RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Is that in a 3 or 2 people contest?
Road to the 2016 American Presidential Election
- Thread starter Ford Fairlane
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #77
3 people. Why would it be a 2 person contest? Who would drop out?
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Kasich isnt campaigning anymore there, so who knows how many of his voters will turn out and who knows how many will switch to Cruz, hoping that a Cruz win keeps in play a brokered convention?
- Banned
- #79
I don't think that's entirely true: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kasich-indiana-should-vote-for-me
In any case, half of his voters would vote for Trump over Cruz.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Classic pollie speak. I heard him say this in an interview. He never said dont vote for me, or go vote for Cruz, but his actions spoke loud enough for those who want him to get to a brokered convention. I also saw that tweet from campaign director John Weaver which is embedded in the story.
- Banned
- #81
Haha yes I agree with you there. But in any case, I'll refer to my earlier point about half of his voters going to Trump, anyway.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
I like this tweet from Trump to Bernie, giving him some advice. Would be a great laugh if both Trump and Bernie ended up running as independents as well as the 2 parties with Hillary and MrX. You might get back to the 1960's when about 60% of the eligible electorate actually turned up and voted rather than the usual 52-53%.
REH what do you think of the talk of retired US General Mattis as an independent? I don't think he'll run, and the US is too shoehorned into the two party system, but he certainly looks better then Trump, Clinton, Sanders and Cruz.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
I have only seen him once and he wont get the profile to do well. Ross Perot got 19.% of the vote in 1992 and hammered Bush for 12 months before pulling out on for some dubious reason for 2 or 3 months in June and then returned and spent I think $200m of his own money. The General doesnt have Perot's profile or bank account.
If Trump wins the 1237 delegates I can see some Repbulican running against him to split the vote but to help save other repbublicans in all positions in other elections.
Remember on that first Tuesday in November people arent just voting for a president there are also elections for sherrifs, judges, mayors, district attorneys, state congress and senate, state governors, and the US Congress 100% of the House as well as 1/3rd of the Senate. So if republicans are turned off by Trump then they might not go and vote at all for these other positions. Thats why the republican party will not back Trump fully. The super pacs and others will do what they can to make sure they win all these other elections, which means finding a candidate who can get out enough of the republican base to the ballot box to fillout all the non president ballot forms.
If Trump wins the 1237 delegates I can see some Repbulican running against him to split the vote but to help save other repbublicans in all positions in other elections.
Remember on that first Tuesday in November people arent just voting for a president there are also elections for sherrifs, judges, mayors, district attorneys, state congress and senate, state governors, and the US Congress 100% of the House as well as 1/3rd of the Senate. So if republicans are turned off by Trump then they might not go and vote at all for these other positions. Thats why the republican party will not back Trump fully. The super pacs and others will do what they can to make sure they win all these other elections, which means finding a candidate who can get out enough of the republican base to the ballot box to fillout all the non president ballot forms.
- Banned
- #85
Meanwhile: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...s-cruz-15-points-crucial-indiana-race-n565356
Trump is winning by 15 points. Called it!
I'd like Trump to select Mattis as his VP running mate.
- Banned
- #86
Check out this latest poll from the 3 largest swing states:
He was way behind a couple of months ago, about 15 points. Now he's already caught up (and even surpassed her, in Ohio)... and he hasn't even started on her yet.
This election will be a landslide to Trump.
https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/...ing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2345
He was way behind a couple of months ago, about 15 points. Now he's already caught up (and even surpassed her, in Ohio)... and he hasn't even started on her yet.
This election will be a landslide to Trump.
Nah. Given it's optional voting in the US the Democrats will win on getting more voters out.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a Republican ran as an independent but gets lots of endorsements and cash from individual republicans from local, state and federal legislatures and republican organisations from those local, state and federal areas, to stop Trump getting up. Basically finding a Ross Perot type who might only get 19-20% of the vote but will stop Trump but more importantly get them off their arse to vote for the republican candidates be they running for sheriff, mayor, district attorney, state legislature, for the house or for the senate. Trump wont have Presidential coattails like Reagan.
Trump has to make a massive pivot to get both true party backing and true republicans off their arse to vote for him in November.
Australian pollsters and analysts have it easy with compulsory voting. They know 95% of the people they ask how are they going to vote, will actually turn up to the polling booth on election day.
