login
Election 2016 (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-05-13 11:25 AM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: RE: Election 2016Originally posted by ejshowers I don't see why you would think this poll has any correlation to the state polls you posted. Can you help me understand from a statistical perspective (more than a gut feel) why? Also, state polling is notoriously inaccurate this far out, especially just a single poll. You are better off looking at national polls or especially poll aggregates at this point. As you say, things will become more clear after the conventions and especially post Labor Day when more people start to pay attention. I was merely talking about the swing state polls above showed Trump and Clinton statistically dead even in those three states and now this national poll shows them statistically dead even. That's all I was getting at. They're both very early polls so they don't constitute a trend per se' yet. The reuters 5 day running does have Hillary consistently sliding nationally for five days and then a slight uptick on the 10th (last day), so somethings going on nationally with her and I suspect it has to do with a #Trump Another thing I find interesting is that based on this particular poll Trump is gaining most of his support from people that are leaving Hillary in addition to a smaller subset from the "won't vote" crowd (yellow). It's too early to say Hillary's in trouble for sure, but this most certainly isn't good news for her.
The RCP average which lags by several weeks is also showing a trend towards a tightening race:
|
| 2016-05-13 4:19 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. |
| 2016-05-13 4:54 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking C'mon man. Name me a politician who doesn't have a flip flop montage.
|
| 2016-05-13 5:12 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. |
| 2016-05-13 6:01 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. I swear, Tony, you keep saying over and over that Hillary is just like Trump because she doesn't give specifics about her plans, and it's demonstrably untrue. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. It's the exact same thing as your whole "Hillary can't name her accomplishments/doesn't have any accomplishments" silliness. I know what she's done and, because she has a long history in politics, I know, more or less, what to expect in the future. |
| 2016-05-13 8:13 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Hillary has kankles.....just say no! |
| 2016-05-13 8:36 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Just when you thought this election cycle couldn't get any weirder, along comes Glenn Beck and a bowl of Cheetos. https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/glenn-beck-does-trump-impressio... |
| 2016-05-14 10:10 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I swear, Tony, you keep saying over and over that Hillary is just like Trump because she doesn't give specifics about her plans, and it's demonstrably untrue. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. It's the exact same thing as your whole "Hillary can't name her accomplishments/doesn't have any accomplishments" silliness. I know what she's done and, because she has a long history in politics, I know, more or less, what to expect in the future. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. OK, please demonstrate for me where she has given specifics? Immigration for comparison: Healthcare for comparison: These two policy examples are exactly the same style. They're high level abstracts of how they plan to address the two particular issues.
|
| 2016-05-14 11:50 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I swear, Tony, you keep saying over and over that Hillary is just like Trump because she doesn't give specifics about her plans, and it's demonstrably untrue. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. It's the exact same thing as your whole "Hillary can't name her accomplishments/doesn't have any accomplishments" silliness. I know what she's done and, because she has a long history in politics, I know, more or less, what to expect in the future. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. OK, please demonstrate for me where she has given specifics? Immigration for comparison: Healthcare for comparison: These two policy examples are exactly the same style. They're high level abstracts of how they plan to address the two particular issues.
Lol. You're not very good at the Intenet, are you? As usual, you find one site that supports your preconceived beliefs and call it good. They're campaign websites. OBVIOUSLY they're going to give high-level abstract overviews of their plans. Try a little harder, why don't you? |
| 2016-05-14 6:17 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Lol. You're not very good at the Intenet, are you? As usual, you find one site that supports your preconceived beliefs and call it good. They're campaign websites. OBVIOUSLY they're going to give high-level abstract overviews of their plans. Try a little harder, why don't you? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I swear, Tony, you keep saying over and over that Hillary is just like Trump because she doesn't give specifics about her plans, and it's demonstrably untrue. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. It's the exact same thing as your whole "Hillary can't name her accomplishments/doesn't have any accomplishments" silliness. I know what she's done and, because she has a long history in politics, I know, more or less, what to expect in the future. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. OK, please demonstrate for me where she has given specifics? Immigration for comparison: Healthcare for comparison: These two policy examples are exactly the same style. They're high level abstracts of how they plan to address the two particular issues.
You're the one that said it's easily demonstrable, not me. I know there's nothing out there. |
| 2016-05-14 6:38 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Lol. You're not very good at the Intenet, are you? As usual, you find one site that supports your preconceived beliefs and call it good. They're campaign websites. OBVIOUSLY they're going to give high-level abstract overviews of their plans. Try a little harder, why don't you? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I swear, Tony, you keep saying over and over that Hillary is just like Trump because she doesn't give specifics about her plans, and it's demonstrably untrue. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. It's the exact same thing as your whole "Hillary can't name her accomplishments/doesn't have any accomplishments" silliness. I know what she's done and, because she has a long history in politics, I know, more or less, what to expect in the future. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. OK, please demonstrate for me where she has given specifics? Immigration for comparison: Healthcare for comparison: These two policy examples are exactly the same style. They're high level abstracts of how they plan to address the two particular issues.
