Trump will destroy Hillary

I step back and look at the two nominees, and I have to ask: What the (*)(*)(*)(*) is wrong with us?

 

I love almost everything about Trump.

I've had enough of politicians who just lie and speak PC when on camera.

I'll take Trumps style all day long 24/7


Hilary on the other hand, I would need 20 pages to write my gripes about that old evil hag

 

Just out of curiosity, what do you love about Donald most?

Is it his repeated, demonstrated racist bigotry?

Or his constant flip-flopping on issues, making John Kerry look like the rock of Gibraltar?

Or was it his cleverness in suckering thousands of people into spending scores of thousands of their money on bogus decrees?

Or maybe it's his penchant for "pathological lying"?

Or is it just is narcissitic "utterly amoral" personality that you love?

Equiring minds want to know.

 

You made a statement in your belief systems...nothing you posting was you trying to have a real discussion

 

He is starting in a bit of a hole, but he is a closer and Hillary isn't. Democrats are down 7,000,000 votes in the primaries and the GOP is up 8,000,000

 

Trump is a dishonest petulant little man child. He has no idea what he is talking about half the time, and the other half, he's peddling fear, ignorance, bigotry and xenophobia.

He's a political buffoon?

 

Uh huh..sure he is

So who are you voting for?

 

I will be voting for Mrs Clinton.

She has experience. She knows most of the world leaders she will have to deal with.

She knows the Congressional leadership.

She knows that establishment.

She knows how to make a deal, and won't whine like a three year old if she isn't "treated fairly".

She also has first hand knowledge of how the Presidency works, unlike Mr Trump, whose understanding of the world outside his inherited real estate company seems to be rather childish.

In short, she knows what she is doing.

 

That was hilarious, thank you. Needed a good laugh this morning.

Hilary is a evil old hag, that's the only.nice thing I can say about her

 

Racism and bigotry will eventually die of....old age---GC

Really? The best I have been able to figure out, it already is as old as history. More than likely it will end when the world ends. Until then enjoy the diversity.

 

Sorry, I thought you were trying to have a discussion when you made a statement of your belief systems.

I was just wondering about your belief system that makes you love Donald. But it's typical that Donald lovers can't really answer that question in the context of his "pathological lying" background and "utterly amoral" character. And that's what leading conservatives say about him.

- - - Updated - - -

"You made a statement in your belief systems...nothing you posting was you trying to have a real discussion"

 

must be a real great flavor of Kool-Aid.... keep drinkin.....

 

That doesn't actually address anything I wrote.

If, after a career in the public eye, you can only claim Hillary is a "closet" socialist, that would seem to be strong evidence she's not actually a socialist at all.

If you disagree with my statement that she has never called for confiscating people's guns, then please link to evidence showing different.

I understand why you can't refute my description of Trump. I'm just curious how you can be so aware of Hillary's flaws, and yet so blind to the fact that Trump has all of her flaws and more.

 

She knows what she's doing? Did she know what she was doing in Libya, with email servers, with Benghazi? WTF are you talking about?

 

Sure: she was taking out a dicator that had threatened to massacre his own people, and did it without a single American boot on the ground. That was rather impressive, and the right thing to do.

We then helped set up an interim government, consisting of moderate Libyans.

Did that interim government turn out to have difficulty establishing control over the country? Yes.

Did various organizations with links to terror groups take advantage of that lack of control to establish a presence in Libya? Yes.

Was that all predictable back when Gaddafi was threatening to massacre his people? No. It was one possible outcome, but only one of many.

So you are basically accusing Clinton of "incompetence" because she wasn't perfectly prescient. Nice ridiculous standard you've got there.

I hope, in the future, when dictators threaten massacres and we're in a position to do something about it, we do it. Even if it leads to a messy situation afterwards, with hacks such as yourself pretending you would have done better.

Oh, and did I mention that Trump pushed for intervention in LIbya?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trumps-pants-fire-claim-he-never-discussed-/

... and then lied about doing so, of course.

So whatever you want to say about Hillary on this, it applies to Trump as well.

