Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest musky

2016 Democratic National Convention

Recommended Posts

How many times over the course of her 30+ years in the public spotlight, even after she's served in some of the highest-ranking positions in government, has Hillary Clinton had to be "re-introduced" or redefined, like nobody knows her? It's ridiculous. It's all a contrived charade.

 

I can agree that it is "all" a contrived charade.  That includes the non-stop, unsuccessful attempts to try to prove she is some conniving, wicked individual...... the 2-dimension cartoon character her husband referred to last night.

 

She's somewhere in between.  She is not the self-less, ideologically pure, girl-scout who the Clinton camp wants you to believe.  She is not the hardened criminal and corrupt politicians portrayed in the narratives you've accepted as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the URBAN Ohio Message Board, shouldn't there be some discussion about which candidate supports cities? 

 

Engineering News Record says the GOP platform calls for removal of all transit funding:

 

http://www.enr.com/articles/39893-gop-platform-calls-for-phasing-out-federal-mass-transit-funding

 

Everyone has the one issue that matters to them more than others.  For some people it is guns or abortion, but for me, the issue is urban transit and cities vs support for sprawl.

 

He'll make sure the trains run on time or something. Or so I've heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes no sense that she would've personally executed those trades.  This isn't like the stock market. This is 1979. You would've had to have incredible insight to know how the futures markets work, how to play them, and how to even get a trade executed. i would say she was taking the responsibility that she did open the account and allowed the trades to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for all of the people attacking Hillary and defending Trump (Ram, surf, EVD, etc).

 

Do you think Trump will make a better president than Clinton?

 

I think Trump is just in this thing to make a show and cause a stir.  I do not consider him a serious candidate and hope enough voters are smart enough not to cast their ballot for him.  I understand the frustration of trotting out the usual "establishment" type picks in the primaries and not wanting to elect a "traditional" politician, but Trump would be a major setback for the country if he is elected to power.  Thankfully, you see some people on that side of the aisle seeing through his B.S. and refusing to support him.

 

I have serious concerns about Clinton, but in a "lesser of two evils" choice she's ahead of Trump.  That said, in the next three months I will consider casting a vote for Gary Johnson, who is polling at 9-10% recently in some national polls and who could have an outside shot at winning Utah.  Some quick research shows I share many common beliefs with him, but it's also early.

 

The interesting thing for me is to see how rigged the Democratic primaries were.  We can just go ahead and stop saying how fair a process the primaries are (I don't know if anyone was still saying that, though).  It's also troubling to see how many in the so-called "unbiased" media are working with the DNC.  It clearly shapes the national narrative on certain stories.  It's one thing if it's Rachel Maddow, but reporters who supposedly don't have an agenda?  All that makes it very hard for me to take the DNC seriously.  I'm just sick of both parties, which is why I said above I will seriously have to consider voting for Gary Johnson.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for all of the people attacking Hillary and defending Trump (Ram, surf, EVD, etc).

 

Do you think Trump will make a better president than Clinton?

 

Wow. I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I don't really like either candidate for numerous reasons. I will say that a Clinton's presidency will be far more predictable, which in many aspects is a good thing. Uncertainty always seems to upset our economy. Now Hillary has been surrounded by experienced policy makers for years. We have a pretty good idea what's on the agenda for her and the power structure of the party.

 

Who the hell really knows what President Donald Trump is going to do?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best line of the week is Bill saying best gift he ever got from Hillarynis knowing her.  Lifelong womanizer who cheated publicly and privately but boy does he cherish her....

 

".....cheers from women in the crowd...."

 

Much worse is the womanizer actually running for President as the GOP nominee.

 

Really?  Is it much worse?  Has Trump been accused of sexual harrassment?  Has he had affairs with interns?

 

It's amazing how Bill Clinton left office in shame and all of a sudden he's become this beloved elder statesmen of the Dems.  The guy was impeached for lying under oath.  And they trot him out as A-list talent.

 

You're correct sir--trump only was accused of marital rape, impregnated another women, dumped his wife and married the baby mama.  He's also been accused by multiple women of groping and harassment.

 

The fact that both parties are associating themselves with these guys speaks volumes about the state of our affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for all of the people attacking Hillary and defending Trump (Ram, surf, EVD, etc).

 

Do you think Trump will make a better president than Clinton?

 

Wow. I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I don't really like either candidate for numerous reasons. I will say that a Clinton's presidency will be far more predictable, which in many aspects is a good thing. Uncertainty always seems to upset our economy. Now Hillary has been surrounded by experienced policy makers for years. We have a pretty good idea what's on the agenda for her and the power structure of the party.

