As Trump rises, Clinton struggles with traditional playbook

[timewilltell]

On 9/21/2016 at 11:00 PM, Silurian said:

 

Let's compare the Truth-O-Meter scorecards of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton shall we?

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

 

Seems like most of Clinton's statements fall around the "Mostly True" mark while Trump's mostly fall around the "False" mark.

 

Ha ha that's a funny site.  The crux though is the context and content of the lies.  Lying about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and basing a war in which millions die a la  Bush is a far bigger lie than Clinton is too sick to serve.  One also has to strip out the nonsense Trump spouts obviously intent on rousing his supporters from ones that are of national significance.  It seems to me that Clinton is a liar on a grand scale, dangerously manipulative and criminally involved in several huge issues - murder of opponents, selling arms to IS and disappearing emails amongst a few.  I don't see how she can be trusted at all.  As for Trump - he is just a buffoon but a rather smart one who will go around like a bull in a china shop saying all the things that should be said and upsetting all and sundry in the meantime.  A breath of fresh air from the horrible politically correct double speak and lies the world has been putting up with for decades.  Neither are fit to be president really but then that is a whole other discussion. 

[Silurian]

It looks like Hillary's next play is a message about some of Trump's comments on women. This is her latest campaign ad.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I think demonizing the entire BLM movement over some unpleasant incidents and statements will just backfire. 

 Almost every single incident they have rioted about turned out to be a justified shooting - including some that did not appear to be initially. The BLM movement has no credibility.

[Scotwight]

6 hours ago, Chicog said:

Talking of Trump rising, I notice today that Rasmussen have laughably put him six points in front of Clinton nationally - a difference of 12 points over the last NBC/WSJ poll.

It makes you wonder if there is any point in taking these polls seriously.

Nate Silver has Hillary 60 and Trump 40.  He mucked up the UK election and BBC is hiding it.  http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/revealed-the-documentary-the-bbc-dont-want-you-to-see/

[Chicog]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

555555555555555555555555

When HRC was ahead in the polls, all her supporters on here were cheering and posting many poll diagrams.

 

She is ahead in the polls.

Just not according to Rasmussen.
 

Reading a bit of their background.....

 

Quote

...He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate race, in which Rasmussen, in a poll completed three weeks before the election, showed incumbent Daniel Inouye only 13 points ahead, whereas in actuality he won by a 53% margin – a difference of 40 points from Rasmussen's poll, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998."

 

 

..... it would seem they are pretty shit at polling. Or perhaps they simply give the result they want people to believe.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

16 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

She is ahead in the polls.

Just not according to Rasmussen.
 

Reading a bit of their background.....

 

 

 

..... it would seem they are pretty shit at polling. Or perhaps they simply give the result they want people to believe.

 

 

 

 Maybe when you only present ONE bad call.  Actually, they have a decent record. Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election. Politico  said Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome."

[Johpa]

It galls me that this race is close enough that I may have to squander my vote on Clinton instead of supporting a third party candidate.  It galls me even more that there are so many otherwise intelligent people who can not see Trump for the typical streetwise conman from Queens who of course can get you "the best" of whatever it is you want, but who remains completely incompetent to be president. Yes, of course they both lie, one is a politician and the other is a salesman selling himself, politics and sales are both careers that require one to make a habit of telling lies, one to get elected, the other to enrich oneself.  Both are equally contemptible in that regard.  But I would rather have a less than truthful career politician as president, just like all the previous presidents rather than an incompetent conman from Queens.

 

The great Samantha Bee summed up Hillary's problem recently, and I may be paraphrasing here a bit, but Bee put in quite succinctly that Clinton is the only woman she knows who can trip over her own dick.

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, Johpa said:

It galls me that this race is close enough that I may have to squander my vote on Clinton instead of supporting a third party candidate.  It galls me even more that there are so many otherwise intelligent people who can not see Trump for the typical streetwise conman from Queens who of course can get you "the best" of whatever it is you want, but who remains completely incompetent to be president. Yes, of course they both lie, one is a politician and the other is a salesman selling himself, politics and sales are both careers that require one to make a habit of telling lies, one to get elected, the other to enrich oneself.  Both are equally contemptible in that regard.  But I would rather have a less than truthful career politician as president, just like all the previous presidents rather than an incompetent conman from Queens.

