2016 US Presidential Election - Trump vs Clinton? - Part 1

[medusala]

He would destroy her.

http://static.currentaffairs.org/20...s-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:

“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see howmany lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”

Donald Trump is one of the most formidable opponents in the history of American politics. He is sharp, shameless, and likable. If he is going to be the nominee, Democrats need to think very seriously about how to defeat him. If they don’t, he will be the President of the United States, which will have disastrous repercussions for religious and racial minorities and likely for everyone else, too. Democrats should consider carefully how a Trump/Clinton matchup would develop, and how a Trump/Sanders matchup would. For their sake, hopefully they will realize that the only way to prevent a Trump presidency is the nomination of Bernie Sanders

 

[EagleMan87]

Donald Trump is one of the most formidable opponents in the history of American politics. He is sharp, shameless, and likable. If he is going to be the nominee, Democrats need to think very seriously about how to defeat him. If they don’t, he will be the President of the United States, which will have disastrous repercussions for religious and racial minorities and likely for everyone else, too. Democrats should consider carefully how a Trump/Clinton matchup would develop, and how a Trump/Sanders matchup would. For their sake, hopefully they will realize that the only way to prevent a Trump presidency is the nomination of Bernie Sanders

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this; from what I've seen so far I figured you were fairly pro-Trump. Is he the best option out of a bad batch in your opinion?

 

[medusala]

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this; from what I've seen so far I figured you were fairly pro-Trump. Is he the best option out of a bad batch in your opinion?

I really don't know re Trump, he is hard to pin down. He isn't a manic God Botherer like Cruz so that's a start, nor a puppet like Clinton, a delusional magic money tree sort like Sanders or just a token non entity like the "community organiser" Obama. Ron Paul spoke more sense than all of them put together IMO.

I thought Rubio was probably the best of the republicans but I'm really not sure now, he just seems a bit plastic and over rehearsed to me. Has bugger all background in the private sector too which is a massive negative.

 

[The Speaker]

Trump has indicated over the past couple of months that a few of the people that have been running against him are people he likes as potential VPs. Looks like one of them doesn't mind the idea either, because Chris Christie has endorsed Trump.

I should add: I don't think it would be a great combination - too similar as people - and Christie indicated that he would probably prefer to exit politics altogether, but as far as endorsements go it's one of the few that matter.

 

[BORK]

Why would Cruz's support flow to Trump?

It will flow to Rubio. Both are highly religious conservative/borderline Tea Party types.

Also, the media has gone very easy on Trump which is part of his success.

I do not think the media has gone easy on trump at all. In fact the opposite. However this may have helped him when so many view the media poorly. Just like news limited here shitting on Trump consistently. Gives the impression there is something good he offers if they are so worried about him.

 

[MaddAdam]

I really don't know re Trump, he is hard to pin down. He isn't a manic God Botherer like Cruz so that's a start, nor a puppet like Clinton, a delusional magic money tree sort like Sanders or just a token non entity like the "community organiser" Obama. Ron Paul spoke more sense than all of them put together IMO.

I thought Rubio was probably the best of the republicans but I'm really not sure now, he just seems a bit plastic and over rehearsed to me. Has bugger all background in the private sector too which is a massive negative.

Hehe. Token non entity gets one of the defining reforms of US history passed in the teeth of relentless opposition.

 

[the bee sharps]

Trump has indicated over the past couple of months that a few of the people that have been running against him are people he likes as potential VPs. Looks like one of them doesn't mind the idea either, because Chris Christie has endorsed Trump.

I should add: I don't think it would be a great combination - too similar as people - and Christie indicated that he would probably prefer to exit politics altogether, but as far as endorsements go it's one of the few that matter.

Definitely won't be VP, more likely attorney general

 

[Forward Press]

Hehe. Token non entity gets one of the defining reforms of US history passed in the teeth of relentless opposition.

You can criticise Obama for things like the expansion of the surveillance state but you certainly can't criticise him for the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare. It will be his crowning achievement and one I thought impossible to get done with the staunch opposition in his way.

 

[james Dean]

You can criticise Obama for things like the expansion of the surveillance state but you certainly can't criticise him for the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare. It will be his crowning achievement and one I thought impossible to get done with the staunch opposition in his way.

Funnily enough, it seems the Americans (well at least the Republicans) hate him more because of Obamacare than the NSA surveillance.

 

[Little Big John]

Funnily enough, it seems the Americans (well at least the Republicans) hate him more because of Obamacare than the NSA surveillance.

When both parties agree to something disagreeable it kinda takes a lot of the fun out of the partisan shit fight.

 

[Forward Press]

History has judged GW Bush a bit more favourably and I think the same will happen to Obama. He was never meant to be the liberal saviour (and shame on you if you thought that) but he at least got some progressive things done and I don't think you can fault his handling of the GFC. Probably achieved as much as you could realistically expect.

It will be interesting to see what a President Trump or President Sanders could do. They are both very very different from the status quo. President Clinton No 2 will be more of the same.

 

[MaddAdam]

History has judged GW Bush a bit more favourably and I think the same will happen to Obama. He was never meant to be the liberal saviour (and shame on you if you thought that) but he at least got some progressive things done and I don't think you can fault his handling of the GFC. Probably achieved as much as you could realistically expect.

It will be interesting to see what a President Trump or President Sanders could do. They are both very very different from the status quo. President Clinton No 2 will be more of the same.

What? He's widely regarded as one the worst presidents ever and history is only bringing that further into relief.