Trump has to make a massive pivot to get both true party backing and true republicans off their arse to vote for him in November.
Australian pollsters and analysts have it easy with compulsory voting. They know 95% of the people they ask how are they going to vote, will actually turn up to the polling booth on election day.
Ultimately, this will perhaps have the most consequential effect on Trump’s candidacy, even more than anything he does or says from here on forward. And it’s not just money where he begins at a disadvantage. He has no national organisation, just a comparatively bare-bones operation of either the amateurish or the notorious. Normally, a party’s nominee would have no problem filling his campaign with seasoned operatives. Likely, his statement that Mexico doesn’t send its best over the border will also become true of his campaign. The reality of a Trump presidency will attract the desperate; also-rans in any other year.
Clinton will have an army of surrogates campaigning for her. Her husband. Her daughter. Governors. Current and former members of Congress. Probably Bernie Sanders. The actual President. Remember the effect Harry Reid had on Mitt Romney? Sen. Warren is already tweeting taunts.
Trump? Two former Presidents are sitting out the convention. The two last GOP nominees might as well. He’s talking about vetting VP candidates, but who actually wants to do it?
There is a lot of time before the actual election, and a lot can change, but even today, it has to be noted that he still remains a long, long way back.
And incidentally, the election isn’t on the first Tuesday in November, it’s the first Tuesday after the first Monday.
Doubtful. The meaninglessness of head to head polls this far from November notwithstanding, no Republican would win in a landslide, let alone one that half the country thinks is, at best, a frightening joke. Too many states are just locked blue.
And this 'hasn't even started on her yet' is also plainly ridiculous. For a start, yes he has, and it's digging his unfavourables further into an already deep hole. And the notion that she's somehow escaping attention from the right is simply baffling. She has been the most attacked public figure in the US, besides any President, for the last 25 years, and the double-edged sword of her long-time near-presumptive nomination status is that she's the only Democratic candidate who has been consistently copping it from both the left and right.
The rise of her unfavourable ratings this year is largely due to the attack from her left. What the right thinks of her has already been baked on. The only thing that could possibly change that is that the alternative is Trump, and if it does change it, it would be a change to the good.
In any case, the general election campaign is a completely different beast. The harsher elements are tempered as the parties adopt something more closely approximating the median party position. Looking at it from this far out, how could you possibly think that the GOP is more likely to coalesce than the Democratic Party? It certainly will to an extent, but I'm highly doubtful that they’ll rally around Trump in same way they did for Romney or McCain. Too many bridges burnt, and too many who will refuse to show deference to someone who displays no sense or willingness to engage in any form of transactional politics.
Moreover, the 2008 campaign should be instructive. Obama and Clinton were in a far more divisive and vitriolic battle than Clinton/Sanders, and the percentage of Clinton supporters who continually maintained that they would never support Obama in the general was larger and more vehement than today’s Bernie equivalents. All the while, McCain, having long clinched the nomination, was at this point in the year at least running neck and neck with both Democrats in most polls, and ahead in many. He was even ahead for a good week or two after the Republican Convention in September.
To draw further parallels with this year, when the Democratic primaries were said and done in June 2008, Clinton had won more total votes than Obama, won six of the last nine contests, and was MUCH closer in pledged delegates than Sanders currently is. She was a much stronger challenge. Then she dropped out, endorsed Obama, campaigned for him, and McCain was easily beaten. A major difference this year? The sitting President is far more popular, especially so with his own party.
The candidate who really hasn’t been attacked yet is Trump. Jeb was too busy throwing his massive war chest at Rubio. The Democrats are going to bombard him mercilessly, and they have barely started on him.
- Banned
- #90
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
In the first 2 weeks of September 2008 John McCain in the majority of polls was in front of Obama or break even, although the overwhelming majority of polls were in a statistical dead heat when you apply the standard + or - error for the poll size.
Lehman Brothers crashed on 15th September and McCain was never again in front in the polls and it was 5 to 1 the ratio of the polls showing a lead of 5% or more or 4% or less ie a statistical dead heat.
Any big event this far out can make a big difference.
Lehman Brothers crashed on 15th September and McCain was never again in front in the polls and it was 5 to 1 the ratio of the polls showing a lead of 5% or more or 4% or less ie a statistical dead heat.
Any big event this far out can make a big difference.
- Banned
- #92
Like say... an indictment?