 

The great Samantha Bee summed up Hillary's problem recently, and I may be paraphrasing here a bit, but Bee put in quite succinctly that Clinton is the only woman she knows who can trip over her own dick.

 

 

I agree with much of what you are saying. However, I am pretty certain that (from my point of view) Trump will make much better Supreme Court picks than Hillary. That elevates him as a choice. It is probably the most important thing about this election. Also, I do not think it is impossible that he could turn out to be a decent president, but, I am far from convinced of that.

[Chicog]

44 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

I agree with much of what you are saying. However, I am pretty certain that (from my point of view) Trump will make much better Supreme Court picks than Hillary. That elevates him as a choice. It is probably the most important thing about this election. Also, I do not think it is impossible that he could turn out to be a decent president, but, I am far from convinced of that.

 

I don't get what all this Supreme Court pick nonsense is about.

The President doesn't just put them on the court, they have to be agreed by the Senate don't they?

OK the Pres could make recess appointments, but they are only ever temporary.

As it stands, Clinton wouldn't be able to pick her nose without the Senate throwing a hissy fit, much as it has been with Obama and a GOP-controlled Senate.

 

So I really don't think this is an issue.
 

After all, Kennedy was a Reagan pick, and it didn't stop him supporting gay marriage, did it?

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

30 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

So I really don't think this is an issue.
 

 

 

It is a MAJOR issue. You do not understand our political system.

[Chicog]

12 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

It is a MAJOR issue. You do not understand our political system.

 

Rubbish, it's all there in black and white.

By all means refute my argument with something sensible, but if this is the best you've got, don't waste my time.

 

 

[Scotwight]

53 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Rubbish, it's all there in black and white.

By all means refute my argument with something sensible, but if this is the best you've got, don't waste my time.

 

 

JUDGMENT DAY 2016:
THE FUTURE OF THE SUPREME COURT AS A CRITICAL ISSUE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

 

Of all the important issues at stake in the 2016 presidential election, one stands out for right-wing conservatives, as it should for all Americans: the future of the Supreme Court. Particularly in recent years, the Court has issued closely divided 5-4 rulings that have had enormous effects on our daily lives in a number of areas, including equal marriage rights for LGBT couples, the validity of the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights, workers’ rights, money in politics, civil rights, and many more. With four justices on the Court older than 80 during the first term of our next president, a shift of one vote on the Court could seriously endanger the 5-4 precedents that protect our rights but could also provide the opportunity to mitigate or even overturn damaging decisions that have harmed Americans, depending on who nominates justices after 2016.

 

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/judgement-day-2016-future-supreme-court-critical-issue-2016-presidential-e

 

3 sitting Justices in 80's

 

Next President Could Stack the Deck as Supreme Court Justices Near Retirement

 

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/17/next-president-could-stack-the-deck-as-supreme-court-justices-near-retirement/

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Scotwight

[Chicog]

54 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

JUDGMENT DAY 2016:
THE FUTURE OF THE SUPREME COURT AS A CRITICAL ISSUE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

 

Of all the important issues at stake in the 2016 presidential election, one stands out for right-wing conservatives, as it should for all Americans: the future of the Supreme Court. Particularly in recent years, the Court has issued closely divided 5-4 rulings that have had enormous effects on our daily lives in a number of areas, including equal marriage rights for LGBT couples, the validity of the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights, workers’ rights, money in politics, civil rights, and many more. With four justices on the Court older than 80 during the first term of our next president, a shift of one vote on the Court could seriously endanger the 5-4 precedents that protect our rights but could also provide the opportunity to mitigate or even overturn damaging decisions that have harmed Americans, depending on who nominates justices after 2016.

 

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/judgement-day-2016-future-supreme-court-critical-issue-2016-presidential-e

 

3 sitting Justices in 80's

 

Next President Could Stack the Deck as Supreme Court Justices Near Retirement

 

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/17/next-president-could-stack-the-deck-as-supreme-court-justices-near-retirement/

 

 

There is no "stacking the deck" when the Senate has to approve the nominee, unless the Democrats win back the Senate in November.

