Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump
Pros- He does not like PC (says it like it is)
He is not a traditional politician (Not owned by anyone)
He seems dedicated to the U.S. (safety, economy, rights, etc.)
History of success
If he flip flops he admits it and explains why.
Cons- Speaks before he thinks
Temperament
Big ideas without thinking through how they will be done.
Clinton
Pros- More focused on environmental issues.
Cons- Typical politician (owned)
Flip flops stories/ideas, does not admit any wrong doing (lying)
Negligent with classified information putting national security at risk
I personally don't care about family issues for either one of them as that has no relevance to the Presidency in my opinion.
A rather short list of pros and cons for both and an interesting way to present them beginning with the notion that one can't be "PC" and not "say it like it is," but again I'm not sure explaining further makes any difference, because I am forever reluctant given my Cement Theory...
"In this feverish year, the most recent symptom of distemper is media blather that — based on polling nearly 6 months out — America is on the cusp of electing Donald Trump. Before this conjures the megalomaniacal horror of Trump’s inaugural address, let me offer a consoling reality — that political fun house mirror known as the Electoral College.
We may not love it but, like shingles and pneumonia, this particular college will forever be with us. And so, a spoiler alert. At the end of this piece, I’m revealing who won the presidency in November, right down to the last electoral vote. Faced with a national nervous collapse, it seems unkind to wait."
Right, I've seen those electoral college predictions but that was back in May. I see the vote swinging toward Trump right now probably as a reaction to the "email scandal", and I think it will continue to edge his way. If I HAD to make a prediction, I would say a Clinton victory but not by a landslide. But if there was an October Surprise benefiting Trump it could go the other way. I am betting Trump has some ammunition held back for the final push to the election.
As far as the insults also so common in these threads, yours is not all that bad but of course an insult all the same. Accordingly, I prefer to ignore such comments, but I will say that I also missed spotting how Obama is a black Muslim foreign-born terrorist out to ruin America. I just can't see the obvious that conservatives can see sometimes...
That's one way to avoid the question as to if Comey was lying.
As far as the rest - from the "Was Obama born in America thread":
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Yes, specifically in Hawaii, now move on.
And if you go to the old "Is Obama a Muslim" threads I participated in, you'll find that my typical reply is "No, he isn't a Muslim.I believe he's either an Atheist or at least agnostic and used religion as a tool in his political pursuits."
Now that I've demonstrated that I'm not a go along partisan, let's see where you fall.
I consider a disgraceful beotch hypocrite that destroyed the character of the women Bill raped, giver of national secrets, compulsive liar, disregard for the lives of diplomats in Libya, made a terrible decision to support invading Iraq, who is inept and not a leader and in no way qualified to be President.
Trump has made some inappropriate comments but he is a breath of fresh air in that he speaks his mind and has the capacity to lead and he's a proven winner in the business world.
Let's be clear about what we mean when we say Trump is a proven winner.
He's a good salesman. He can sell you anything. He can sell to investors that it's a good idea to invest in one of his projects, despite just how many prove to be very unsuccessful, despite how often they even go bankrupt, and despite possibly fraudulent cases (as we're seeing with Trump university right now, and while the outcome of Hillary's investigation was pretty much the opposite of what I was hoping for, I'm glad it's out of the way so we can actually talk about Trumps misgivings in the court). And people will still invest.
I also would say he's not so much speaking his mind, so much as speaking the mind of conservative voters who, to their credit, feel that the Republican representatives who claim to support them as of late have simply failed to represent their values.
As far as the insults also so common in these threads, yours is not all that bad but of course an insult all the same. Accordingly, I prefer to ignore such comments, but I will say that I also missed spotting how Obama is a black Muslim foreign-born terrorist out to ruin America. I just can't see the obvious that conservatives can see sometimes...
Don't change the subject. Someone asked a question. Answer it.
Comey and Clinton's story didn't add up. That's the general consensus. The fact that Comey seemed to describe a different scenario than the one Clinton herself gave should be a red flag. As to which one is lying, that's technically a mystery. I think it's a very real possibility that they are both full of it. Either way, the fact that they can't even coordinate their lies (since I seriously doubt Bill's meeting with the AG wasn't about the emails and she had nothing to do with the outcome) is not exactly an endorsement of Clinton's ability to lead.
I know this is probably hopeless, but I'd like to see a rational, evidence-based discussion of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I'm not a mod, so I can't really enforce any rules in this thread, but for what it's worth I will ask: Please, if you make any claim for or against either candidate, please, please, please include some rational argument, evidence, or at least a reference to some article that clearly offers this rational argumentation/evidence. It is outrageously easy to assert claims and vent one's emotions, but generally a lot harder to back up claims with rational/evidence-based arguments. I'm specifically looking for the BEST arguments/evidence for/against these two candidates.
To get the ball rolling, I think this article favoring Clinton is a good example of someone who is backing up their claims. I'd like to see similarly thoughtful discussions for/against each candidate, if possible.
Let's be clear about what we mean when we say Trump is a proven winner.
He's a good salesman. He can sell you anything. He can sell to investors that it's a good idea to invest in one of his projects, despite just how many prove to be very unsuccessful, despite how often they even go bankrupt, and despite possibly fraudulent cases (as we're seeing with Trump university right now, and while the outcome of Hillary's investigation was pretty much the opposite of what I was hoping for, I'm glad it's out of the way so we can actually talk about Trumps misgivings in the court). And people will still invest.
I also would say he's not so much speaking his mind, so much as speaking the mind of conservative voters who, to their credit, feel that the Republican representatives who claim to support them as of late have simply failed to represent their values.
I've never see a populist candidate as clever in his ability to morph his message to appeal to different subsets of the electorate. Contradicts himself constantly, but it does not hurt him a bit. Clinton can't touch his ability to whip up support in new blocks of the electorate. She is stuck with the traditional Democrat voting base. If she cannot move them to the voting booth she will be in trouble.
I don't know anything about Dailykos. This just happens to be where the article was when it popped up. For what it is worth, here is a link to the original commentary:
This is simply a FB post by a guy named Michael Arnovitz. I don't know this guy and I have no reason to think that he is any sort of expert on Hillary. What matters is what he says, and how he backs up his statements. My hope is that if he has said something that is factually wrong, someone here will point to the factual error and offer evidence for thinking that it is, indeed, an error.
"I don't know anything about Dailykos."
You SHOULD RESEARCH your sources BEFORE posting them if you want people to give you ANY credibility.
A rather short list of pros and cons for both and an interesting way to present them beginning with the notion that one can't be "PC" and not "say it like it is," but again I'm not sure explaining further makes any difference, because I am forever reluctant given my Cement Theory...
Also without more time this morning, but maybe tomorrow!
As far as your cement theory goes, it does not hold true in my case at all. Life experiences have changed my political opinions greatly over the course of the years. I also like people that aren't PC, I think PC has been one of the major influences for the state our country is currently in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.