Clinton vs. Trump - State of the Union

[metis]

Or okaying the Keystone Pipeline and energy independence...or bringing businesses and jobs back to the US...or strengthening the military...or really being concerned with women's health issues... Sorry, but Hillary comes off as an empty pants suit when it comes to letting people what her thinking truly is.

The U.S. is now exporting oil, our stock market has doubled since Obama took office, we spend more on the military than about the other top seven nations combined (also, did you ever hear the word "sequester" by chance, and how that came to be?), she's repeatedly covered women's health and equality issues (check out her China speech), and yet you say she's the one that's "empty".

 

[Revoltingest]

With Trump, you'll have a slutty first lady.

With Hillary...OK basically the same deal here.

I see Clinton being at best a "****", & quite likely much worse.
But what's wrong with Trump's wife?

 

[Revoltingest]

The U.S. is now exporting oil, our stock market has doubled since Obama took office, we spend more on the military than about the other top seven nations combined (also, did you ever hear the word "sequester" by chance, and how that came to be?), she's repeatedly covered women's health and equality issues (check out her China speech), and yet you say she's the one that's "empty".

To "strengthen the military" isn't about just spending.
Elect me prez, & I could cut the budget while strengthening it.
The trick is to ditch the policeman of the world agenda, & focus upon self defense.
This means a greatly different approach to strategy, hardware, & hardening of the private sector.
What does Trump intend?
So far, this is not clear to me.

 

[Nous]

Clinton, who as a Senator was given a 100% score by the Humane Society Legislative Fund, will presumably continue to support animal-friendly legislation that the Humane Society supports, whereas Trump might appoint his trophy-hunter son as Secretary of the Interior: http://blog.hslf.org/political_anim...itz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=hslf

 

[BSM1]

Clinton, who as a Senator was given a 100% score by the Humane Society Legislative Fund, will presumably continue to support animal-friendly legislation that the Humane Society supports, whereas Trump might appoint his trophy-hunter son as Secretary of the Interior: http://blog.hslf.org/political_anim...itz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=hslf

Let's hope so.

 

[BSM1]

I appreciate the political side step of the criticism. You should be a Trump Intern! You get a free hat!

Do you have a jet with your name on the side? Hard to argue with success.

 

[Quetzal]

Do you have a jet with your name on the side? Hard to argue with success.

Why are you changing the topic? I understand if you can't answer to the hypocrisy of Trump's campaign, it's okay. Most, if not all, politicians are like that.

 

[metis]

Do you have a jet with your name on the side? Hard to argue with success.

I have a Ford Focus and I could easily stencil my name on the side.

 

[Akivah]

Do you have a jet with your name on the side? Hard to argue with success.

So is the contrast that you are posting:
Trump will only travel in vehicles that are labeled with his name
and Clinton will use the vehicles as is?

I was hoping for more substantive posts. Though the humor of posts #9-10 from Demon Slayer are cool too.

 

[BSM1]

I have a Ford Focus and I could easily stencil my name on the side.

So is the contrast that you are posting:
Trump will only travel in vehicles that are labeled with his name
and Clinton will use the vehicles as is?

I was hoping for more substantive posts. Though the humor of posts #9-10 from Demon Slayer are cool too.

Sour grapes?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you have a jet with your name on the side? Hard to argue with success.

Hmmmm.....when I become prez, I know what I want on me plane.

 

[metis]

Sour grapes

Not at all. I have never in my life judged my happiness or lack thereof based on money, and I have never had a lot of it, btw. I would no more want to be Trump or be like him just for riches than I would want to be some other bigoted and dishonest millionaire or billionaire.

BTW, I wouldn't want to be Hillary either-- just for the record.

 

[Acim]

The problem is Trump is not taking many official positions. Look at his website and compare it to Clinton's in regards to the issues. Hard to even begin to predict what he would do if he, himself, doesn't know what to do.

I prefer Trump's selection of issues over Hillary's and I have very little to no trust in Hillary to actually address them for the benefit of all.

Really both sites are just typical partisan stuff that any campaign puts forth.

 

[Acim]

OK, we have two candidates that most people aren't thrilled about. Put the rhetoric and parties aside. What do you think the country will look like under each of them? Please put the contrast in your posts, such as regarding immigration, Clinton will do this whereas Trump will do that.

I'm trying to decide between the two and I'd like to see the difference between the two on actual issues and policies.

I don't think it's possible to put the rhetoric and parties aside AND contrast the difference between the two. Usually candidates will say things to try and get elected. We just happen to have 2 candidates (maybe even 3) that are extreme examples of this.

I think the country will look about the same in all honesty. My political bias has opinions about which one I'd prefer, but I don't see executive branch having as much supreme power as others seem to weight it with.

I would've thought with all that Obama campaigned about before his first term that he'd be well known as anti-war and America would be (somehow) in a much better position globally getting out of middle eastern battles. Yet, that type of prediction circa 2008 would've been way off base with reality of today and pretty much his entire term. He's clearly a war-time president. If he were Republican doing all the questionable military stuff he's authorized, he'd probably have been impeached by now for campaigning in one direction and going in essentially the opposite direction.