You're the one that said it's easily demonstrable, not me. I know there's nothing out there. tuwood. very sincerely. you really do just go and pick a conservative propaganda website, and then use it to support your arguments. or you cherry pick a single poll or opinion piece somewhere. its similar to the climate debate stuff. talking points are not facts. |
| 2016-05-15 3:23 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Lol. You're not very good at the Intenet, are you? As usual, you find one site that supports your preconceived beliefs and call it good. They're campaign websites. OBVIOUSLY they're going to give high-level abstract overviews of their plans. Try a little harder, why don't you? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I swear, Tony, you keep saying over and over that Hillary is just like Trump because she doesn't give specifics about her plans, and it's demonstrably untrue. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. It's the exact same thing as your whole "Hillary can't name her accomplishments/doesn't have any accomplishments" silliness. I know what she's done and, because she has a long history in politics, I know, more or less, what to expect in the future. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. OK, please demonstrate for me where she has given specifics? Immigration for comparison: Healthcare for comparison: These two policy examples are exactly the same style. They're high level abstracts of how they plan to address the two particular issues.
You're the one that said it's easily demonstrable, not me. I know there's nothing out there. tuwood. very sincerely. you really do just go and pick a conservative propaganda website, and then use it to support your arguments. or you cherry pick a single poll or opinion piece somewhere. its similar to the climate debate stuff. talking points are not facts. I'm not even sure what I'm arguing here. JMK came out of left field and attacked Trump for not having any specifics. I simply made a statement that neither candidate has any specifics yet because they're candidates and everything is very broad. I linked both of their position sites in an attempt to be fair and balanced showing that they both have abstract positions of what they want to do. Then you jump on the JMK bandwagon saying that I'm using talking points as facts? Yet, I'm the one who has nothing to support my argument? |
| 2016-05-15 3:30 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Well.....I have proof that HiIlary has fat ankles....so there. |
| 2016-05-15 3:53 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Lol. You're not very good at the Intenet, are you? As usual, you find one site that supports your preconceived beliefs and call it good. They're campaign websites. OBVIOUSLY they're going to give high-level abstract overviews of their plans. Try a little harder, why don't you? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I swear, Tony, you keep saying over and over that Hillary is just like Trump because she doesn't give specifics about her plans, and it's demonstrably untrue. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. It's the exact same thing as your whole "Hillary can't name her accomplishments/doesn't have any accomplishments" silliness. I know what she's done and, because she has a long history in politics, I know, more or less, what to expect in the future. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. OK, please demonstrate for me where she has given specifics? Immigration for comparison: Healthcare for comparison: These two policy examples are exactly the same style. They're high level abstracts of how they plan to address the two particular issues.
You're the one that said it's easily demonstrable, not me. I know there's nothing out there. tuwood. very sincerely. you really do just go and pick a conservative propaganda website, and then use it to support your arguments. or you cherry pick a single poll or opinion piece somewhere. its similar to the climate debate stuff. talking points are not facts. I'm not even sure what I'm arguing here. JMK came out of left field and attacked Trump for not having any specifics. I simply made a statement that neither candidate has any specifics yet because they're candidates and everything is very broad. I linked both of their position sites in an attempt to be fair and balanced showing that they both have abstract positions of what they want to do. Then you jump on the JMK bandwagon saying that I'm using talking points as facts? Yet, I'm the one who has nothing to support my argument? Woo hoo! I've got a bandwagon!! |
| 2016-05-15 4:15 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Here's a pretty good website if, unlike SOME people, you're actually interested in candidates' positions on the various issues. http://2016election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php One of the the things that stood out to me is how many times, "?", NC, or "Now Pro/Con" appears next to Trump (28 out of a possible 55), indicating he's either never stated his position in an issue, hasn't been clear on what his position is, or said contradictory things or changed from a previously stated position. |
| 2016-05-16 6:56 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Lol. You're not very good at the Intenet, are you? As usual, you find one site that supports your preconceived beliefs and call it good. They're campaign websites. OBVIOUSLY they're going to give high-level abstract overviews of their plans. Try a little harder, why don't you? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I swear, Tony, you keep saying over and over that Hillary is just like Trump because she doesn't give specifics about her plans, and it's demonstrably untrue. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. It's the exact same thing as your whole "Hillary can't name her accomplishments/doesn't have any accomplishments" silliness. I know what she's done and, because she has a long history in politics, I know, more or less, what to expect in the future. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I don't think Trump will change too many people's opinions. Or, if he does, he'll change them for the worse. You have to remember, Tony, that even though the election is in six months, he still hasn't said much of anything about what he intends to do as president. He still stumbles over policy questions or lies outright,or simply flip flops depending on the day and who's asking (for example: "women should be punished for having abortions"/"women shouldn't be punished for having abortions" and "we should ban Muslims from entering the country"/"I was just making a suggestion that we ban all the Muslims from entering the country") There are the hard core "Trump no matter what" supporters, like you, who don't care what he says or claims or whether he's truthful or consistent or not and will vote for him anyway, but there are a lot of people who maybe don't like Hillary but who aren't 100% sure whether Trump can be trusted with the presidency. If he doesn't start acting like he's taking this seriously, which, from my pov, he isn't, those people will either vote for Hillary or stay home and either way, that's bad for him. I don't think he has any strategy available to him but to attack Hillary personally, and that's what he's going to do. He's going to call her "crooked Hillary" every time he mentions her, he'll go after Bill, he'll go after every rumor and innuendo that he can-- that's what he did in the GOP primary and it worked, but I don't know if it will work on a national scale. I also think his VP pick will be very important-- as it was for McCain. Hillary can play it safe and pull in some well-known, safe, middle-of-the road democrat-- maybe even someone republicans don't hate. Trump doesn't have much goodwill among those kinds of people on the GOP side. If he chooses another outsider as his running mate, I think it'll scare away a lot of people who would be worried about having two political novices in the White House, but there aren't a lot of experienced GOP politicians who support him. Under other circumstances, a guy like McCain or Graham would probably help reassure some voters that he'd have an experienced guy in his corner. He's burned just about every bridge there is to those kinds of republicans, so there aren't a lot of them left who would be willing to stand beside him. That leaves someone like Christie or another outsider like Ben Carson, and I think people would be uncomfortable with that. His VP pick is going to have to demonstrate that he "knows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know", and that he needs someone beside him with more experience than he has. That would require a level of self-awareness and humility that I haven't yet seen from him. If he picks another rich guy with no experience in government at all, a lot of the non-hard-core-crowd will desert him just like the voters deserted McCain/Palin. Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. He will never pick an insider like McCain because that's exactly what he's fighting against. His supporters would hate a pick like that (myself included). The more outsider non washington machine the better. As for his specifics on policy I was kind of chuckling as I read it because I could easily insert Hillary's name in that whole paragraph related to policy and flip/flopping and it's no different. I don't in any way blindly follow Trump and approve of everything he does. I know you don't blindly love Hillary either, but for you she's the best you got, for various reasons. We're both very similar, we just have different things that we value in our politicians and overlook the things we don't care as much about. OK, please demonstrate for me where she has given specifics? Immigration for comparison: Healthcare for comparison: These two policy examples are exactly the same style. They're high level abstracts of how they plan to address the two particular issues.
You're the one that said it's easily demonstrable, not me. I know there's nothing out there. tuwood. very sincerely. you really do just go and pick a conservative propaganda website, and then use it to support your arguments. or you cherry pick a single poll or opinion piece somewhere. its similar to the climate debate stuff. talking points are not facts. I'm not even sure what I'm arguing here. JMK came out of left field and attacked Trump for not having any specifics. I simply made a statement that neither candidate has any specifics yet because they're candidates and everything is very broad. I linked both of their position sites in an attempt to be fair and balanced showing that they both have abstract positions of what they want to do. Then you jump on the JMK bandwagon saying that I'm using talking points as facts? Yet, I'm the one who has nothing to support my argument? Woo hoo! I've got a bandwagon!! I have to say, I have always enjoyed your well thought out posts and if there is a seat available on this bandwagon, I'm on it...but, I have figured it out re: Trump. He appeals to my id. He is infinitely more entertaining to listen to than Hillary. As for the meter that determines who wins prez elections, (at least in my lifetime) the candidate who you'd rather have over for your barbecue and tip a drink back with...they win. This election could be the 1st time it does NOT happen! Reagan>>>Carter Reagan>>>>>>Mondale GHWB>>>Dukakis Bill>>>GHWB Bill>>>>>Dole W>>>Gore W>>>>>Kerry Obama>>>>McCain Obama>>>>>>Romney Trump>>>>Hillary (even if she DOES have some hot sauce in her purse)  check out "What's in Hillary's Purse from the Colbert Show. Another hilarious take on her pandering...very funny. The clip is out there and it's priceless. |
| 2016-05-16 9:33 AM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy I have to say, I have always enjoyed your well thought out posts and if there is a seat available on this bandwagon, I'm on it...but, I have figured it out re: Trump. He appeals to my id. He is infinitely more entertaining to listen to than Hillary. As for the meter that determines who wins prez elections, (at least in my lifetime) the candidate who you'd rather have over for your barbecue and tip a drink back with...they win. This election could be the 1st time it does NOT happen! Reagan>>>Carter Reagan>>>>>>Mondale GHWB>>>Dukakis Bill>>>GHWB Bill>>>>>Dole W>>>Gore W>>>>>Kerry Obama>>>>McCain Obama>>>>>>Romney Trump>>>>Hillary (even if she DOES have some hot sauce in her purse) check out "What's in Hillary's Purse from the Colbert Show. Another hilarious take on her pandering...very funny. The clip is out there and it's priceless. Cutting down the size of the quote pyramid, but your comment reminded me of a Mike Birbiglia bit comparing George W to a guy you'd like to have at a barbecue. |