 

[Forward Press]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2819793/bernie-sanders-turnout-young-voters/

Another Bernie Sanders youth turnout article. In particular:

In another development that surely must be unsettling to Sanders, polling data from the February 20 Nevada caucus shows that the high levels of enthusiasm among voters that he hopes will fuel his political revolution are more evident among Democratic voters who reject the revolution that Bernie Sanders is selling.

Polling data from Nevada, available at this link, showed that 50 percent of voters who showed up to the caucus in the state wanted the next president not to chart a whole new course for the country, but to “generally continue Barack Obama’s policies.” And, of those voters, a whopping 75 percent supported Hillary Clinton.

The ones that turned out to put Obama in the Oval Office overwhelmingly think Clinton is the one to continue with his legacy.

 

[Forward Press]

What? He's widely regarded as one the worst presidents ever and history is only bringing that further into relief.

Personally:

- I don't think he was partly responsible or culpable for 9/11, and that it was more a culmination of intelligence failures stemming back from the Bush Sr/Clinton years
- The Iraq war was definitely a huge mistake, but I believe the hawkish elements in his administration like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft were the main drivers and he was the figurehead
- The GFC can be traced back to financial deregulation commencing during the Clinton years, although of course Bush Jr certainly didn't help

 

[MaddAdam]

Personally:

- I don't think he was partly responsible or culpable for 9/11, and that it was more a culmination of intelligence failures stemming back from the Bush Sr/Clinton years
- The Iraq war was definitely a huge mistake, but I believe the hawkish elements in his administration like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft were the main drivers and he was the figurehead
- The GFC can be traced back to financial deregulation commencing during the Clinton years, although of course Bush Jr certainly didn't help

You're welcome to your own view but I'm seeing no wider burnishing of his legacy.

The job of a President is to react to events not of his making, and his reaction to all those things was wrong. The Iraq War was his baby.

Anyway, he's long gone.

 

[gandaal]

Personally:

- I don't think he was partly responsible or culpable for 9/11, and that it was more a culmination of intelligence failures stemming back from the Bush Sr/Clinton years
- The Iraq war was definitely a huge mistake, but I believe the hawkish elements in his administration like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft were the main drivers and he was the figurehead
- The GFC can be traced back to financial deregulation commencing during the Clinton years, although of course Bush Jr certainly didn't help

Im not sure being weak and easily influenced is a particularly great defense against a charge of incompetence.

As for 9/11, I could be wrong but I read somewhere that the Bush administration was warned that something was up but they ignored the warning. Something about them believing that Clinton was being overly paranoid about external threats.

 

[MaddAdam]

Im not sure being weak and easily influenced is a particularly great defense against a charge of incompetence.

As for 9/11, I could be wrong but I read somewhere that the Bush administration was warned that something was up but they ignored the warning. Something about them believing that Clinton was being overly paranoid about external threats.

Ahmed Shah Massoud adressed the European Parliament and said his intelligence had picked up preparations for a major attack on the US in about May 2001.

 

[gandaal]

You're welcome to your own view but I'm seeing no wider burnishing of his legacy.

The job of a President is to react to events not of his making, and his reaction to all those things was wrong. The Iraq War was his baby.

Anyway, he's long gone.

The republican front running nominee calling him a liar without any consequence right before a southern caucus says plenty about how history will see Bush Jnr.

 

[Forward Press]

Im not sure being weak and easily influenced is a particularly great defense against a charge of incompetence.

As for 9/11, I could be wrong but I read somewhere that the Bush administration was warned that something was up but they ignored the warning. Something about them believing that Clinton was being overly paranoid about external threats.

Bush was warned about al-Qaeda planning an attack on US interests. Problem is that it was in a weekly memo and the CIA didn't advise of any particular or specific threat, it was just a general warning. I imagine Obama gets them all the time too.

Don't doubt he was incompetent, or weak and easily influenced, however there have been plenty of previous US Presidents that were malicious or even more incompetent.

 

[Forward Press]

Ahmed Shah Massoud adressed the European Parliament and said his intelligence had picked up preparations for a major attack on the US in about May 2001.

Like I said, intelligence failures. The Department of Homeland Security was created because of it.

The republican front running nominee calling him a liar without any consequence right before a southern caucus says plenty about how history will see Bush Jnr.

So? The RNC boo-ed Trump when he suggested the Iraq War was a mistake. When Bush Jr writes his memoirs you can bet he'd acknowledge it was an error of judgement.

 

[Father Jack]

GWB was quite the campaigner, in every sense of the word

 

[gandaal]

Like I said, intelligence failures. The Department of Homeland Security was created because of it.



So? The RNC boo-ed Trump when he suggested the Iraq War was a mistake. When Bush Jr writes his memoirs you can bet he'd acknowledge it was an error of judgement.

Wasn't the crowd jam packed with Republican establishment stooges?

 

[MaddAdam]

The republican front running nominee calling him a liar without any consequence right before a southern caucus says plenty about how history will see Bush Jnr.

Yep, and the fact that Jebber spent $100m to end up with fewer votes than Ricky Muir got.

 

[MaddAdam]

Like I said, intelligence failures. The Department of Homeland Security was created because of it.

Intelligence failures on Bush's watch. Catastrophic ones. This stuff can't be laid at Clinton's door.

 

[MaddAdam]

Wasn't the crowd jam packed with Republican establishment stooges?

Yep, very much so.