 

Who the hell really knows what President Donald Trump is going to do?

 

I'm not really sure that question can be fully answered at this point. Why don't we wait until the first debate to get a better feel of how each of the candidates perform? Hillary is known for her debate skills, so Trump might fall flat on his face. However, we do have track record for Hillary that cannot be ignored. The #1 issue facing our nation is national security, and let's face it, the world is in its biggest mess since WWII, and Hillary's reign as Secretary of State was a disaster. Not that's she's solely responsible of course, but she certainly bears at least some of the responsibility. Again, since Trump is totally untested as an elected official, it would be difficult to say how he would perform in office, but if we don't have a new sense of direction soon away from the rose-colored PC outlook of the current administration (and by implication, a Hillary administration) we will be seeing the same type of daily terrorist attacks that are taking over Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for all of the people attacking Hillary and defending Trump (Ram, surf, EVD, etc).

 

Do you think Trump will make a better president than Clinton?

 

We got some thoughtful responses from surf, EVD & DarkandStormy to Ryan's question.

 

But we've yet to get a response from this forum's top Trump defender, Ram.  Ram has had plenty of time for multiple Trump/Clinton posts since this question was posed.  But won't/can't answer this core question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hillary Clinton is one of the most unfit presidential candidates to have ever run for the office. I think every single other announced candidate, both Republicans and Democrats, would make a better president. Trump, Bernie, Rand Paul, Jeb!, etc. would be less dangerous. I thought that went without saying, so I didn't say it.

 

Specific to Trump vs. Clinton, I know Clinton is incompetent and unfit for the office because of her past. Trump's never been a politician so he could be a wildcard. My question to the anti-Trump crowd, if you're standing in front of two doors and one opens up to certain death and destruction, and you have no idea what's behind the other one (but it looks scary), which one do you open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hillary Clinton is one of the most unfit presidential candidates to have ever run for the office. I think every single other announced candidate, both Republicans and Democrats, would make a better president. Trump, Bernie, Rand Paul, Jeb!, etc. would be less dangerous. I thought that went without saying, so I didn't say it.

 

Specific to Trump vs. Clinton, I know Clinton is incompetent and unfit for the office because of her past. Trump's never been a politician so he could be a wildcard. My question to the anti-Trump crowd, if you're standing in front of two doors and one opens up to certain death and destruction, and you have no idea what's behind the other one (but it looks scary), which one do you open?

 

The problem with your assertion that she is "unfit" is the same that the Anti-Obama sheep have been shouting for 8 years.  Obama is completely unfit and we are certain to suffer doom, gloom, end of the world and all things guns. 

 

In the end, the community organizer, President of the Harvard Law review and junior senator has overseen a turn around in the economy, stock market soaring and no large-scale terrorist attacks. 

 

The claim that Obama is dismantling the middle class is simply not true.  This has been a trend for the last 30 years and is being duplicated in other countries, though less-so due to their commitments to health care that our middle class workers don't have access to.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^So you vote Trump. I disagree with your opinion that "one opens up to certain death and destruction"

 

I agree that Trump is a wildcard, which is really scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no problem voting for Hillary 8 years ago in the primary and I have no problem voting for her today. I expect her to be a great president with all the support that she will get. I expect her to revamp the whole federal government. I doubt there will be a major dept that will not see changes. 

  A simple but highly dramatic change of taking off marijuana off schedule 1 drug list will have dramatic effects throughout the whole economy.  It will open up hemp to farming again and place it as a multi-billion dollar industry practically overnight. as well as start the effort of reducing the amount of people in prison for marijuana offenses. This is a plank in the platform.  Obama should've done this.  But he didn't and never said he would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama in an interesting spot, both last night and looking forward to November.  He does an incredible job in speeches and rallies of really speaking to optimism and painting this great picture, both of the last 8 years and looking forward.  Unfortunately, a large majority of Americans believe the country is "on the wrong track" in recent polling data.  The economic recovery has probably not been where people expected, and I suspect that plays a large part in the survey responses.

 

So he has to walk this tightrope of telling the American people how the Democrats made the country better in the last 8 years, while acknowledging the fact that things aren't all that great right now (at least in the eyes of 70+% of voters).