And seeing that the country looks about the same under Obama as it did under Bush, I'm thinking it won't be much different regardless of who's in there. I think certain things will possibly be vastly different, but the 3 or 4 biggest items (for every election since the beginning of time) will be about the same.

 

[metis]

I prefer Trump's selection of issues over Hillary's and I have very little to no trust in Hillary to actually address them for the benefit of all.

Really both sites are just typical partisan stuff that any campaign puts forth.

But the reality is that Trump really doesn't much get into issues as many in his own party have been upset with him about. Even when he does, he is so vague and far-fetched that he's hard to take seriously.

For example, the wall he says the Mexicans will pay for. Really; how? And when even some of his fellow Pubs call him a "pathological liar", and nine known Pubs in Congress publicly have said that they will not vote for him, doesn't that send up quite a few red-flags.

 

[metis]

I don't think it's possible to put the rhetoric and parties aside AND contrast the difference between the two. Usually candidates will say things to try and get elected. We just happen to have 2 candidates (maybe even 3) that are extreme examples of this.

I think the country will look about the same in all honesty. My political bias has opinions about which one I'd prefer, but I don't see executive branch having as much supreme power as others seem to weight it with.

I would've thought with all that Obama campaigned about before his first term that he'd be well known as anti-war and America would be (somehow) in a much better position globally getting out of middle eastern battles. Yet, that type of prediction circa 2008 would've been way off base with reality of today and pretty much his entire term. He's clearly a war-time president. If he were Republican doing all the questionable military stuff he's authorized, he'd probably have been impeached by now for campaigning in one direction and going in essentially the opposite direction.

And seeing that the country looks about the same under Obama as it did under Bush, I'm thinking it won't be much different regardless of who's in there. I think certain things will possibly be vastly different, but the 3 or 4 biggest items (for every election since the beginning of time) will be about the same.

I gotta cut this short but let me just say that I see quite a bit of difference between this and the previous administration, and there undoubtedly would have been even more of a difference if Obama not have had to deal with the Republican-controlled Do-Nothing Congress that have even voted down programs put forth by this administration that the Republicans had previously been in favor of.

Gotta go, so may you & all have a great Memorial Day weekend.

 

[Acim]

For example, the wall he says the Mexicans will pay for. Really; how?

Before I went to donaldtrump.com, I would've provided you with a guess that made most sense to me. Essentially how anything political is paid for. Wanna do business with the government? You pay that government lots of money and they'll continue to be nice or neutral to you. Refuse to, and you are exercising hostile relations. But after going to his site, here's what it says:

It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:

I'm not including "the following" cause I feel the first part answers the basic political question. Like all campaign promises, it remains to be seen if he'll actually be able to do it. No different than promising free college tuition. Sure there'll be people that love that message, and the how isn't impossible to conceive of, but the reality will likely be either a) it doesn't happen cause some opposing party will oppose it and treat their opposition as bigger than all other issues and/or b) it does happen but lots of compromise occurs along the way, like with Obamacare. Trump has gone so far out on a limb with this that he'll likely push for it early on, but it would be easy to get leverage / political compromise from him based on what's stated. If he really thinks he'll have to give up nothing, then Dems just need some pseudo opposition party to be relentless the entire time he's in office, like the whole Keystone pipeline stuff.

And when even some of his fellow Pubs call him a "pathological liar", and nine known Pubs in Congress publicly have said that they will not vote for him, doesn't that send up quite a few red-flags.

Yes, but he's also got some green flags that have made it seem like past candidates went about things in a much tougher way than Trump has ever had to do. He's certainly a questionable candidate to get behind, but he's clearly not the only one. The last 3 standing are all really really questionable, and thus it comes down to party stuff and how much will the campaigns be able to swing independent voters. It's usually a fairly interesting process and this one seems like it could be the most interesting one ever. Though come September, I'm sure most of us will be wishing it was over, and ready to move on.

 

[BSM1]

Not at all. I have never in my life judged my happiness or lack thereof based on money, and I have never had a lot of it, btw. I would no more want to be Trump or be like him just for riches than I would want to be some other bigoted and dishonest millionaire or billionaire.

BTW, I wouldn't want to be Hillary either-- just for the record.

Unfortunately I still don't think you get it, but peace out.

 

[metis]

Unfortunately I still don't think you get it, but peace out.

Just a reminder that communications is at the least a two-way street ...

and peace out to you as well.

 

[averageJOE]

I just don't get it. When I first joined the military and later applied for a federal job I had a background check to make sure all my legal obligations were met. I wouldn't have been able to join the military or get my federal job if I, say, had an open criminal case. So it boggles my mind that that same criteria isn't extended to the presidency, the most important job.

So now our choices for the president, one is being investigated by the FBI and the other is about to stand trial for fraud.