Hillary is just there throwing, racist, bigoted, sexist and everything else
.....................
Trump has supplied her with ample evidence. That has been one of his many issues.
So she's moved it away from the politics too
Sir Digby
Have a look at both DT/HC’s websites and make up your own mind.
DT’s economic policy, (which he placed front and centre of his campaign early on) was universally torn to shreds by economists. It was then tweaked, then given a complete make over, (as I understand it 3-4 times). This has been the same with many of his domestic and foreign policies.
His initial approach to dealing with ISIS was to carpet bomb areas where intelligence believed ISIS were operating from. When he was informed that carpet bombing was in fact, actually a war crime, he then suggested abandoning NATO and the Geneva Convention. Only to later soften his stance as polls demonstrated this would be unpopular.
I could go on all day but suggest you have a look at their respective websites, then fact check and make up your own mind.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 15 seconds ago
So she's moved it away from the politics too
...................
Only when she had to. Last night was a classic example of it. She laid the bait and watched Trump go off on one.
Trump has never wanted it to be on politics. He doesn't have the political savvy.
Digby
A good read here.
'Mrs Clinton's next chance to pull a rhetorical switch-a-roo came during the economic portion of the debate.
After a discussion of their tax proposals - and a predictable exchange of allegations over who's cutting and who's raising them too much - Mr Trump went after Mrs Clinton on her past support of trade deals.
When she waffled a bit, he tried to tag her with a line he used in an earlier debate with some success.
Why didn't Mrs Clinton enact her economic reforms over her 30 years in the public sphere? Mr Trump asked.
"You were very much involved in every aspect of this country," he said. "And you do have experience. I say the one thing you have over me is experience, but it's bad experience, because what you've done has turned out badly."
The problem with reusing attack lines is that sometimes your opponent prepares a defence - and Mrs Clinton had a scathing response ready to fly.
She said that while she was defending children's rights in the 1970s, Mr Trump was defending himself against charges he engaged in housing discrimination against African-Americans.
When Mrs Clinton was speaking out for women's rights as first lady in the 1990s, Mr Trump was taunting a beauty contest winner about her weight. And when she was in the White House situation room watching the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, Mr Trump was hosting a television reality show.
"I'm happy to compare my 30 years of experience, what I've done for this country, trying to help in every way I could, especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead, with your 30 years," she said.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 20 minutes ago
I have seen absolutely no policy or substance from him or his campaign on anything.
Watch the debates then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have watched the debates.
He's talked about Clinton's personality, behaviour and past, and about his personality, behaviour and past.
He's explicitly avoided wherever possible discussion about policy detail, because his key 'policies' are discrete, populist and/or headline-grabbing, blue sky brainfarts which individually are often preposterous (a giant wall the entire length of the Mexican border is simply perfectly unfeasible, for example) and together form nothing resembling a coherent manifesto.
(a giant wall the entire length of the Mexican border is simply perfectly unfeasible, for example)
............
Even more preposterous when he said he would make Mexico pay for it.
Vidicschin
That said, during the republican debates DT was able to divert attention away from his lack of political knowledge.
He successfully used insults, or answered a different question to what was asked, to avoid getting into the specifics.
Would love to have seen a ‘no holds barred’ interview with Paxman and DT. IMO, if he was held to account, Paxman would have crucified him.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
omment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 6 minutes ago
Vidicschin
That said, during the republican debates DT was able to divert attention away from his lack of political knowledge.
He successfully used insults, or answered a different question to what was asked, to avoid getting into the specifics.
.......................
I think that is a sum of a few factors.
One of them being that he didn't really have a good candidate to battle against, and that there were too many of them.
Obviously he also had the advantage of being the 'unknown quantity' at the start.
The warning signs were on the wall towards the end of it when it appeared that he was making people like Ted Cruz.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 13 minutes ago
Vidicschin
That said, during the republican debates DT was able to divert attention away from his lack of political knowledge.
He successfully used insults, or answered a different question to what was asked, to avoid getting into the specifics.
Would love to have seen a ‘no holds barred’ interview with Paxman and DT. IMO, if he was held to account, Paxman would have crucified him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paxman would have broken him
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
Freedom
I have just read the headline bits from the BBC.
Not sure how Trump can recover now, unless there is one big bombshell to come from her e-mails. And if there was , last night would have been the time to air it.
In the end though, Trumps personality disorders (he probably has more than any other human being) are his downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't like Trump but don't count him out just yet. The whole anti-establishment thing might swing a couple of independent votes his way.
Trump should've pressed hard on the O'Keefe video series revelation. I dunno why he didn't do that. Think that would've kicked up some more views and buzz about how corrupted politics is.
Problem with those videos, most of who are involved are being fired very quickly and no doubted covered up they ever had any part of it
I don't like Trump but don't count him out just yet. The whole anti-establishment thing might swing a couple of independent votes his way.
..............
The problem for him is that he needs more than that. his rhetoric on the votes being rigged might put some of his supporters off from voting all together.
I'll spin this in another direction.
