Donald vs Hillary

[segnosaur]

Btw, is it too late by now with elections only two months away to withdraw the candidacy in favour of someone else?

The U.S. political system is a bit.. strange when compared to Canada. Different states have different rules for running the presidential campaigns within their jurisdictions. And, different states have different deadlines for putting a candidate on the ballot.

The deadline to get a candidate on the ballot for some states was back in August (e.g. Utah, Virginia, Iowa. etc.) The deadline for other states is coming up in mid September or later (Vermont, Nebraska, etc). In theory, if Trump were to leave the race right now, they could put up another Candidate, but they would only be on the ballot in some (but not all) of the states. This would put them at a huge disadvantage.

If Trump is so bad why did the republicans place such mediocre candidates such as Cruz or Rubio against him? Haven't they really got better to offer?

Nope, they don't. And its unfortunate.

If so, isn't that quite a worrying thing if such a large party is in such a state of disarray that they even elect a presidential-candidate the party doesn't want?

It is a worrying thing. Every electoral system needs some sort of competition.

A lot of questions but little answers.

Actually, we know what the answers are.

The Republican party and the political right is in the state that its in because of their own stupidity. For years, they've done everything they can to grab as much power as they can, but at the cost of their long term success. (Short term gain for long term pain.) They cater to the religious right and the NRA, then they sling as much mud as they can, between obstructing Obama at every turn (enforcing the idea that "government doesn't work"), and giving rise to the birther movement. In such an environment, you're not exactly going to get many decent candidates; instead, you will get a collection of old white guys all trying to out-Jesus each other. And of course up through the muck comes Drumph, who can both wrap himself in all the gun loving Jebus-clothing, yet can also claim "i'm an oursider".

Hopefully the republicans will get smacked down, both for the presidency and in congress. Maybe then they can start putting forward candidates that aren't lunatics.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Republican party had so many "lunatic candidates" they were able to take control of both houses in Congress back in 2014.

[segnosaur]

If only the Democrats gave the candidacy to Sanders he would beat Trump hands down

Actually I'm not sure if that's true.

Yes, there were some opinion polls during the primaries that showed Sanders ahead of most/all republicans. But, at that point the Republicans were pretty much ignoring (or in some cases praising) Sanders. (On the other hand, Hillary was already a target of the Republicans.) Its easy to be popular when all your faults are hidden.

Had Sanders won the Democratic nomination, the Republicans would have gone on the attack mode... They would have pointed out the huge cost of Sander's programs (its easy for people to say "Yeah, public health care", but once they see their taxes going up support would drop.) They would have pointed to things like him calling himself a socialist, and having his honeymoon in Russia. (Even though the cold war is over, I don't think people are ready to play all nice with the former "red menace"). They'd be calling him "Comrade Sanders" or something similar. And as a result of all the personal and policy criticisms, you'd see his popularity start to fall.

Yes, a Sanders run would have continued with his base of eager "bernie Bros". He probably would have also kept the minority vote. But is ability to grab votes for the middle class would have been more limited.

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.

Keep in mind that she is a candidate with an exceptional amount of political experience, and for most jobs having experience is a good thing. Plus, her policies are pretty respectable.... slightly to the political left, but not so far left that it would freak out everyone. Before you say sh'es not "fit for the job", remember that she has been a republican target for years. Regardless of how great a candidate is, anyone subject to such sustained attacks for that length of time would end up looking bad.

[segnosaur]

The Republican party had so many "lunatic candidates" they were able to take control of both houses in Congress back in 2014.

Which of course is in the past. Remember what I said? They've been sacrificing the future in hopes of gaining a little power now.

They may have some success in the next few elections (partly due to gerrymandering) but as demographics shift more and more, and minority voters make up a bigger part of the electorate, the Republican ability to hold on to congress will probably start to diminish. After all, what do the republicans have to offer black and latino voters other than tax cuts (that most won't get), guns (that seem to be causing more problems), and a memory about how the republicans tried to disenfranchise huge segments of the minority population.

[TimG]

Regardless of how great a candidate is, anyone subject to such sustained attacks for that length of time would end up looking bad.

Hillary will end up looking squeaky clean after a few years of a Trump presidency which would likely set new records for a president using his office to settle old scores and reward friends.

Trump is an unethical scam artist and I can't understand why anyone would think he is "cleaner" than Hillary.

Edited September 5, 2016 by TimG

[segnosaur]

Hillary will end up looking squeaky clean after a few years of a Trump presidency which would likely set new records for a president using his office to settle old scores and reward friends.

Trump is an unethical scam artist and I can't understand why anyone would think he is "cleaner" than Hillary.

Well, consider the quality of Trump supporters. the majority fit into one of 3 categories::

- Some are neo-Nazi supporters/racists

- Some are religious spam-bots

- some seem to lack basic knowledge.