One of the best in the business? He’s a genius at something, but not necessarily at running Presidential campaigns. And now he’s working for a guy who doesn’t listen to his staff anyway. Manafort was out of the business until a month ago. Who are his current connections? Why are you so certain that his lobbying background won’t become a millstone?
And of what billion dollar warchest are you speaking? Is this another loan from his company, or are the ‘establishment’ donors finally warming to him?
Come on. This is SandersForPresident subReddit echo chamber type stuff. Perhaps you think that every campaign interaction is a striking personality behind a podium inspiring thousands of cheering supporters, but that’s not how it works. And that you think Bill Clinton’s impeachment matters at all to Democrats is just idiotic.
One advantage she has here, which Trump’s primary opponents did not have, is that she doesn’t have to acknowledge him every time he tries to define her or the conversation. While she might still be, technically at least, battling for the nomination, Trump is busy trading mean tweets with popular Senators. When he let loose with the "women's card," he didn't have Hillary attack him for days. He had women attack him for days.
Trump doesn’t have many backers. He’s trying to find them, but is he capable of the sort of moderation and acquiescence necessary to win them? Maybe he is, and maybe it helps him enough to win. What if it has the opposite effect? Who is mad enough to predict that with any sort of certainty?
Sure. Donors hate Romney.
McCain is one of a number of Republicans who, while less than lukewarm on Trump, are pledging to support “the nominee.” But it’s also a large list who are not going to stump, raise money or “make deals” for him, either.
Ha ha, like I said, the best and the brightest.
Yeah, I see what’s going on here. You’ve just constructed your own narrative and are filling it with dribs and drabs of fairly haphazard signals that support it. Even by your limited criteria that seems to rely solely on snapshot-in-time-six-months-before-the-election polling results, using the RCP average, Trump is behind Clinton nationally, as well as in each of the above-mentioned battleground states.
The opposite way, who knows? They're just polls. It's sad how far serious political analysis has fallen that we're regurgitating polls as if they're entirely useful to describe what's happening.
Even more accurate in predicting the 2012 result - than even Nate Silver or the RCP average - was internal polling performed by the Democratic party. Trump's campaign doesn't poll. He needs the party here too, so again, will he need to moderate to get the same level of support that his opponent already has?
How likely do you think it is that Hillary will be indicted?
So he’s not seeking input from legislators right now? We haven’t been watching him botch speeches delivered using teleprompters?
Anyway, that’s not a counter to my point. The parties consist of much more than elected officials.
Huh? Trump is nothing like either of them. Besides, the point of my paragraph was that polling trends are never a linear progression. Are you taking that fact as evidence to show that it will be?
Uh, yeah. 16 others. The “powerful political heavyweight” status of candidates like Carson and Fiorina notwithstanding, I’m not sure how the size of the field helps your argument.
And Clinton isn’t “struggling” to beat Sanders. She’s miles in front, and has been for a while. The contest was over after South Carolina. Polls, particularly national ones, can’t be considered in isolation from demographics. The writing was on the wall for Sanders almost immediately after voting began.
For those playing at home, perhaps you can also enlighten them with how much of that $75 million was spent before the first Super Tuesday, and how much was spent afterwards.
Well, of course. An indictment. A terrorist attack on US soil. A sudden collapse of the economy. Evidence of Trump having ties to the Mob. The possibility goes without saying.
But Lehman Bros wasn't why McCain dipped in the polls, he was just on a post-convention spike. The McCain campaign knew they were in trouble months out.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Yes he was on a post convention high but if you look at pre and post Lehman collapse polls, the gap kept getting wider because McCain told everybody he had no idea about economics and kept on talking about terrorism and fighting 2 wars offshore, and staying in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. Obama, who also had no idea about economics, but never admitted it, kept promising more, and more, he never pulled back on his promises, despite it being obvious what was happening and he couldn't delivery, had great rhetoric, and enough people realised if things are going to be s**t because the economy has just about gone off the cliff, they are better off with a big spending government than a bloke who wants to spend most of money on war activities.
- Banned
- #96
You've made some excellent points, but spoiled with some outright lies. I've got lots of work to do, but will try to answer quickly.
He has certainly gotten results, I hope you're not arguing with that.
In relation to Clinton, it's an excellent way to reduce Hillary's lead with women, when he starts talking about how she intimidated Bill's rape victims so they wouldn't press charges.