 

And anyway, as we've seen, appointing a conservative judge does not mean you get the decisions you want.

 

Mind you, with this bunch of monkeys running the Senate, you would expect them to block every nomination they get from Clinton (assuming she's president), leaving her with absolutely no choice but recess appointments or leaving SCOTUS in a supposedly political stalemate.

 

[Chicog]

Quote

a shift of one vote on the Court could seriously endanger the 5-4 precedents that protect our rights but could also provide the opportunity to mitigate or even overturn damaging decisions that have harmed Americans, depending on who nominates justices after 2016.

 

That's true enough though.

It's a good opportunity to bin that ridiculous "Citizens United" rubbish.

[Scotwight]

56 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

There is no "stacking the deck" when the Senate has to approve the nominee, unless the Democrats win back the Senate in November.

 

And anyway, as we've seen, appointing a conservative judge does not mean you get the decisions you want.

 

Mind you, with this bunch of monkeys running the Senate, you would expect them to block every nomination they get from Clinton (assuming she's president), leaving her with absolutely no choice but recess appointments or leaving SCOTUS in a supposedly political stalemate.

 

The Republicans control the Senate.  Trump can stack the court.  

[Chicog]

True enough, and wouldn't they just love to.

 

 

[Scotwight]

31 minutes ago, Chicog said:

True enough, and wouldn't they just love to.

 

 

Shhh don't tell the Democrats here.  They don't know yet.  

[Chicog]

I fear for America if they had a load of god botherers running SCOTUS, I really do.

[Chicog]

TV playing up again!

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Chicog

[Chicog]

And again!

Edited September 24, 2016 by Chicog

[Chicog]

I fear for America if they had a load of god botherers running SCOTUS, I really do.

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, Chicog said:

 

That's true enough though.
 

 

Now you are getting it. The Supreme Court picks are probably the most important thing about this election.

[Chicog]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

Now you are getting it. The Supreme Court picks are probably the most important thing about this election.

 

If Trump wins, I think his supreme court picks would be the last of Americans' worries.

 

[Scotwight]

35 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

If Trump wins, I think his supreme court picks would be the last of Americans' worries.

 

You have an inflated idea of what a President can do.  Except in a small nummber of circumstances the President has no money to spend.  Supreme Court positions are the gift that keeps giving.  Congress is the most powerful branch of the government.  

Edited September 24, 2016 by Scotwight

[Chicog]

24 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

You have an inflated idea of what a President can do.  Except in a small nummber of circumstances the President has no money to spend.  Supreme Court positions are the gift that keeps giving.  Congress is the most powerful branch of the government.  

 

No I don't, unless the President no longer commands the US military.

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Chicog said:

 

No I don't, unless the President no longer commands the US military.

 

 

 

 

I suggest that that is more an honourary title than reality. The queen of England is an officer in the UK military, but does anyone believe she gives any orders?

You really think Obama knows anything about running the military? Far as I know he's never been in the military.

I'd reckon if he gave an illegal order, it wouldn't be carried out.

[Bob9]

3 hours ago, Chicog said:

I fear for America if they had a load of god botherers running SCOTUS, I really do.

I fear far more if HRC appoints all left-wing ideologues.

Trump has provided a potential list of nominees - most pundits have said they are 'reasonable'.

Clinton is trying to avoid making any commitments - because she has vested interests to reward.

And what makes you think Clinton will not use the 'recess appointment' process to get around any Senate ??

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, Chicog said:

I fear for America if they had a load of god botherers running SCOTUS, I really do.

 

They have been running it for around 240 years already and we have done alright since then.

[Chicog]

11 hours ago, Bob9 said:

I fear far more if HRC appoints all left-wing ideologues.

Trump has provided a potential list of nominees - most pundits have said they are 'reasonable'.

Clinton is trying to avoid making any commitments - because she has vested interests to reward.

And what makes you think Clinton will not use the 'recess appointment' process to get around any Senate ??

 

I actually did say that if you read, but recess appointments are only temporary.

[Bob9]

Fair enough - but two years is a long time in politics.