I'm sure lots of racists vote for candidates and parties in Canada too.

Look at the number of Trump supporters who claim he is more honest that Hillary, even though Politifact shows just the opposite, and that Trump lies a lot more than Clinton.

Look at the number of Trump supporters who claim that he's a "good businessman" even though his past history shows a history of failures.

Look at many of those who are critical of Trump. Many of them on this board (myself included) have voted Conservative in Canadian elections. Many actual republicans in the states have likewise condemned Trump. Does that really sound like "bias"?

Doesn't matter to Trump "supporters"....he is not the status quo for Washington domestic and foreign policies. Trump torched all other Republican contenders and their establishment views. How was he able to do that ? Canadian views on Trump (or Clinton) are largely irrelevant unless they can vote in the election, just as my views would be about candidates in Canada.

Nobody is claiming Clinton is perfect. Just far and above a better candidate than Trump.

An Accurate account of Benghazi would be fare game. One that included the findings (from multiple investigations from a Republican dominated congress) that Hillary was not to blame. Yet that's not what we keep hearing from Trump supporters.

The best candidate doesn't always win, and accuracy is not the hallmark of any U.S. presidential campaign. If Clinton were such a superior candidate, she would have no need to fight for swing states and independent voters. She has significant personal and political baggage that will be exploited just like any other (male) candidate. Even a newcomer named Barack Obama defeated her in 2008.

You are right, he hasn't. done any of those things. But, look at what he has done. He has: seen multiple businesses of his fail, been engaged in possible fraud over Trump University, and seen his "wealth" falter and increase slower than it would had he just stuck his money in the stock market.

As a businessman he is largely a failure... The one thing he is supposed to be good at, and he is not. And you want to put him in charge of the country.

Trump is a risk taker with successes and failures. He didn't make his wealth by leveraging public office and dodgy contributions/fees. He is more wealthy than the Clintons by a large margin. Trump hasn't bombed anybody (yet), hasn't doubled my health insurance rates, hasn't aided sex offender spouses, hasn't violated rules for information security, etc., etc.

I want him to have his earned shot to run for the office in a general election....win or lose. I will not be voting for Trump (or Clinton). Foreigners get to obsessively watch this campaign and voting process unless they are also American citizens. If Americans injected themselves so much into a Canadian campaign it would also be resented.

At least Clinton helped broker a peace deal between Palestinians and Israelis. And she was Secretary when bin Laden was killed. (If you're going to accuse her of failure on Benghazi just because she happened to be was Secretary at the time, you should also praise her for bin Laden.)

Clinton consistently fails to take full responsibility for her mistakes while in office. Trump can go back to private life with his billions, but Clinton dearly wants to cap a long march to presidential power, denied in 2008. FYI, most "progressives" honestly don't like her either.

Edited September 2, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[betsy]

Since you're parroting Trump's talking point of the week, can you explain the difference between making yourself available to the press for questions, which Hillary has done many times, and having a press conference?

I'm parroting the news people grilling Kane on tv! Kane was getting flustered and hot under the collar!

Obviously there's a big difference between a press conference and an interview......otherwise she wouldn't continue to avoid the pc like the plague!

By "original thought" I mean post something substantial, in your own words.

Why? What's the difference? It's news!

This is not about opinion! I'm giving the news item and the supporting source at the same time!

Edited September 2, 2016 by betsy

[segnosaur]

It is nonsense to claim that all of Trump's voters (not just "supporters") are racists and Nazis. Americans vote for different candidates for many different reasons...they are not locked into any version of "honesty" projected from north of the border. And even if some Trump voters are racist, they still have the right to vote for him. I'm sure lots of racists vote for candidates and parties in Canada too.

I never claimed ALL trump's supporters were racists and Nazis... some are also ignorant and/or misinformed about what he has done and what his policies are. That was my point... if a decent/honest person people were properly informed, they would not likely vote for Trump. He survives on a combination of ignorance, racism and hypocrisy.

As for my use of the word "supporters", I use it because most people here are not American citizens and cannot vote. But for the most part a trump voter and supporter are equivalent in this case.

Doesn't matter to Trump "supporters"....he is not the status quo for Washington domestic and foreign policies.

First of all, not sure how you can say he's "not the status quo". After all, he's made multiple statements, many that have been contradictory, and many that are pretty much "the status quo". He has:

- Supported American military interventions (Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya/ISIS, etc.)

- Expressed pro-gun/anti-abortion/anti-Obamacare policies in line with other Republicans

- Supported Amnesty for some illegal aliens (before flip-flopping)

- Wanted to remove banking regulations that were put in place by Obama, returning us to the "status quo" that lead us to the economic hardships of 2008.

Sounds pretty "status quo" to me.

And in many cases where he does differ from mainstream republicans or other politicians, his policies would be horrendous. Eliminating NAFTA is a policy not held by other Republicans, but doing so would harm both the U.S. and Canada/Mexico. Building a well (another unique Trump policy) would be both extremely expensive and ineffective.

Trump torched all other Republican contenders and their establishment views. How was he able to do that ?

By leveraging on a combination of ignorance, racism, and demagogue.

Canadian views on Trump (or Clinton) are largely irrelevant unless they can vote in the election

Why are you bringing that up?

This is a discussion forum. We discuss issues, largely for enjoyment. I recognize that I can't vote for Trump. But for some of us it is an interesting intellectual exercise to at least debate just how much of a fraud trump is.

The best candidate doesn't always win, and accuracy is not the hallmark of any U.S. presidential campaign. If Clinton were such a superior candidate, she would have no need to fight for swing states and independent voters.

You know, you just contradicted yourself.. you both claimed "the best candidate doesn't always win", but then said if Clinton were superior she "wouldn't need to fight". So what is it? Does the best candidate always win? Or do candidates have to fight?

Trump is a risk taker with successes and failures.

Perhaps with more failures than you really realize.

He didn't make his wealth by leveraging public office and dodgy contributions/fees.

No, he made his wealth largely by:

- Inheriting a bunch of it

- Scamming people (Trump University anyone?)

- Being famous for being famous. Much like Kim Kardashian. Yet nobody is saying she is a great businessman.

None of which really gives me a lot of confidence that he has the intellectual knowledge to handle the economy.

He is more wealthy than the Clintons by a large margin.

How do you know? Seriously. He hasn't released his tax returns. While Trump "claims" he is worth $10 billion, most people consider that claim to be nonsense. There are even estimates that his value is worth only $150 million. Less than his worth 2-3 decades ago, and less than the Clinton's supposed wealth.

Until Trump releases his tax returns, you can't really say anything about his wealth.

Trump hasn't bombed anybody (yet)

Yet he supported military action in Libya, Syria and the Iraq invasion.

...hasn't aided sex offender spouses

Yet one of his advisors is Roger Ailes, who has a history of sexually harassing female reporters at Fox News.

...hasn't violated rules for information security, etc., etc.

Nor has he scammed dozens of people at a fraudulent university.

Oh wait, that's something he DID do!

Foreigners get to obsessively watch this campaign and voting process unless they are also American citizens. If Americans injected themselves so much into a Canadian campaign it would also be resented.

Errr... not really. I've participated in various forums where the Canadian election was discussed, and any posts from Americans are treated as ones from Canadians. We recognize that its a discussion forum. Of interest for people who like to debate.

Clinton consistently fails to take full responsibility for her mistakes while in office.

First of all, are you talking about mistakes she's actually made, or (more likely) mistakes she didn't make, but you are desperately trying to pin on her anyways?

Secondly, lets play a game, shall we?

Which candidate created a mortgage company, only to see it go out of business, then blame the people that were hired to manage it for its failure?

Which candidate claimed he didn't know who David Duke was (even though he had talked about him before), then blame a "faulty earpiece"?

Donald Trump has a long history of screwing up, then blaming others for his mistakes.

[taxme]

Finding a "nice" thing about Trump takes some doing, but in the spirit of the season, you deserve a point for trying.

The only problem and reason why the the ant-Trump people hate him is because he is oh so politically incorrect. That is a true sign of a true leader. One who will not kiss any special interest group of people butt and especially the butts of the establishment elite just for their approval or vote. Trump owes no one anything as other candidates have to do to try and get elected.

Edited September 2, 2016 by taxme

[?Impact]

The only problem and reason why the the ant-Trump people hate him is because he is oh so politically incorrect. That is a true sign of a true leader. One who will not kiss any special interest group of people butt and especially the butts of the establishment elite just for their approval or vote. Trump owes no one anything as other candidates have to do to try and get elected.