No, voters hate Romney.
All the polls this week are showing him even or ahead in battleground states though.
Trump does conduct internal polling though e.g. http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/p...ry-polls-show-donald-trump-crushing-ted-cruz/
Not very likely, too powerful. A man can dream, right?
People hate big names in politics, well known establishment politicians, the same ones who insult Trump. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a common attitude amongst voters.
Because if Clinton is such a weak candidate, if she had more than 1 opponent, she would not be the frontrunner. If you take a larger sample, you're likely to get more from the "good" end of the bell curve.
And yet, it's still going to be decided at the convention. Trump already wrapped his up!
I don't know the answer to that, but I know it was all spent before the latest polls showing him even with Hillary.
Hope this helps!
He has certainly gotten results, I hope you're not arguing with that.
He said he'll be raising a billion: http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-wont-self-fund-general-election-campaign-1462399502
In relation to Clinton, it's an excellent way to reduce Hillary's lead with women, when he starts talking about how she intimidated Bill's rape victims so they wouldn't press charges.
And yet, his popularity with men soared!
Most of the GOP are coming around for him. Many in the democrats still hate Hillary and say Sanders is a better chance against Trump.
Sure. Donors hate Romney.
McCain is one of a number of Republicans who, while less than lukewarm on Trump, are pledging to support “the nominee.” But it’s also a large list who are not going to stump, raise money or “make deals” for him, either.
No, voters hate Romney.
I really like Rand Paul, do you find him incompetent or unintelligent??
All the polls this week are showing him even or ahead in battleground states though.
Trump does conduct internal polling though e.g. http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/p...ry-polls-show-donald-trump-crushing-ted-cruz/
Not very likely, too powerful. A man can dream, right?
People hate big names in politics, well known establishment politicians, the same ones who insult Trump. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a common attitude amongst voters.
Trump isn't like Reagan? Celebrity becoming a populist republican, was extremely far behind in the polls, then caught up... Very similar.
Because if Clinton is such a weak candidate, if she had more than 1 opponent, she would not be the frontrunner. If you take a larger sample, you're likely to get more from the "good" end of the bell curve.
And yet, it's still going to be decided at the convention. Trump already wrapped his up!
I don't know the answer to that, but I know it was all spent before the latest polls showing him even with Hillary.
Hope this helps!
It's a measure of how insane the candidate is that Manafort's background is not a bigger issue.
Trump also said "my investigators in Hawaii can't believe what they're finding."
I'm not sure that's how it will play. This isn't new news, and she's still here.
You're thinking white men, and no it didn't. His support with white men is not nearly where it needs to be to overcome his negatives with pretty much everyone else.
You can't say that until the Democratic primaries are over. Sanders is already being tested by voters, and he's losing badly.
He outperformed McCain. He's not that on-the-nose with GOP voters, and he definitely is not unpopular with the party.
Not as kooky as his father, for sure. He's actually a half-reasonable option for libertarian conservatives. But Ben Carson is extremely intelligent, and he's a wacko.
A week of polls doesn't matter at all. A two week average average says more, but that doesn't matter either. They're not competing on the same field yet.
In comparison to what party apparatus can accomplish? No, he doesn't.
If you're using the primaries as evidence, that's an awfully small sample from which to extrapolate such a generalisation. For the moment, I have faith that the voters also realise that they are electing the Chief Executive of the most powerful and important nation on Earth, and that it might not be the best idea to put an unstable fraud behind the Resolute Desk.
Reagan was a two-term Governor of California, and a national political figure, who won 49 states in a much, much whiter country. Trump has never run for anything before in his life.
Divided opponents are not stronger opponents.
It's always decided at the convention. She will need Superdelegates to push her over the edge, but so did Obama.
It was too late to make a difference:
- Banned
- #98
It's a measure of how insane the candidate is that Manafort's background is not a bigger issue.
Trump also said "my investigators in Hawaii can't believe what they're finding."
I'm not sure that's how it will play. This isn't new news, and she's still here.
You're thinking white men, and no it didn't. His support with white men is not nearly where it needs to be to overcome his negatives with pretty much everyone else.
You can't say that until the Democratic primaries are over. Sanders is already being tested by voters, and he's losing badly.
He outperformed McCain. He's not that on-the-nose with GOP voters, and he definitely is not unpopular with the party.
Not as kooky as his father, for sure. He's actually a half-reasonable option for libertarian conservatives. But Ben Carson is extremely intelligent, and he's a wacko.
A week of polls doesn't matter at all. A two week average average says more, but that doesn't matter either. They're not competing on the same field yet.
In comparison to what party apparatus can accomplish? No, he doesn't.
If you're using the primaries as evidence, that's an awfully small sample from which to extrapolate such a generalisation. For the moment, I have faith that the voters also realise that they are electing the Chief Executive of the most powerful and important nation on Earth, and that it might not be the best idea to put an unstable fraud behind the Resolute Desk.
Reagan was a two-term Governor of California, and a national political figure, who won 49 states in a much, much whiter country. Trump has never run for anything before in his life.
Divided opponents are not stronger opponents.
It's always decided at the convention. She will need Superdelegates to push her over the edge, but so did Obama.
It was too late to make a difference:
I can tell you're not an idiot, but we're going to have to wait to see which one of us is correct. Most of it boils down to "Is Trump's massive popularity surge a one-time infusion, or part of a longer-term infusion", and we have different opinions about that. I certainly hope to be the one who says "Haha I was right".
Well, the Democratic primary race is now symbolically over, even if it has been for all intents and purposes over since February.
What does Sanders do now? If he concedes with the sort of grace and magnanimity that Hillary did eight years, and campaigns for the Democratic nominee like she did eight years ago, then I suspect that (all things being equal) she'll be elected pretty comfortably. But Bernie's not really a Democrat, and doesn't care about the Democratic party, so we wait and see.
Trump has had a month to make hay as the lone presumptive nominee, and managed to * it up about as badly as could have been possible. He (like many people) hasn't realised that the primaries take place inside a completely different universe, and wasn't at all prepared for general election scrutiny. Well, he's not really prepared for anything, and that hasn't stopped 13 million people from voting to nominate him. In any case, he's going to need at least another 50 million voters to somehow not care that he's a completely unbalanced, bigoted, uninformed, lying buffoon in order to be viable in November.
I was astounded by Lindsey Graham's musings on Trump's just slightly more than casual racism:
Let the un-endorsements begin?
What does Sanders do now? If he concedes with the sort of grace and magnanimity that Hillary did eight years, and campaigns for the Democratic nominee like she did eight years ago, then I suspect that (all things being equal) she'll be elected pretty comfortably. But Bernie's not really a Democrat, and doesn't care about the Democratic party, so we wait and see.
Trump has had a month to make hay as the lone presumptive nominee, and managed to * it up about as badly as could have been possible. He (like many people) hasn't realised that the primaries take place inside a completely different universe, and wasn't at all prepared for general election scrutiny. Well, he's not really prepared for anything, and that hasn't stopped 13 million people from voting to nominate him. In any case, he's going to need at least another 50 million voters to somehow not care that he's a completely unbalanced, bigoted, uninformed, lying buffoon in order to be viable in November.
I was astounded by Lindsey Graham's musings on Trump's just slightly more than casual racism:
That's from a Republican, during a Presidential campaign against a Clinton. Just incredible. To paraphrase something I heard Bill Maher say on Real Time the other week (high level pundit, I know), Republicans are going to be asked years from now questions along the lines of "what did you do during the war, daddy?" Paul Ryan is already colouring his "endorsement" with regular critiques of his nominee's behaviour/temperament/bigotry/whatever you care to mention. Sen. Ben Sasse is one guy holding even less back. There will be nothing like this on the Democratic side for Hillary. Sanders may or may not endorse, but he won't actively denounce her, either.
Let the un-endorsements begin?
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
I missed the start of Trump's nomination acceptance speech, caught about 15 minutes of it, missed the next 10 and then probably saw the last 20 minutes. It was longer than Bill Clinton's apparently and that takes a fair effort to out talk Bill.
Trump's speech was very much about Law and Order, Safety - making Americans feel safe again, Winning and Making American Great Again, with very few specifics.
You gotta give it to Trump, he doesn't mind dumping on fundamental Republican policy, like Free trade, he is going to ignore free trade deals. But the middle east is interesting. Like Obama, Trump was very few of the vocal voices against the invasion of Iraq. He has called it a disaster and poured a bucket of s**t on George Bush plenty of times about it. He has upset plenty of Republicans. i missed the opening couple of sentences to this part of his speech so it makes more sense now but he blamed the last 15 years of US policy in the middle east as a disater and I did pick up hushed tones when he said it. But the italic bits is what i missed. The full speach is at the link below
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/122534...h-transcript-republican-nomination-transcript
Now let us consider the state of affairs abroad. Not only have our citizens endured domestic disaster, but they have lived through one international humiliation after another. One after another.
We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees by their Iranian captors at gunpoint. This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and gave us absolutely nothing. It will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever negotiated.
Another humiliation came when President Obama drew a red line in Syria and the whole world knew it meant absolutely nothing. In Libya, our consulate, the symbol of American prestige around the globe was brought down in flames.
America is far less safe and the world is far less stable than when Obama made the decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of America's foreign policy. I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets.
Her bad instincts and her bad judgment, something pointed out by Bernie Sanders are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Let's review the record.
In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map. Libya was stable. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq had seen a big reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was somewhat under control.
After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region and the entire world. Libya is in ruins, and our ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos. Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After 15 years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: Death, destruction and terrorism and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton's legacy does not have to be America's legacy. The problems we face now — poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad — will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them. A change in leadership is required to produce a change in outcomes.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/122534...h-transcript-republican-nomination-transcript
And YOU i think will become the catch word from now on I think. With Obama it was Yes We Can. The crowd a couple of times that I saw shouted back repeating several times over Yes You Can, Yes You Can.
My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three-word loyalty pledge. It reads: "I'm with her."
I choose to recite a different pledge. My pledge reads: "I'm with you the American people."
I am your voice. So to every parent who dreams for their child, and every child who dreams for their future, I say these words to you tonight: I'm with you, and I will fight for you, and I will win for you.
To all Americans tonight, in all our cities and towns, I make this promise:
We will make America strong again.
We will make America proud again.
We will make America safe again.
And we will make America great again!
God bless you and goodnight! I love you!
Trump's speech was very much about Law and Order, Safety - making Americans feel safe again, Winning and Making American Great Again, with very few specifics.
You gotta give it to Trump, he doesn't mind dumping on fundamental Republican policy, like Free trade, he is going to ignore free trade deals. But the middle east is interesting. Like Obama, Trump was very few of the vocal voices against the invasion of Iraq. He has called it a disaster and poured a bucket of s**t on George Bush plenty of times about it. He has upset plenty of Republicans. i missed the opening couple of sentences to this part of his speech so it makes more sense now but he blamed the last 15 years of US policy in the middle east as a disater and I did pick up hushed tones when he said it. But the italic bits is what i missed. The full speach is at the link below
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/122534...h-transcript-republican-nomination-transcript
Now let us consider the state of affairs abroad. Not only have our citizens endured domestic disaster, but they have lived through one international humiliation after another. One after another.
We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees by their Iranian captors at gunpoint. This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and gave us absolutely nothing. It will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever negotiated.
Another humiliation came when President Obama drew a red line in Syria and the whole world knew it meant absolutely nothing. In Libya, our consulate, the symbol of American prestige around the globe was brought down in flames.
America is far less safe and the world is far less stable than when Obama made the decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of America's foreign policy. I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets.
Her bad instincts and her bad judgment, something pointed out by Bernie Sanders are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Let's review the record.
In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map. Libya was stable. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq had seen a big reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was somewhat under control.
After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region and the entire world. Libya is in ruins, and our ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos. Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After 15 years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: Death, destruction and terrorism and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton's legacy does not have to be America's legacy. The problems we face now — poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad — will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them. A change in leadership is required to produce a change in outcomes.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/122534...h-transcript-republican-nomination-transcript
And YOU i think will become the catch word from now on I think. With Obama it was Yes We Can. The crowd a couple of times that I saw shouted back repeating several times over Yes You Can, Yes You Can.
My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three-word loyalty pledge. It reads: "I'm with her."
I choose to recite a different pledge. My pledge reads: "I'm with you the American people."
I am your voice. So to every parent who dreams for their child, and every child who dreams for their future, I say these words to you tonight: I'm with you, and I will fight for you, and I will win for you.
To all Americans tonight, in all our cities and towns, I make this promise:
We will make America strong again.
We will make America proud again.
We will make America safe again.
And we will make America great again!
God bless you and goodnight! I love you!