*Shrug*. An instance where her desire for privacy led her to make a bad decision. But as bad decisions go, this was an extremely minor one. It was not a policy decision or anything reflecting on her actual job; it was a decision on how to handle internal, non-classified email communications. Was it a mistake? Yes. Guess what: everybody makes mistakes. Was it a gigantic mistake that put the country at risk and cast doubt on her competence? Of course not.

This was a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) "scandal" from the get-go, and that only becomes more apparent the more Republicans try to make it into something. Benghazi was a tragedy; but bad things happen sometimes in a dangerous world. There is no evidence that Hillary acted improperly, or that there was something she should have done that she didn't. Most right-wing criticism is, again, based on bull(*)(*)(*)(*) 20/20 hindsight: that Clinton should have somehow known that the consulate would be attacked, and overruled her security experts (the people whose job it is to balance all the security requests they receive from State department facilities around the world) and approve every single security request from Benghazi. It's complete nonsense.

20/20 hindsight is awesome, isn't it? Not really a valid way to criticize someone, but still awesome.

 

Well except that he's dividing his own base.

 

I'll just take the biggest blunder first and that was Libya. Clinton did exactly what she criticized bush for doing in Iraq with even worse results. She learned nothing from Bushes mistake. She had the same situation in Libya that bush had in Iraq and made the same decision he did after seeing what happened there. She had the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and went blind. How is this in any way smart?

 

Yeah, see, you're supposed to divide-and-conquer the OTHER person's base.

Trump is dividing the GOP base, while going out of his way to alienate women and minorities.

The 2016 electorate will be the most diverse in history:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rate-will-be-the-most-diverse-in-u-s-history/

Setting party-identification aside, let's look at demographics.

Trump fares poorly among women:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-womens-support-for-donald-trump-in-2-graphs/

Based on those numbers, Hillary would win women by 25 percentage points -- 63-37 or thereabouts.

Women make up a majority of voters -- 52%. So Hillary gets 32.7% of the overall vote just because of women.

Hispanics and Blacks are expected to make up 24% of voters. Trump is losing them by ridiculous margins: Hillary has the support of about 75% of Hispanics and about 90% of blacks,
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-hispanic-voters-223845
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/trump-and-the-black-vote/

Since we've already dealt with women (which includes female blacks and Hispanics), we'll apply those percentages only to the male 48% of the electorate. That results in:

Hispanic men: Another 4.3% of the overall vote for Hillary.
Black men: Another 5.2% of the overall vote for Hillary.

Run the numbers, and just on those three demographic groups alone, Hillary has locked up 42.2% of the overall vote.

White men make up about 33.6% of the electorate (take the total white share, and multiply by 0.48 to get the male share):
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

Hillary only needs another 7.3% of the overall vote in order to win. Which means she only needs to get 21.7% of the white male vote in order to win. She will easily do that.

All of this doesn't even factor in things like the following:
-- Democrats have a lopsided lead among other minorities (such as Asians), the fastest growing minority group in the electorate;
-- Democrats trail Republicans among white voters of all education levels, but do better among college-educated whites, a fast-growing segment of the population
-- Republicans really only have a lopsided lead among non-college-educated whites, a shrinking segment of the population
-- The Electoral College map, which favors Democrats

So Trump's strategy -- which basically boils down to "alienate everyone else in order to appeal to angry white men" -- is pretty much doomed. There simply aren't enough white men, angry or not, to elect him.

 

Really? We invaded Libya on false pretenses? We got embroiled in a decade-long occupation of Libya that killed thousands of American troops? I must have missed that.

See above. She learned PLENTY from Bush's mistake. The only way you can say she "made the same decision" is if you mean that, broadly, we should never take down dictators. That's the only similarity between Libya and Iraq.