People hate Trump because he lies and cheats and spreads hatred. He is vile, and only the feeble minded swallow his swill.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never claimed ALL trump's supporters were racists and Nazis... some are also ignorant and/or misinformed about what he has done and what his policies are. That was my point... if a decent/honest person people were properly informed, they would not likely vote for Trump. He survives on a combination of ignorance, racism and hypocrisy.

As for my use of the word "supporters", I use it because most people here are not American citizens and cannot vote. But for the most part a trump voter and supporter are equivalent in this case.

What seems more likely to you in Canada is not the case for millions of American voters, whether they support Trump, Clinton, or anybody else. This is not an exercise in honesty and logic. This is a U.S. presidential campaign. Whether ignorant or highly informed, they all get to vote any damn way they please. As stated many times, I do not know what it materially means when a foreign national "supports" any U.S. political candidate.

First of all, not sure how you can say he's "not the status quo". After all, he's made multiple statements, many that have been contradictory, and many that are pretty much "the status quo". He has:

- Supported American military interventions (Invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya/ISIS, etc.)

- Expressed pro-gun/anti-abortion/anti-Obamacare policies in line with other Republicans

- Supported Amnesty for some illegal aliens (before flip-flopping)

- Wanted to remove banking regulations that were put in place by Obama, returning us to the "status quo" that lead us to the economic hardships of 2008.

Sounds pretty "status quo" to me.

And in many cases where he does differ from mainstream republicans or other politicians, his policies would be horrendous. Eliminating NAFTA is a policy not held by other Republicans, but doing so would harm both the U.S. and Canada/Mexico. Building a well (another unique Trump policy) would be both extremely expensive and ineffective.

Donald Trump is not a beltway insider or career politician. He has successfully campaigned with a "Brexit" mentality and inconsistency. He is right to scrap or vastly improve NAFTA. Building a wall is a real and rhetorical response to longstanding American dislike for illegal immigration....much older than Trump's campaign. Obama has deported over 2,000,000 illegals or criminal residents. Portions of "the wall" already exist.

Why are you bringing that up?

This is a discussion forum. We discuss issues, largely for enjoyment. I recognize that I can't vote for Trump. But for some of us it is an interesting intellectual exercise to at least debate just how much of a fraud trump is.

Discuss and debate all you wish, but American voters will cast their votes as they wish regardless of your judgements about their education, bigotry, or political sophistication. I will continue to bring it up as long as Canadians express a smug superiority in understanding what is best for the American political process and outcomes. The U.S. did not become a superpower by listening to the opinions of partisan voters in Canada.

You know, you just contradicted yourself.. you both claimed "the best candidate doesn't always win", but then said if Clinton were superior she "wouldn't need to fight". So what is it? Does the best candidate always win? Or do candidates have to fight?

No contradiction....the campaign process is a gauntlet that tests any candidate and their "support". We even made movies about it. These are two of the poorest major party candidates in recent memory. But they are what they are and there will be a winner and a loser. Then the U.S. will do it all over again. It is not Canada.

Perhaps with more failures than you really realize.

No, he made his wealth largely by:

- Inheriting a bunch of it

- Scamming people (Trump University anyone?)

- Being famous for being famous. Much like Kim Kardashian. Yet nobody is saying she is a great businessman.

None of which really gives me a lot of confidence that he has the intellectual knowledge to handle the economy.

Playing the class envy card won't work....I don't care how Trump got his money. Presidents do not "handle" the economy. Again, your cross border confidence is largely irrelevant. Do you think Americans worried about Trudeau's economic expertise during the last election in Canada ?

How do you know? Seriously. He hasn't released his tax returns. While Trump "claims" he is worth $10 billion, most people consider that claim to be nonsense. There are even estimates that his value is worth only $150 million. Less than his worth 2-3 decades ago, and less than the Clinton's supposed wealth.

Until Trump releases his tax returns, you can't really say anything about his wealth.

Right...Trump is actually penniless and has no wealth. It is all a scam. God, he must be good !

Yet he supported military action in Libya, Syria and the Iraq invasion.

As did many U.S. citizens, but he had no influence on the decisions. He was not in federal office.

Yet one of his advisors is Roger Ailes, who has a history of sexually harassing female reporters at Fox News.

Nor has he scammed dozens of people at a fraudulent university.

Oh wait, that's something he DID do!

Trump was not married to Roger Ailes or protect him from lawsuits. Trump has no public office record of successes or failures.

Errr... not really. I've participated in various forums where the Canadian election was discussed, and any posts from Americans are treated as ones from Canadians. We recognize that its a discussion forum. Of interest for people who like to debate.

Nice try, but I am talking about a foreign opinion that seeks to disenfranchise American voters because they do not meet foreign opinion for qualification, education, or ideology. We are debating, and part of that debate includes affirming that this choice is for American citizens and nobody else. Some members here get that, others don't.

First of all, are you talking about mistakes she's actually made, or (more likely) mistakes she didn't make, but you are desperately trying to pin on her anyways?

Secondly, lets play a game, shall we?

Which candidate created a mortgage company, only to see it go out of business, then blame the people that were hired to manage it for its failure?

Which candidate claimed he didn't know who David Duke was (even though he had talked about him before), then blame a "faulty earpiece"?

Donald Trump has a long history of screwing up, then blaming others for his mistakes.

How many times has Donald Trump been elected to public office and held to that standard ? Clinton was given that trust and responsibility but failed to live up to the very standard you demand from private citizen Donald Trump.

[bush_cheney2004]

People hate Trump because he lies and cheats and spreads hatred. He is vile, and only the feeble minded swallow his swill.

Anybody else see the irony in this post ?

[PIK]

Trump says what most people think but are to scared to say it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Trump says what most people think but are to scared to say it.

Yup....Trump has tapped into the slow burn that many voters want to express but they have been muzzled by "political correctness" for years.

Their critics are the same ones who told British voters to stay in the EU.

[?Impact]

Anybody else see the irony in this post ?

Yes, and the truth as well. It is Trump's hatred that spreads hatred. It is an evil spiral he has created.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, and the truth as well. It is Trump's hatred that spreads hatred. It is an evil spiral he has created.

Sure...Trump created all the "hatred"....like the "Day of the Dove" Star Trek episode. Trump is pure...evil...energy.

[?Impact]

Trump is pure...evil...energy.

Concurrence, finally.

[bush_cheney2004]

Concurrence, finally.

Yes, millions of American voters concur.

If it was good enough for FDR, it is certainly good enough for Donald Trump.

Edited September 2, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

I'm parroting the news people grilling Kane on tv! Kane was getting flustered and hot under the collar!

Obviously there's a big difference between a press conference and an interview......otherwise she wouldn't continue to avoid the pc like the plague!

I didn't say interview. I asked what's the difference between a press conference and making yourself available to the press for questions. I'm assuming there isn't or else you wouldn't be avoiding answering the question like the plague.

[-TSS-]

If only the Democrats gave the candidacy to Sanders he would beat Trump hands down because nobody really wants Trump but as long as they stick with Hillary, Trump may win because even less than nobody wants her elected.

It really begs the question why are they so adamant on sticking with her. She's simply not fit for the job but perhaps she's got something to blackmail her party to back her.

Edited September 2, 2016 by -TSS-

[taxme]

If only the Democrats gave the candidacy to Sanders he would beat Trump hands down because nobody really wants Trump but as long as they stick with Hillary, Trump may win because even less than nobody wants her elected.

It really begs the question why are they so adamant on sticking with her. She's simply not fit for the job but perhaps she's got something to blackmail her party to back her.

If Hillary goes down, she will take Obama down with her. Obama has backed her all the way in whatever she has done illegally so as to save his butt, and does not want to go to jail and have to share a cell with Hillary if he can help it. They are both in deep doo-doo so they must stick together.

[taxme]

People hate Trump because he lies and cheats and spreads hatred. He is vile, and only the feeble minded swallow his swill.

The ones that are swallowing swill are the ones who believe that Hillary will save them from Trump. They are nothing but a bunch of uninformed tools who will still listen to swill no matter what. It has been shown on the internet that Hillary is not much to vote for either. She is a liar and a crook, so says Trump. Some just won't accept that fact. Those people are the reason why politicians like Hillary are still around and screwing them left and right.