| 2016-05-19 11:41 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. I understand his appeal to people who are entertained by his showmanship and theatrics. I understand his appeal to people who, as CD said, are driven by their basest qualities and who enjoy the way he insults people, speaks glowingly of violence against women and children, torture, and war crimes, and openly encourages violence against people who disagree with him. I understand his appeal to people who think that he's going to right all of the perceived "wrongs" against white people, and who believe he will put the poor and minorities in their place. I also understand his appeal (although that's the wrong word) to people who believe he's simply the lesser of two evils and that, despite his many flaws which they acknowledge, he's a better choice than whoever the Democratic candidate is. I don't understand his appeal to anyone who actually believes that he'll make a good president. I admit that I'm not entirely objective, but I've yet to see or hear a single thing he's said or done (in his lifetime-- not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll make a capable President of the United States. By contrast, I've seen and heard a lot (in his lifetime, not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll be at best incompetent and ineffective, and at worst, dangerous and corrupt. |
| 2016-05-19 11:54 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I understand his appeal to people who are entertained by his showmanship and theatrics. I understand his appeal to people who, as CD said, are driven by their basest qualities and who enjoy the way he insults people, speaks glowingly of violence against women and children, torture, and war crimes, and openly encourages violence against people who disagree with him. I understand his appeal to people who think that he's going to right all of the perceived "wrongs" against white people, and who believe he will put the poor and minorities in their place. I also understand his appeal (although that's the wrong word) to people who believe he's simply the lesser of two evils and that, despite his many flaws which they acknowledge, he's a better choice than whoever the Democratic candidate is. I don't understand his appeal to anyone who actually believes that he'll make a good president. I admit that I'm not entirely objective, but I've yet to see or hear a single thing he's said or done (in his lifetime-- not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll make a capable President of the United States. By contrast, I've seen and heard a lot (in his lifetime, not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll be at best incompetent and ineffective, and at worst, dangerous and corrupt. Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. I think the challenge you're having lies in what you think is his appeal as you stated above. The people who are attracted to Trump for the reasons you stated above are a very very small minority of his supporters. For the majority of his supporters (myself included) these are things we have to look past in order to support him. Here's an article from a week or so ago that does a decent job of explaining one conservatives conversion to the Trump train. I was on early because he is a successful businessman and was self financing his campaign so he was more immune than most to corrupt influences. However, the more I learned about him the more my appeal broadened. Yes, there are some areas that he's lost a little credibility with me, but overall his positives far outweigh his negatives. I'm full on supporting him and most certainly not holding my nose. BTW, trump +5 in todays Rasmussen poll. Hillary has him right where she wants him. ;-) |
| 2016-05-19 4:25 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I understand his appeal to people who are entertained by his showmanship and theatrics. I understand his appeal to people who, as CD said, are driven by their basest qualities and who enjoy the way he insults people, speaks glowingly of violence against women and children, torture, and war crimes, and openly encourages violence against people who disagree with him. I understand his appeal to people who think that he's going to right all of the perceived "wrongs" against white people, and who believe he will put the poor and minorities in their place. I also understand his appeal (although that's the wrong word) to people who believe he's simply the lesser of two evils and that, despite his many flaws which they acknowledge, he's a better choice than whoever the Democratic candidate is. I don't understand his appeal to anyone who actually believes that he'll make a good president. I admit that I'm not entirely objective, but I've yet to see or hear a single thing he's said or done (in his lifetime-- not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll make a capable President of the United States. By contrast, I've seen and heard a lot (in his lifetime, not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll be at best incompetent and ineffective, and at worst, dangerous and corrupt. Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. I think the challenge you're having lies in what you think is his appeal as you stated above. The people who are attracted to Trump for the reasons you stated above are a very very small minority of his supporters. For the majority of his supporters (myself included) these are things we have to look past in order to support him. Here's an article from a week or so ago that does a decent job of explaining one conservatives conversion to the Trump train. I was on early because he is a successful businessman and was self financing his campaign so he was more immune than most to corrupt influences. However, the more I learned about him the more my appeal broadened. Yes, there are some areas that he's lost a little credibility with me, but overall his positives far outweigh his negatives. I'm full on supporting him and most certainly not holding my nose. BTW, trump +5 in todays Rasmussen poll. Hillary has him right where she wants him. ;-) So now that Trump has shown himself yet again as a man with no integrity and that he will lie at the drop of a hat and is accepting money from the RNC and big donors, are you ready to dump him like a hot potato? (CNN) — As veteran Republican financiers prepared to rally