I wonder if we can find people like that on this forum!

Such people are unethical themselves. so these people supporting someone else who's unethical isn't that far fetched.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hillary will end up looking squeaky clean after a few years of a Trump presidency which would likely set new records for a president using his office to settle old scores and reward friends.

Trump is an unethical scam artist and I can't understand why anyone would think he is "cleaner" than Hillary.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement for Hillary Clinton. Her "supporters" are also purposely ignoring her flaws and negatives for their own partisan reasons.

[segnosaur]

That is hardly a ringing endorsement for Hillary Clinton. Her "supporters" are also purposely ignoring her flaws and negatives for their own partisan reasons.

You see, that's the type of stupidity that really highlights the intellectual dishonesty of Trump supporters.

I do not recall seeing one person claim Hillary is flawless. Nobody here has said she has never lied. Nobody here has said there wasn't an issue with her handling of emails. Our claim has always been "She has flaws, but whatever flaws she has are far outweighed by Trump's".

Yet here you are, claiming that we are "ignoring her flaws".

I also think its extremely hypocritical for you to claim we are 'ignoring her flaws' when I've seen at least one of the pro-Trump supporters claim he "tells it like it is". Trump doesn't. he lies. More than Hillary. So the next time someone claims Trump "Tells it like it is", are you going to chastise them?

[bush_cheney2004]

You see, that's the type of stupidity that really highlights the intellectual dishonesty of Trump supporters.

If Clinton "supporters" (even those from Canada) were intellectually honest, they would reject Clinton as well.

I do not recall seeing one person claim Hillary is flawless. Nobody here has said she has never lied. Nobody here has said there wasn't an issue with her handling of emails. Our claim has always been "She has flaws, but whatever flaws she has are far outweighed by Trump's".

It goes way beyond emails, if only for Canada's own interests (e.g. Keystone XL pipeline, protectionism, Iraq war, Libya, etc.)

I also think its extremely hypocritical for you to claim we are 'ignoring her flaws' when I've seen at least one of the pro-Trump supporters claim he "tells it like it is". Trump doesn't. he lies. More than Hillary. So the next time someone claims Trump "Tells it like it is", are you going to chastise them?

No, because I support Trump's (and Clinton's) right to "lie" all they wish. American voters will choose which liar they prefer. In Canada, choosing crappy candidates is called "strategic voting".

[taxme]

Hillary will end up looking squeaky clean after a few years of a Trump presidency which would likely set new records for a president using his office to settle old scores and reward friends.

Trump is an unethical scam artist and I can't understand why anyone would think he is "cleaner" than Hillary.

Oh boy, I guess that you don't read much about Hillary and the crimes that she has committed or how she has been called a big crook or about how she is a big liar. You need to get off the anti-Trump band wagon for a change, and check out as to what the internet has to offer about Hillary and her crooked and lying ways. To know one side of the story, is to know nothing at all. It looks to me like you only ever want to read one side of any story.

[dialamah]

Oh boy, I guess that you don't read much about Hillary and the crimes that she has committed or how she has been called a big crook or about how she is a big liar. You need to get off the anti-Trump band wagon for a change, and check out as to what the internet has to offer about Hillary and her crooked and lying ways. To know one side of the story, is to know nothing at all. It looks to me like you only ever want to read one side of any story.

I'm on a group that was firmly in the Bernie camp; since his demise (politically speaking), there has been some debate on Clinton vs. Trump. Knowing almost nothing about Hillary beyond her name, I asked them what she'd done that they found so hateful and unforgivable. They posted some things, some websites, some stories; I checked them out, and came away feeling that yeah, she's a politician, no better but also no worse than any other politician. The info I was provided by these very intense anti-Hillary people just seemed so blown out of proportion to justify their dislike and distrust. So, while I tried to "know" the other side of the story, I have to admit I found it pretty underwhelming.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hillary Clinton's polled negatives are nearly as bad as Donald Trump's. I will not be voting for either of these major party candidates. I do not know what it means to "support" any U.S. presidential candidate (there are many) as a non voting foreign national, but logically one would presume that such "support" is consistent with interests and policies that align with their nation's or personal interests.

Disparaging all Trump "supporters" as racist idiots is intellectually lazy.

[taxme]

I'm on a group that was firmly in the Bernie camp; since his demise (politically speaking), there has been some debate on Clinton vs. Trump. Knowing almost nothing about Hillary beyond her name, I asked them what she'd done that they found so hateful and unforgivable. They posted some things, some websites, some stories; I checked them out, and came away feeling that yeah, she's a politician, no better but also no worse than any other politician. The info I was provided by these very intense anti-Hillary people just seemed so blown out of proportion to justify their dislike and distrust. So, while I tried to "know" the other side of the story, I have to admit I found it pretty underwhelming.

What I like about Trump is that he does not even consider himself to be a politician. I guess that would explain as to why no one in the globalist elite establishment like him. Trump is not one of them. The establishment cannot control him because he cannot be bought off like the rest of those so-called candidates in both political party's can. Those so-called politicians have sold their souls to the zionist devil for money and support. Sad indeed.

[TimG]

That is hardly a ringing endorsement for Hillary Clinton. Her "supporters" are also purposely ignoring her flaws and negatives for their own partisan reasons.

Her "supporters" include a lot of people who feel they have no other choice given the incompetent buffoon the Republicans decided to nominate.

[bush_cheney2004]

Her "supporters" include a lot of people who feel they have no other choice given the incompetent buffoon the Republicans decided to nominate.

That's not true, as there are other choices on state ballots. Bernie Sanders will got many write-in votes. Others will not vote at all.

[Smoke]

Pretty sad when one's argument is " well your candidate is a bigger liar than my candidate". As if that justifies a vote. And people wonder why some are sick and tired of the same old, same old...even happens in Canadian elections.

[segnosaur]

Pretty sad when one's argument is " well your candidate is a bigger liar than my candidate".

I doubt any politician ever in the history of the world has ever gone though their career without saying at least one falsehood. Even Bernie Sanders (who's been elevated as a saint by some) has some of his statements rated as 'false' by politifact. Remember, these candidates are under a microscope, with every public statement they make analyzed by the media and their opponents.

Once you accept that all candidates have made at least some false statements, then you can properly judge them according to the number and type of lies.

As if that justifies a vote.

Actually, I don't think a Candidate's honesty alone does justify a vote. It is a factor, but it is not the only one. Even if Drumph were 100% honest and never said anything that was factually incorrect, I still don't think he should be president, based on many factors:

- His economic policies... his protectionist attitude (which would hurt American exports) and harm both the U.S. and global economy, his plan of eliminating banking reforms (which would bring the U.S. back to the time right before the economic meltdown of 2008) and his tax plans (which would give large benefits to the upper class.) He's even suggested defaulting on US Debt, which would probably crash the global economy

- His social policies. Remember, he's the guy who suggested jailing women who have abortions, and who wants to curtail first amendment rights. And while he talked about "protecting LGBTQ" people, he also appointed Pence as his running mate, a man who favors "Pray-away the gay"

- His choice of advisors... picking Ailes (who is in trouble for sexual harassment) and Bannon (extreme right wing) to help with his campaign. Not to mention his selection of economic advisors, which were very limited in government experience. I'd rather not have someone in the white house who makes such poor selections for people to surround himself with

- His temperment... from his giving childish names to his opponents, to his posting of unflattering pictures of his opponent's wives in the primaries, to his failure to his childish "I'm not going to endorse Ryan". He wants to be president... such activities are more in tune with those of a schoolyard bully than they are of a man who needs to deal with a country with many opposing viewpoints, and a world with dozens of countries and hundreds of cultures, all of which he will need to consider.

- The racism inherent in his campaign, from both Trump and those connected to his campaign... his "Mexican Rapist" comment, his "biased Mexican Judge" comment, the fact that they posted images taken from a neo-Nazi source

- His personal history... he's built his reputation in part on his business reputation. But when you look at his record, he's actually done rather poorly... he inherited much of his wealth, and has left behind a string of bankruptcies and failed businesses. Hillary has been criticized for some of her actions as Secretary of State, but Trump seems to be a bigger failure at the one thing he is supposedly good at. That's not the type of person I want influencing the economy as president

- He may have donated to NAMBLA. I don't believe it myself, but many people are talking about it. I don't want a president who has donated to NAMBLA, do you?

So yeah, even if you ignore honesty as a factor in the election, there are still plenty of reasons not to vote for Trump.

[segnosaur]

Hillary Clinton's polled negatives are nearly as bad as Donald Trump's.

First of all, keep in mind that those are polled negatives, which includes (I assume) criticisms against Hillary that are not valid.

Secondly, even if her negatives were "nearly as bad", that still suggest she is still the better candidate.

I will not be voting for either of these major party candidates.

I don't believe you.

Time and time again, when Trump has been criticized, you have rushed in to try to defend him, usually with garbage arguments. Yet you have never made any effort to similarly defend Clinton when there have been B.S. claims against her. You have exhibited all the traits of a Trump supporter.

Disparaging all Trump "supporters" as racist idiots is intellectually lazy.

Gee.. I wonder why anyone would get the idea that Trump supporters are racists...

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/11/confederate-flag-donald-trumps-flies-florida-rally.html(Confederate flag at Trump Rally)

After all, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of racism or other bigotry at Trump rallies.

http://www.people.com/article/trump-supporters-racist-sexist-rallies-nyt-video(video showing Trump supporters shouting racist things)

And his supporters here seem to be a pretty decent group of people too.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25455-donald-vs-hillary/page-58#entry1183812(Trump supporter from here giving an anti-semetic post)

And Trump has certainly done nothing to encourage such attitudes.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/(Trump calls for ban of Muslim travel to US)

He's gone though so much effort to show himself to be completely non-racist.

http://time.com/4392387/donald-trump-star-of-david-tweet-8chan-pol/(Trump campaign sends tweet with image originating from racist source)

And none of the people he's associated with have shown any sign of bigotry either.

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/(Trump running mate Pence with anti-gay policies)

http://forward.com/news/national/348960/donald-trump-jr-retweets-the-neo-nazi-movements-favorite-academic/(Trump Jr. retweets from racists source)

In case you didn't clue in, I was being sarcastic. You may object to the characterization of Trump supporters as being racist and idiots as being "intellectually lazy", and perhaps it is. But its one case where being lazy also means being accurate. Kind of like saying "The sky is blue" is intellectually lazy.

By the way, I should also point out that in my earlier post, I didn't say all of Trump's supporters were racists. I said most (i.e. not all) of his supporters were either racists, idiots, or religious spam-bots. It is certainly possible that there are intelligent people out there who support Trump for well thought out, rational reasons. Sadly, those people seem to be rather like bigfoot or UFOs... they may exist but we haven't seen any evidence yet.

Edited September 6, 2016 by segnosaur

[Argus]

The Republican party had so many "lunatic candidates" they were able to take control of both houses in Congress back in 2014.

Doesn't say much for the intelligence of your electorate.

[Argus]

That is hardly a ringing endorsement for Hillary Clinton. Her "supporters" are also purposely ignoring her flaws and negatives for their own partisan reasons.

Hey, I listed the three majors; benghazi, emails and the foundation, and pointed out how little was there, and you weren't able to challenge me on it.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't believe you.

Time and time again, when Trump has been criticized, you have rushed in to try to defend him, usually with garbage arguments. Yet you have never made any effort to similarly defend Clinton when there have been B.S. claims against her. You have exhibited all the traits of a Trump supporter.

Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. I believe you will not be voting for Clinton, because you can't legally do so. I have voted for John Anderson and Ross Perot in the past, and will vote third party again this time around. Canadians are free to play the make-believe Democrat or Republican wannabe game from across the border.

In case you didn't clue in, I was being sarcastic. You may object to the characterization of Trump supporters as being racist and idiots as being "intellectually lazy", and perhaps it is.

I don't object to bigoted comments about American candidates and voters from Canada.....I expect as much each election cycle "because it's so important to us". Americans don't worry so much about which moron leader or political party is elected to power in Canada.

By the way, I should also point out that in my earlier post, I didn't say all of Trump's supporters were racists. I said most (i.e. not all) of his supporters were either racists, idiots, or religious spam-bots. It is certainly possible that there are intelligent people out there who support Trump for well thought out, rational reasons. Sadly, those people seem to be rather like bigfoot or UFOs... they may exist but we haven't seen any evidence yet.

Just wait for election night when you and lots of other Canadians will be watching the vote count, state by state. All the racist, idiot, and spam-bot Americans get to vote as they wish....get to own lots of guns too.

[Guest]

I guess that would explain as to why no one in the globalist elite establishment like him. Trump is not one of them. The establishment cannot control him because he cannot be bought off like the rest of those so-called candidates in both political party's can.

Really? His economic policy advisers are his wealthy donors. They created a policy for the elite, like themselves and Trump. You say he can't be bought but he is already trading potential power for cash.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Guest

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey, I listed the three majors; benghazi, emails and the foundation, and pointed out how little was there, and you weren't able to challenge me on it.

If there was nothing there, you wouldn't be trying to defend Clinton. Won't work, especially from Canada.

Really? His economic policy advisers are his wealthy donors. They created a policy for the elite, like themselves and Trump himself.

Good for him....Clinton has Wall Street in her pocket too.

[taxme]

Really? His economic policy advisers are his wealthy donors. They created a policy for the elite, like themselves and Trump. You say he can't be bought but he is already trading potential power for cash.

Don't forget to lump Hillary in that group of wealthy elites. So, are you saying that Trump is buying is way into the Presidency? I think that Hillary is kissing azz to gain her way into power. But no matter what you may think about Trump, at least he is not the one that is suppose to be in jail right now. It is darling Hillary who should be in jail from what I have been getting on the internet. Aw yes, the internet that the wealthy globalist elite establishment would like to get rid of. There is just to much truth going around on the internet that points out to much about the elites and their media lies.

[BubberMiley]

She's made herself for interviews, not press conference!

No comment on the press conference today? Not even about the cough? When people cough in movies, it usually means they'll be dead in a scene or two.