Rigged election, if anything, should enforce the notion that Washington has it's own inner circle and that we should do more to stop the greediness that runs through it.
I think Trump's supporters are going to vote for him no matter what, anti-establishment people are the ones who are on the fence on whether he's the right guy or not, and then, your business owners and middle income people who are in the industry that Obama shackled in the last 8 years. Now, with that being said, I don't think that's enough votes to win the election but hell, I've seen weirder sh't happening this year so who knows.
He only needs to win a few swing states really
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 10 minutes ago
Problem with those videos, most of who are involved are being fired very quickly and no doubted covered up they ever had any part of it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is quite shocking. O'Keefe was actually at the debate last night.
Now whether or not you believe what happened in the video, you can't dispute that these DNC people are green lighting the hiring of agitators at Trump's rallies, relaying confidential information, etc.
Donna Brazile was cornered by Megyn Kelly yesterday regarding the handling of debate questions before the debate and the fact that Donna didn't confirm nor deny the emails is just troubling.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 22 minutes ago
He only needs to win a few swing states really
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He needs pretty much all of them and is trailing in most of them.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 2 minutes ago
He only needs to win a few swing states really
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas, for example, is turning into a swing state right now. Trump only has a 3-4 point lead as of yesterday in our state. We haven't swung blue for 30 some years.
Rigged election, if anything, should enforce the notion that Washington has it's own inner circle and that we should do more to stop the greediness that runs through it.
.................
The flaw in this is that if Washington has it's own inner circle, that will not have any effect on the voting.
The voting is done at State level.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 32 minutes ago
He only needs to win a few swing states really
.....................
Where do you get these incorrect notions from?
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 59 seconds ago
Rigged election, if anything, should enforce the notion that Washington has it's own inner circle and that we should do more to stop the greediness that runs through it.
.................
The flaw in this is that if Washington has it's own inner circle, that will not have any effect on the voting.
The voting is done at State level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can start by getting a guy in who's not part of the Washington Cartel...It takes one stone to start the ripple effect.
How did you think Ted Cruz lasted this long in the primaries? Or Bernie even?
How did you think Ted Cruz lasted this long in the primaries? Or Bernie even?
................
One reason only. Both Trump and Clinton were awful opponents.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Trump or Clinton
Page 29 of 107
30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34
posted on 20/10/16
Hillary is just there throwing, racist, bigoted, sexist and everything else
.....................
Trump has supplied her with ample evidence. That has been one of his many issues.
posted on 20/10/16
So she's moved it away from the politics too
posted on 20/10/16
Sir Digby
Have a look at both DT/HC’s websites and make up your own mind.
DT’s economic policy, (which he placed front and centre of his campaign early on) was universally torn to shreds by economists. It was then tweaked, then given a complete make over, (as I understand it 3-4 times). This has been the same with many of his domestic and foreign policies.
His initial approach to dealing with ISIS was to carpet bomb areas where intelligence believed ISIS were operating from. When he was informed that carpet bombing was in fact, actually a war crime, he then suggested abandoning NATO and the Geneva Convention. Only to later soften his stance as polls demonstrated this would be unpopular.
I could go on all day but suggest you have a look at their respective websites, then fact check and make up your own mind.
posted on 20/10/16
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 15 seconds ago
So she's moved it away from the politics too
...................
Only when she had to. Last night was a classic example of it. She laid the bait and watched Trump go off on one.
Trump has never wanted it to be on politics. He doesn't have the political savvy.
posted on 20/10/16
Digby
A good read here.
'Mrs Clinton's next chance to pull a rhetorical switch-a-roo came during the economic portion of the debate.
After a discussion of their tax proposals - and a predictable exchange of allegations over who's cutting and who's raising them too much - Mr Trump went after Mrs Clinton on her past support of trade deals.
When she waffled a bit, he tried to tag her with a line he used in an earlier debate with some success.
Why didn't Mrs Clinton enact her economic reforms over her 30 years in the public sphere? Mr Trump asked.
"You were very much involved in every aspect of this country," he said. "And you do have experience. I say the one thing you have over me is experience, but it's bad experience, because what you've done has turned out badly."
The problem with reusing attack lines is that sometimes your opponent prepares a defence - and Mrs Clinton had a scathing response ready to fly.
She said that while she was defending children's rights in the 1970s, Mr Trump was defending himself against charges he engaged in housing discrimination against African-Americans.
When Mrs Clinton was speaking out for women's rights as first lady in the 1990s, Mr Trump was taunting a beauty contest winner about her weight. And when she was in the White House situation room watching the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, Mr Trump was hosting a television reality show.
"I'm happy to compare my 30 years of experience, what I've done for this country, trying to help in every way I could, especially kids and families get ahead and stay ahead, with your 30 years," she said.
posted on 20/10/16
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 20 minutes ago
I have seen absolutely no policy or substance from him or his campaign on anything.
Watch the debates then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have watched the debates.
He's talked about Clinton's personality, behaviour and past, and about his personality, behaviour and past.
He's explicitly avoided wherever possible discussion about policy detail, because his key 'policies' are discrete, populist and/or headline-grabbing, blue sky brainfarts which individually are often preposterous (a giant wall the entire length of the Mexican border is simply perfectly unfeasible, for example) and together form nothing resembling a coherent manifesto.
posted on 20/10/16
(a giant wall the entire length of the Mexican border is simply perfectly unfeasible, for example)
............
Even more preposterous when he said he would make Mexico pay for it.
posted on 20/10/16
Vidicschin
That said, during the republican debates DT was able to divert attention away from his lack of political knowledge.
He successfully used insults, or answered a different question to what was asked, to avoid getting into the specifics.
Would love to have seen a ‘no holds barred’ interview with Paxman and DT. IMO, if he was held to account, Paxman would have crucified him.
posted on 20/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/10/16
omment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 6 minutes ago
Vidicschin
That said, during the republican debates DT was able to divert attention away from his lack of political knowledge.
He successfully used insults, or answered a different question to what was asked, to avoid getting into the specifics.
.......................
I think that is a sum of a few factors.
One of them being that he didn't really have a good candidate to battle against, and that there were too many of them.
Obviously he also had the advantage of being the 'unknown quantity' at the start.
The warning signs were on the wall towards the end of it when it appeared that he was making people like Ted Cruz.
posted on 20/10/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 13 minutes ago
Vidicschin
That said, during the republican debates DT was able to divert attention away from his lack of political knowledge.
He successfully used insults, or answered a different question to what was asked, to avoid getting into the specifics.
Would love to have seen a ‘no holds barred’ interview with Paxman and DT. IMO, if he was held to account, Paxman would have crucified him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paxman would have broken him
posted on 20/10/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
Freedom
I have just read the headline bits from the BBC.
Not sure how Trump can recover now, unless there is one big bombshell to come from her e-mails. And if there was , last night would have been the time to air it.
In the end though, Trumps personality disorders (he probably has more than any other human being) are his downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't like Trump but don't count him out just yet. The whole anti-establishment thing might swing a couple of independent votes his way.
Trump should've pressed hard on the O'Keefe video series revelation. I dunno why he didn't do that. Think that would've kicked up some more views and buzz about how corrupted politics is.
posted on 20/10/16
Problem with those videos, most of who are involved are being fired very quickly and no doubted covered up they ever had any part of it
posted on 20/10/16
I don't like Trump but don't count him out just yet. The whole anti-establishment thing might swing a couple of independent votes his way.
..............
The problem for him is that he needs more than that. his rhetoric on the votes being rigged might put some of his supporters off from voting all together.
posted on 20/10/16
I'll spin this in another direction.
Rigged election, if anything, should enforce the notion that Washington has it's own inner circle and that we should do more to stop the greediness that runs through it.
I think Trump's supporters are going to vote for him no matter what, anti-establishment people are the ones who are on the fence on whether he's the right guy or not, and then, your business owners and middle income people who are in the industry that Obama shackled in the last 8 years. Now, with that being said, I don't think that's enough votes to win the election but hell, I've seen weirder sh't happening this year so who knows.
posted on 20/10/16
He only needs to win a few swing states really
posted on 20/10/16
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 10 minutes ago
Problem with those videos, most of who are involved are being fired very quickly and no doubted covered up they ever had any part of it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It really is quite shocking. O'Keefe was actually at the debate last night.
Now whether or not you believe what happened in the video, you can't dispute that these DNC people are green lighting the hiring of agitators at Trump's rallies, relaying confidential information, etc.
Donna Brazile was cornered by Megyn Kelly yesterday regarding the handling of debate questions before the debate and the fact that Donna didn't confirm nor deny the emails is just troubling.
posted on 20/10/16
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 22 minutes ago
He only needs to win a few swing states really
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He needs pretty much all of them and is trailing in most of them.
posted on 20/10/16
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 2 minutes ago
He only needs to win a few swing states really
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas, for example, is turning into a swing state right now. Trump only has a 3-4 point lead as of yesterday in our state. We haven't swung blue for 30 some years.
posted on 20/10/16
Rigged election, if anything, should enforce the notion that Washington has it's own inner circle and that we should do more to stop the greediness that runs through it.
.................
The flaw in this is that if Washington has it's own inner circle, that will not have any effect on the voting.
The voting is done at State level.
posted on 20/10/16
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 32 minutes ago
He only needs to win a few swing states really
.....................
Where do you get these incorrect notions from?
posted on 20/10/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 59 seconds ago
Rigged election, if anything, should enforce the notion that Washington has it's own inner circle and that we should do more to stop the greediness that runs through it.
.................
The flaw in this is that if Washington has it's own inner circle, that will not have any effect on the voting.
The voting is done at State level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can start by getting a guy in who's not part of the Washington Cartel...It takes one stone to start the ripple effect.
How did you think Ted Cruz lasted this long in the primaries? Or Bernie even?
posted on 20/10/16
How did you think Ted Cruz lasted this long in the primaries? Or Bernie even?
................
One reason only. Both Trump and Clinton were awful opponents.
posted on 20/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 29 of 107
30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34