behind Donald Trump they came with a condition: Don't use our money to reimburse yourself. Trump appears to have agreed, and the presumptive GOP nominee and the Republican National Committee formalized an effort to raise $1 billion for what will likely be a bruising and expensive campaign against Hillary Clinton. Now some of the party's top money men are lending their expertise. Trump announced a pair of joint fundraising agreements with the RNC late Tuesday. And three veteran GOP financiers -- Ron Weiser, a prominent fundraiser who previously directed cash to anti-Trump groups, Ray Washburne, a Dallas-based bundler who led fundraising for Chris Christie, and Elliott Broidy, a California venture capitalist -- will be the vice chairs for the new joint victory fund, multiple sources familiar with the plan tell CNN. A spokeswoman for the RNC said a full list of vice chairmen would be released in the coming days. The new additions to the joint finance team, who hail from Trump's former rivals and even the #NeverTrump movement, are the latest indication that many of the party's prior standard-bearers are prepared to rally behind Trump -- and pitch in to help the GOP -- in spite of their reservations about the candidate. It also continues the major change in Trump's position on fundraising. At nearly every rally this year, Trump has touted that he's self-funding his campaign (despite receiving millions from small donors and merchandising) as a sign of his independence from the political establishment and big donors. Now, with less than six months to go until Election Day, Trump is racing to assemble a patchwork organization that can keep him competitive. To do so, he is largely flipping the traditional finance script. Rather than building an extensive party-steered finance network within the Trump campaign, Trump is building a modest operation within the RNC juggernaut. The trio's support came, in part, thanks to assurances from Trump that he would not use the dollars they raised to reimburse himself for the $36 million of his own fortune he has loaned his campaign committee, a Trump source said. In private meetings, the new slate of vice chairmen made it clear to Trump and his staffers that they and other donors weren't interested in helping raise money to pay back the billionaire businessman, according to the Trump source. Trump has already lent his campaign committee $36 million and has promised to spend more on his efforts. The donors want to see their money funneled into efforts, such as ramping up the ground organization, advertising and campaign travel. Trump says he will do just that. "I have absolutely no intention of paying myself back," Trump said in a statement Wednesday. "This money is a contribution made in order to 'Make America Great Again.'" Nevertheless, should Trump change course and redirect those primary campaign checks to himself, donors would have little recourse. "If he's going to pay himself back with that money there's nothing you can do to stop him," said Spencer Zwick, who ran Mitt Romney's finance team in 2012. "That, to me, seems like it might cause some concern." |
| 2016-05-19 5:40 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood So now that Trump has shown himself yet again as a man with no integrity and that he will lie at the drop of a hat and is accepting money from the RNC and big donors, are you ready to dump him like a hot potato? (CNN) — As veteran Republican financiers prepared to rally behind Donald Trump they came with a condition: Don't use our money to reimburse yourself. Trump appears to have agreed, and the presumptive GOP nominee and the Republican National Committee formalized an effort to raise $1 billion for what will likely be a bruising and expensive campaign against Hillary Clinton. Now some of the party's top money men are lending their expertise. Trump announced a pair of joint fundraising agreements with the RNC late Tuesday. And three veteran GOP financiers -- Ron Weiser, a prominent fundraiser who previously directed cash to anti-Trump groups, Ray Washburne, a Dallas-based bundler who led fundraising for Chris Christie, and Elliott Broidy, a California venture capitalist -- will be the vice chairs for the new joint victory fund, multiple sources familiar with the plan tell CNN. A spokeswoman for the RNC said a full list of vice chairmen would be released in the coming days. The new additions to the joint finance team, who hail from Trump's former rivals and even the #NeverTrump movement, are the latest indication that many of the party's prior standard-bearers are prepared to rally behind Trump -- and pitch in to help the GOP -- in spite of their reservations about the candidate. It also continues the major change in Trump's position on fundraising. At nearly every rally this year, Trump has touted that he's self-funding his campaign (despite receiving millions from small donors and merchandising) as a sign of his independence from the political establishment and big donors. Now, with less than six months to go until Election Day, Trump is racing to assemble a patchwork organization that can keep him competitive. To do so, he is largely flipping the traditional finance script. Rather than building an extensive party-steered finance network within the Trump campaign, Trump is building a modest operation within the RNC juggernaut. The trio's support came, in part, thanks to assurances from Trump that he would not use the dollars they raised to reimburse himself for the $36 million of his own fortune he has loaned his campaign committee, a Trump source said. In private meetings, the new slate of vice chairmen made it clear to Trump and his staffers that they and other donors weren't interested in helping raise money to pay back the billionaire businessman, according to the Trump source. Trump has already lent his campaign committee $36 million and has promised to spend more on his efforts. The donors want to see their money funneled into efforts, such as ramping up the ground organization, advertising and campaign travel. Trump says he will do just that. "I have absolutely no intention of paying myself back," Trump said in a statement Wednesday. "This money is a contribution made in order to 'Make America Great Again.'" Nevertheless, should Trump change course and redirect those primary campaign checks to himself, donors would have little recourse. "If he's going to pay himself back with that money there's nothing you can do to stop him," said Spencer Zwick, who ran Mitt Romney's finance team in 2012. "That, to me, seems like it might cause some concern." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I understand his appeal to people who are entertained by his showmanship and theatrics. I understand his appeal to people who, as CD said, are driven by their basest qualities and who enjoy the way he insults people, speaks glowingly of violence against women and children, torture, and war crimes, and openly encourages violence against people who disagree with him. I understand his appeal to people who think that he's going to right all of the perceived "wrongs" against white people, and who believe he will put the poor and minorities in their place. I also understand his appeal (although that's the wrong word) to people who believe he's simply the lesser of two evils and that, despite his many flaws which they acknowledge, he's a better choice than whoever the Democratic candidate is. I don't understand his appeal to anyone who actually believes that he'll make a good president. I admit that I'm not entirely objective, but I've yet to see or hear a single thing he's said or done (in his lifetime-- not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll make a capable President of the United States. By contrast, I've seen and heard a lot (in his lifetime, not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll be at best incompetent and ineffective, and at worst, dangerous and corrupt. Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. I think the challenge you're having lies in what you think is his appeal as you stated above. The people who are attracted to Trump for the reasons you stated above are a very very small minority of his supporters. For the majority of his supporters (myself included) these are things we have to look past in order to support him. Here's an article from a week or so ago that does a decent job of explaining one conservatives conversion to the Trump train. I was on early because he is a successful businessman and was self financing his campaign so he was more immune than most to corrupt influences. However, the more I learned about him the more my appeal broadened. Yes, there are some areas that he's lost a little credibility with me, but overall his positives far outweigh his negatives. I'm full on supporting him and most certainly not holding my nose. BTW, trump +5 in todays Rasmussen poll. Hillary has him right where she wants him. ;-) I love how you call Trump a person with no integrity and liar, but you fawn over Hillary's lack of integrity and lies. Anyway... I truly do wish he could have/would have continued self funding all the way through the entire campaign but I really don't think he could even if he wanted to. He listed his liquid assets around $200M last year (if I recall) so the only way he could would be to start selling Realestate or leveraging it with loans. He did self fund his primary campaign and did it very well. He stated several weeks ago that his intention was to self fund his primary campaign and then go the more traditional route for the general. |
| 2016-05-19 8:45 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood So now that Trump has shown himself yet again as a man with no integrity and that he will lie at the drop of a hat and is accepting money from the RNC and big donors, are you ready to dump him like a hot potato? (CNN) — As veteran Republican financiers prepared to rally behind Donald Trump they came with a condition: Don't use our money to reimburse yourself. Trump appears to have agreed, and the presumptive GOP nominee and the Republican National Committee formalized an effort to raise $1 billion for what will likely be a bruising and expensive campaign against Hillary Clinton. Now some of the party's top money men are lending their expertise. Trump announced a pair of joint fundraising agreements with the RNC late Tuesday. And three veteran GOP financiers -- Ron Weiser, a prominent fundraiser who previously directed cash to anti-Trump groups, Ray Washburne, a Dallas-based bundler who led fundraising for Chris Christie, and Elliott Broidy, a California venture capitalist -- will be the vice chairs for the new joint victory fund, multiple sources familiar with the plan tell CNN. A spokeswoman for the RNC said a full list of vice chairmen would be released in the coming days. The new additions to the joint finance team, who hail from Trump's former rivals and even the #NeverTrump movement, are the latest indication that many of the party's prior standard-bearers are prepared to rally behind Trump -- and pitch in to help the GOP -- in spite of their reservations about the candidate. It also continues the major change in Trump's position on fundraising. At nearly every rally this year, Trump has touted that he's self-funding his campaign (despite receiving millions from small donors and merchandising) as a sign of his independence from the political establishment and big donors. Now, with less than six months to go until Election Day, Trump is racing to assemble a patchwork organization that can keep him competitive. To do so, he is largely flipping the traditional finance script. Rather than building an extensive party-steered finance network within the Trump campaign, Trump is building a modest operation within the RNC juggernaut. The trio's support came, in part, thanks to assurances from Trump that he would not use the dollars they raised to reimburse himself for the $36 million of his own fortune he has loaned his campaign committee, a Trump source said. In private meetings, the new slate of vice chairmen made it clear to Trump and his staffers that they and other donors weren't interested in helping raise money to pay back the billionaire businessman, according to the Trump source. Trump has already lent his campaign committee $36 million and has promised to spend more on his efforts. The donors want to see their money funneled into efforts, such as ramping up the ground organization, advertising and campaign travel. Trump says he will do just that. "I have absolutely no intention of paying myself back," Trump said in a statement Wednesday. "This money is a contribution made in order to 'Make America Great Again.'" Nevertheless, should Trump change course and redirect those primary campaign checks to himself, donors would have little recourse. "If he's going to pay himself back with that money there's nothing you can do to stop him," said Spencer Zwick, who ran Mitt Romney's finance team in 2012. "That, to me, seems like it might cause some concern." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I understand his appeal to people who are entertained by his showmanship and theatrics. I understand his appeal to people who, as CD said, are driven by their basest qualities and who enjoy the way he insults people, speaks glowingly of violence against women and children, torture, and war crimes, and openly encourages violence against people who disagree with him. I understand his appeal to people who think that he's going to right all of the perceived "wrongs" against white people, and who believe he will put the poor and minorities in their place. I also understand his appeal (although that's the wrong word) to people who believe he's simply the lesser of two evils and that, despite his many flaws which they acknowledge, he's a better choice than whoever the Democratic candidate is. I don't understand his appeal to anyone who actually believes that he'll make a good president. I admit that I'm not entirely objective, but I've yet to see or hear a single thing he's said or done (in his lifetime-- not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll make a capable President of the United States. By contrast, I've seen and heard a lot (in his lifetime, not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll be at best incompetent and ineffective, and at worst, dangerous and corrupt. Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. I think the challenge you're having lies in what you think is his appeal as you stated above. The people who are attracted to Trump for the reasons you stated above are a very very small minority of his supporters. For the majority of his supporters (myself included) these are things we have to look past in order to support him. Here's an article from a week or so ago that does a decent job of explaining one conservatives conversion to the Trump train. I was on early because he is a successful businessman and was self financing his campaign so he was more immune than most to corrupt influences. However, the more I learned about him the more my appeal broadened. Yes, there are some areas that he's lost a little credibility with me, but overall his positives far outweigh his negatives. I'm full on supporting him and most certainly not holding my nose. BTW, trump +5 in todays Rasmussen poll. Hillary has him right where she wants him. ;-) I love how you call Trump a person with no integrity and liar, but you fawn over Hillary's lack of integrity and lies. Anyway... I truly do wish he could have/would have continued self funding all the way through the entire campaign but I really don't think he could even if he wanted to. He listed his liquid assets around $200M last year (if I recall) so the only way he could would be to start selling Realestate or leveraging it with loans. He did self fund his primary campaign and did it very well. He stated several weeks ago that his intention was to self fund his primary campaign and then go the more traditional route for the general. Actually, I don't have to work hard at all to hate him; I have disliked him immensely from about he moment I heard of him. I remember seeing Marla Maples yacht (wish I could remember the name!) while vacationing in Ft. Lauderdale after they divorced and thought, 'good for her! I posted this in the Trump thread last November: "He exhibits so many human traits that I find absolutely horrible I still have to pinch myself when I see him in the "presidential" news to makes sure I am not having a nightmare." Also, I don't think I have fawned over Hillary at all. I am actually not a huge fan, but I would much rather see her in the White House and would love to see a woman there, but actually am closer to Bernie than Hillary. He just never had much of a chance to win the nomination, so I discarded him a long time ago. |
| 2016-05-20 5:56 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood BTW, trump +5 in todays Rasmussen poll. Hillary has him right where she wants him. ;-) Meh. More single-data-point cherry picking on your part. Plenty of other polls say different. |
| 2016-05-20 8:23 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I understand his appeal to people who are entertained by his showmanship and theatrics. I understand his appeal to people who, as CD said, are driven by their basest qualities and who enjoy the way he insults people, speaks glowingly of violence against women and children, torture, and war crimes, and openly encourages violence against people who disagree with him. I understand his appeal to people who think that he's going to right all of the perceived "wrongs" against white people, and who believe he will put the poor and minorities in their place. For the majority of his supporters (myself included) these are things we have to look past in order to support him. Clearly. I guess, for me, there are certain things I'm willing to overlook and certain things I'm not. Inciting violence against people, and encouraging bigotry and hatred as a means to acquire personal power is not one of them. |
| 2016-05-20 9:52 AM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood Actually, I don't have to work hard at all to hate him; I have disliked him immensely from about he moment I heard of him. I remember seeing Marla Maples yacht (wish I could remember the name!) while vacationing in Ft. Lauderdale after they divorced and thought, 'good for her! I posted this in the Trump thread last November: "He exhibits so many human traits that I find absolutely horrible I still have to pinch myself when I see him in the "presidential" news to makes sure I am not having a nightmare." Also, I don't think I have fawned over Hillary at all. I am actually not a huge fan, but I would much rather see her in the White House and would love to see a woman there, but actually am closer to Bernie than Hillary. He just never had much of a chance to win the nomination, so I discarded him a long time ago. Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by tuwood So now that Trump has shown himself yet again as a man with no integrity and that he will lie at the drop of a hat and is accepting money from the RNC and big donors, are you ready to dump him like a hot potato? (CNN) — As veteran Republican financiers prepared to rally behind Donald Trump they came with a condition: Don't use our money to reimburse yourself. Trump appears to have agreed, and the presumptive GOP nominee and the Republican National Committee formalized an effort to raise $1 billion for what will likely be a bruising and expensive campaign against Hillary Clinton. Now some of the party's top money men are lending their expertise. Trump announced a pair of joint fundraising agreements with the RNC late Tuesday. And three veteran GOP financiers -- Ron Weiser, a prominent fundraiser who previously directed cash to anti-Trump groups, Ray Washburne, a Dallas-based bundler who led fundraising for Chris Christie, and Elliott Broidy, a California venture capitalist -- will be the vice chairs for the new joint victory fund, multiple sources familiar with the plan tell CNN. A spokeswoman for the RNC said a full list of vice chairmen would be released in the coming days. The new additions to the joint finance team, who hail from Trump's former rivals and even the #NeverTrump movement, are the latest indication that many of the party's prior standard-bearers are prepared to rally behind Trump -- and pitch in to help the GOP -- in spite of their reservations about the candidate. It also continues the major change in Trump's position on fundraising. At nearly every rally this year, Trump has touted that he's self-funding his campaign (despite receiving millions from small donors and merchandising) as a sign of his independence from the political establishment and big donors. Now, with less than six months to go until Election Day, Trump is racing to assemble a patchwork organization that can keep him competitive. To do so, he is largely flipping the traditional finance script. Rather than building an extensive party-steered finance network within the Trump campaign, Trump is building a modest operation within the RNC juggernaut. The trio's support came, in part, thanks to assurances from Trump that he would not use the dollars they raised to reimburse himself for the $36 million of his own fortune he has loaned his campaign committee, a Trump source said. In private meetings, the new slate of vice chairmen made it clear to Trump and his staffers that they and other donors weren't interested in helping raise money to pay back the billionaire businessman, according to the Trump source. Trump has already lent his campaign committee $36 million and has promised to spend more on his efforts. The donors want to see their money funneled into efforts, such as ramping up the ground organization, advertising and campaign travel. Trump says he will do just that. "I have absolutely no intention of paying myself back," Trump said in a statement Wednesday. "This money is a contribution made in order to 'Make America Great Again.'" Nevertheless, should Trump change course and redirect those primary campaign checks to himself, donors would have little recourse. "If he's going to pay himself back with that money there's nothing you can do to stop him," said Spencer Zwick, who ran Mitt Romney's finance team in 2012. "That, to me, seems like it might cause some concern." Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I understand his appeal to people who are entertained by his showmanship and theatrics. I understand his appeal to people who, as CD said, are driven by their basest qualities and who enjoy the way he insults people, speaks glowingly of violence against women and children, torture, and war crimes, and openly encourages violence against people who disagree with him. I understand his appeal to people who think that he's going to right all of the perceived "wrongs" against white people, and who believe he will put the poor and minorities in their place. I also understand his appeal (although that's the wrong word) to people who believe he's simply the lesser of two evils and that, despite his many flaws which they acknowledge, he's a better choice than whoever the Democratic candidate is. I don't understand his appeal to anyone who actually believes that he'll make a good president. I admit that I'm not entirely objective, but I've yet to see or hear a single thing he's said or done (in his lifetime-- not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll make a capable President of the United States. By contrast, I've seen and heard a lot (in his lifetime, not just during the campaign) that leads me to believe that he'll be at best incompetent and ineffective, and at worst, dangerous and corrupt. Your response tells me that you still don't understand his appeal. I think the challenge you're having lies in what you think is his appeal as you stated above. The people who are attracted to Trump for the reasons you stated above are a very very small minority of his supporters. For the majority of his supporters (myself included) these are things we have to look past in order to support him. Here's an article from a week or so ago that does a decent job of explaining one conservatives conversion to the Trump train. I was on early because he is a successful businessman and was self financing his campaign so he was more immune than most to corrupt influences. However, the more I learned about him the more my appeal broadened. Yes, there are some areas that he's lost a little credibility with me, but overall his positives far outweigh his negatives. I'm full on supporting him and most certainly not holding my nose. BTW, trump +5 in todays Rasmussen poll. Hillary has him right where she wants him. ;-) I love how you call Trump a person with no integrity and liar, but you fawn over Hillary's lack of integrity and lies. Anyway... I truly do wish he could have/would have continued self funding all the way through the entire campaign but I really don't think he could even if he wanted to. He listed his liquid assets around $200M last year (if I recall) so the only way he could would be to start selling Realestate or leveraging it with loans. He did self fund his primary campaign and did it very well. He stated several weeks ago that his intention was to self fund his primary campaign and then go the more traditional route for the general. I take back the fawn comment, because you guys have been pretty consistent on that. I know you're not big fans of hers, but you prefer her over Trump. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK