American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems (Vol 2)

[don4l]

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

I don't think that the Clintons have anything on him.

I think that he is actually a much nicer person than he pretended too be during the campaign. I also think that Hilary was a much nastier person than she pretended to be.

[Mr GrimNasty]

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

It would seem vindictive, stir up the misogynistic accusations, further harden the bitter establishment cronies against him who will clear her anyway,..... so it would be one massive distraction with no positive benefit, a massive strategic error,...... and despite what most think, he isn't actually a stupid person.

[jmorgan]

don4l said:

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

I don't think that the Clintons have anything on him.

I think that he is actually a much nicer person than he pretended too be during the campaign. I also think that Hilary was a much nastier person than she pretended to be.

He just said what people wanted to hear.

[Jimbeaux]

minimoog said:

Jimbeaux said:

Guys, Trump has no authority to change that flag rule back to what it once was, he knows that;

He does a very good impression of someone who hasn't the remotest idea of what he can or can't do. Who is simply firing off knee-jerk ideas with no thought, insight, or intellect behind them.

But there's more to it than that. He's learned from his business life that if you keep the bullst flying thick and fast enough his opponents don't know where or how to parry it. They're permanently disorientated and off-guard. So he doesn't need to be 'right', or truthful, or wise, or have any evidence whatsoever to back his self-serving statements up. He can just appeal to the mob by uttering any old populist st, and as we've seen they'll slurp it up all the live long day. And thus his ego is sated, his ringpiece is polished to a fine lustre by the tongues of his sycophants, and all's well in his world. Which is all he cares about.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the USA.

Edited by minimoog on Wednesday 30th November 20:46

Ladies & Gentlemen, another butthurt HRC supporter.

[Jimbeaux]

Halb said:

Jimbeaux said:

Years back, I was undecided on my opinion of the College. However, about 8 years ago, I settled on the opinion that it is a good thing.
The founding fathers wanted the whole nation to be represented. If population was massed in one state, those in sparsely populated ones would never have a say in who the POTUS would be. The point is to have all states somewhat equally represented. The number of electoral votes offers some credit for a state being able to draw higher populations but does not allow it to totally dominate the process.
Remember, the U.S. is designed to give states equal representation; therefore, allowing two jurisdictions, in this case New York City and Los Angeles to literally decide every POTUS election would fail to equally represent all of the states.

But electoral votes go off population anyway? So big pop purple states get all the cash. If it was a popular vote, then it would be less about tactics, money and what have you, and more about winning the argument and the majority of Americans.
The two senators rule is a good one, and that is where the bulk of real power for home stuff seems to lie.

Using your same logic, it may also cause the candidates to spend all of their time trying to influence Los Angeles & NYC while neglecting the desires of other parts of the nation(or something less exaggerated along those lines).

[Jimbeaux]

chris watton said:

Jill Stein's recount petition has been REJECTED in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania:

http://www.timesherald.com/general-news/20161130/m...

So, what happens now to all of that money that was donated for the recounts?

It will all go to future efforts to ensure fair voter processes...she said so!

[TheExcession]

chris watton said:

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

Perhaps Trump doesn't want Obama to think he will have to give her immunity from prosecution before he leaves office.

But probably not...

I suppose that could be an option. Come January I guess we will know. My Sister and BIL are UK born but Green card holders in the US, one works in the defense industry, the other in pharmaceuticals - both are white collar workers, and both of them in 'the lock her up camp'.

Interesting times.

[TheExcession]

don4l said:

I don't think that the Clintons have anything on him.

I think that he is actually a much nicer person than he pretended too be during the campaign. I also think that Hilary was a much nastier person than she pretended to be.

I'm inclined to agree.

It's on record here that I stated I think Trump has an altruistic desire to really try and sort out America.

But the back track on slamming Hillary has me wondering.

[TheExcession]

Mr GrimNasty said:

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

It would seem vindictive, stir up the misogynistic accusations, further harden the bitter establishment cronies against him who will clear her anyway,..... so it would be one massive distraction with no positive benefit, a massive strategic error,...... and despite what most think, he isn't actually a stupid person.

Completely agree - but he 'promised' he would do it.

Now I doubt many of us would want to see our Granny Hillary in prison, but he did state that this is what he'd do. I guess January will show us all.

[amusingduck]

TheExcession said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

It would seem vindictive, stir up the misogynistic accusations, further harden the bitter establishment cronies against him who will clear her anyway,..... so it would be one massive distraction with no positive benefit, a massive strategic error,...... and despite what most think, he isn't actually a stupid person.

Completely agree - but he 'promised' he would do it.

Now I doubt many of us would want to see our Granny Hillary in prison, but he did state that this is what he'd do. I guess January will show us all.

Why not? Why does she deserve a get out of jail free card for being too hideously incompetent to win the election, with every possible advantage stacked in her favour, against an orange faced steak salesman?

[minimoog]

scherzkeks said:

minimoog said:

scherzkeks said:

No, he has simply outsmarted you (but you are not alone). While I don't agree with the flag statement, his aim here is to flip the script on the protesters and media in one fell swoop. He tossed out a big piece of cheese, let them attack him, then pointed out that HRC herself tried to pass a law on flag desecration.

And how is this outsmarting me again?

Already covered in original post.

No it wasn't. If anything you just repeated what I said in slightly different terms.

[minimoog]

Jimbeaux said:

Ladies & Gentlemen, another butthurt HRC supporter.

Keep slurping.

BTW Butthurt. Sounds like a playground insult used by children, unsurprisingly.

For the record I think Clinton is fking awful.

[scherzkeks]

minimoog said:

No it wasn't. If anything you just repeated what I said in slightly different terms.

No, I just disagree with your second paragraph.

[XM5ER]

TheExcession said:

chris watton said:

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

Perhaps Trump doesn't want Obama to think he will have to give her immunity from prosecution before he leaves office.

But probably not...

I suppose that could be an option. Come January I guess we will know. My Sister and BIL are UK born but Green card holders in the US, one works in the defense industry, the other in pharmaceuticals - both are white collar workers, and both of them in 'the lock her up camp'.

Interesting times.

What people may have forgotten is that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation is ongoing, there may be plenty of stuff in that case to lock her up and in the meantime Trump get to look presidential and appear to hold the cohesion of society as more important than a personal vendetta. Possibly.

[rscott]

Mr GrimNasty said:

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

It would seem vindictive, stir up the misogynistic accusations, further harden the bitter establishment cronies against him who will clear her anyway,..... so it would be one massive distraction with no positive benefit, a massive strategic error,...... and despite what most think, he isn't actually a stupid person.

But why the sudden backtracking? Nothing's changed since before the election which would make it seem any more or less vindictive.

Makes me wonder how many more of Trump's campaign promises will be discarded...

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

But why the sudden backtracking? Nothing's changed since before the election which would make it seem any more or less vindictive.

Makes me wonder how many more of Trump's campaign promises will be discarded...

I would suggest it is because this thing isn't over yet. There have been moves to hold recounts and, supposedly, some electors may not vote for Trump.

Given the massive political machine he still has to deal with, I could understand wanting to appear as benign as possible when it comes to dealing with Clinton.

[Jimbeaux]

minimoog said:

Jimbeaux said:

Ladies & Gentlemen, another butthurt HRC supporter.

Keep slurping.

BTW Butthurt. Sounds like a playground insult used by children, unsurprisingly.

For the record I think Clinton is fking awful.

Enlightening conclusion; and btw, those of us from the playground believe scherzkeks was correct, you were "out smarted".

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 2nd December 11:40

[arfursleep]

TheExcession said:

I don't think this has been discussed yet.

Why the U-turn on prosecuting Hillary? It was one of his manifesto pledges.

What have they (the Clintons) got on him? There's something deep and out of sight going on with this issue.

He's waiting until he's in office, feet securely under the desk and with the Congress and Senate behind him and then he's going to skewer her after some 'new' evidence comes to light. Bannon might be holding something juicy.

Or he's going to do nothing.

I don't think even Trump knows.

[minimoog]

Jimbeaux said:

you were "out smarted".

You're both using that word like it means something to me. It doesn't. I'm thousands of miles away from all of you, mercifully. I don't have a dog in the fight, so there's nothing to outsmart. He's a self-serving narcissist who uses lies and confusion to seduce his supporters and bamboozle his enemies, and I know the type very well from direct personal experience. I doubt very much you would disagree that's how he operates - you just don't care because you think it's all fair play in order to make you all Great again (i.e. take you all back to the 1950s). In fact not only do you not care, you think it's clever. And to a point you're right - it is, so far. I personally don't think it's a sustainable tactic and I reckon he'll come unstuck bigly at some point. The only question is how much it affects the rest of the country - and perhaps other countries - when it happens.

[XM5ER]

Funny
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sW85ZcswiqM&feat...

One thing that has been very different about this election is the quality of the trolling.