Iraq: Attacked on false pretenses.
Libya: Attacked for clear, transparent reasons

Iraq: Invaded the country with hundreds of thousands of American troops
Libya: Not a single American boot on the ground

Iraq: Occupied the country for a decade, lost thousands of American troops killed
Libya: Not a single American boot on the ground

Iraq: No organization ready to replace Saddam in power
Libya: Existing organization ready to replace Gaddafi in power

Iraq: Toxic historical situation where Sunnis had repressed majority Shiites, meaning a democratic election would unleash lots of pent-up resentment
Libya: No such historical situation. Libya divided more along tribal lines than along religious ones, and Gaddafi played tribes against each other rather than picking one and repressing the others

I suppose I should also point out here that Obama was the actual president. Hillary strongly supported intervention in Libya, but it wasn't her decision, and she didn't have personal control over all the decisions being made.

I suppose I should ALSO point out that many of the people criticizing Obama and Hillary over Libya have also, at various times, called for armed intervention into Syria, or supported the Iraq invasion, or actually supported the Libya intervention before they opposed it.

We elect people to make hard decisions. Hard decisions are called "hard decisions" because they're HARD. There's no obvious right answer. Every choice has consequences and potential risks. People are not infallible, and the world is not perfectly knowable. Sometimes people will make the wrong call. Sometimes, even if you make the right call, subsequent events go sideways on you. Sometimes an extremely unlikely possibility will actually happen.

In card games, you can play your hand perfectly and still lose, due to things beyond your control, such as uneven card distribution. The real world is like that on steroids.

Using 20/20 hindsight to criticize people, without providing a plausible explanation for how they should have known better, is pathetic.

 

Her invasion of Libya and ousting the dictator that kept order in that brutal part of the world was the same thing bush did in Iraq. Both led to terrorist taking over the country and destabilizing the area. In Iraq it took longer because bush tried nation building and failed. Hillary broke the country and then walked away from it so it ended up the same mess as Iraq but did so in short order. The Powell doctrine of you break it you own it was ignored completely but Hillary and Obama own the mess their Libya decision created. As for comparing Saddam with Quadafi,do you really want to go there. Saddam broke UN resolutions,fired on US planes, gassed Kurds etc while Quadafi cooperated with UN resolutions and gave up his WMD and was compliant but Hillary still had him ousted. Lesson here for other dictators is why cooperate, they kill you anyway

 

So yes, your basic position is "we shouldn't oust dictators, even if they threaten to massacre their own people, because dictators keep order."

I strongly disagree with that worldview. I don't think we can or should go around knocking over dictators willy nilly, but one reason the Middle East (and South America, to an extent) is the mess it is is because we spent 50 years supporting dictators who "kept order."

I'm glad of many of our interventions in recent years:
-- Bosnia/Kosovo
-- Afghanistan
-- Libya
-- Somalia

I wish we had intervened in Rwanda.

Basically, I'm glad when we intervene to stop evil and end killings. Dictators are evil by default. If they behave, I'll leave them alone. But if they don't, we need to be willing to take them down. Otherwise we are complicit in what they do, because we could have stopped it, but chose to do nothing. Such is the moral fate of being the world's superpower.

The only intervention I opposed from the start, and still oppose, was Iraq. Because it was obvious from the beginning that it was being trumped up on false pretenses, and would be a major distraction from our fight in Afghanistan.

Later, when it became apparent that the occupation phase had barely been considered, and was planned and managed with Keystone Kop amateurishness, it added fuel to the fire. And when it turned out that the invasion not only was a distraction from the war on terror, but was actually CREATING jihadists at an alarming rate, that added even more fuel.

But those were follow-on criticisms of follow-on actions. the invasion of Iraq was illegitimate from the beginning, for reasons that don't actually apply to Libya.

 

If you can look at the results in Libya and defend that as a good decision on Hillary's part I guess you better vote for her. Party loyalty is an ugly and dangerous thing but unfortunately most have it.

 

Sure. Meanwhile, you keep using 20/20 hindsight to judge your leaders, and then don't be surprised when you fall for a con man like Trump.

 

Yes. And he is something Conservatives and the GOP realize they are directly responsible for.

 

Wrong, primary wins are in fact requisite to move forward, therefore they are in fact important. Anyway, can you name anyone in modern history has won the White House who lost more primaries than their opponent?