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After that deep of a recession in 2008-2009, i would think most people are back to approximately where they were financially. I don't think a lot of people realized how susceptible they would be and had racked up credit card debt. Thinking about who can expect "better times", can we rule out retirees?  Theoretically they are some of the richest people on earth.  Can they be expected to say they wish they were doing better?  Obviously they can wish it but they have been given every advantage throughout their lives. I would say that alone is 30%+ of the electorate. If they are hanging out watching Fox in their hospital bed while Medicare is paying for their stay and drugs while they get social security checks at home and they feel that government has let them down because Obama, I really don't know what to say to that. What more are they expecting?! Lets be honest here, that is the bulk of the Fox audience- retirees. Who the hell else has time to watch that drivel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why 80% of TV commercials are for pills and medical equipment.

 

The audience for scheduled (broadcast/cable) TV skews much older, younger people are far less likely to accept someone else's schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Perhaps, but Fox still skews older than the rest.  For primetime programming, Fox's average viewer is 10 years older than CNN's.

 

Yep, hence the 80% instead of only 70%  :)

 

Plus I would bet Fox News's top demographic is people born 1955 - 1970, the most politically conservative generation of the last century or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So he has to walk this tightrope of telling the American people how the Democrats made the country better in the last 8 years, while acknowledging the fact that things aren't all that great right now (at least in the eyes of 70+% of voters).

 

So Obama has a slightly positive average approval rating near 50%, close to 70% of Americans think we're on the wrong track, and nearly 80% disapprove of (GOP-controlled) Congress. Seems like there's a pretty wide opening for Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he has to walk this tightrope of telling the American people how the Democrats made the country better in the last 8 years, while acknowledging the fact that things aren't all that great right now (at least in the eyes of 70+% of voters).

 

So Obama has a slightly positive average approval rating near 50%, close to 70% of Americans think we're on the wrong track, and nearly 80% disapprove of (GOP-controlled) Congress. Seems like there's a pretty wide opening for Democrats.

 

People always disapprove of "Congress".  Their own representative is a different matter entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was really interesting how the Clinton was advocating an extremely progressive agenda during her acceptance speech and trying to woo the people who are most concerned with terrorism.

 

Anyone who was honestly on the fence who watched that speech is probably leaning closer to Clinton now IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the end, the community organizer, President of the Harvard Law review and junior senator has overseen a turn around in the economy, stock market soaring and no large-scale terrorist attacks. 

 

AEI believes the economic recovery is slower than expected, in part because of Dodd-Frank - https://www.aei.org/publication/the-slow-economic-recovery-explained/

 

More from Barrons - http://www.barrons.com/articles/the-economys-sluggish-recovery-has-a-surprising-culprit-1437807139

 

The Fiscal Times says inadequate policy response has slowed the recovery - http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2014/01/14/Why-Recovery-so-Agonizingly-Slow

 

I'm sure the folks in Orlando are so grateful that the attack there wasn't "large-scale."  Same for those in Boston.  And Fort Hood.  And Benghazi.  And San Bernardino.  Global terrorism attacks (and, unfortunately, deaths resulting from terrorism attacks) are at an all-time high and it's been getting worse the last few years.  http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/our-gti-findings


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure the folks in Orlando are so grateful that the attack there wasn't "large-scale."  Same for those in Boston.  And Fort Hood.  And Benghazi.  And San Bernardino.  Global terrorism attacks (and, unfortunately, deaths resulting from terrorism attacks) are at an all-time high and it's been getting worse the last few years.  http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/our-gti-findings

 

Interesting that almost all of the attacks have occurred in countries that we either directly or indirectly had a role in destabilizing over the past 15 years. In my opinion, that seems to suggest the direction our policy should take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The labor force remains at the lowest % of the total population since 1978.  It's gone from ~66% when Obama took office and is hovering below 63% currently.  Is that because we have more baby boomers retiring and leaving the work force?  Or is it because there just aren't as many jobs being created?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with slow growth. When the economy has high growth bubbles get created.  Slow controlled growth is better for planning.

  My sister is retiring in the next few months. Her husband retired a couple years ago from a college. My cousin just retired from a bank. They are all under 60.  So I would say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

People always disapprove of "Congress".  Their own representative is a different matter entirely.

 

 

 

How about those clowns in Congress? What a bunch of clowns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The labor force remains at the lowest % of the total population since 1978.  It's gone from ~66% when Obama took office and is hovering below 63% currently.  Is that because we have more baby boomers retiring and leaving the work force?  Or is it because there just aren't as many jobs being created?

 

I think you're going to see this trend continue.  The first of the baby-boomers (my father included) turn 70 this year.  There is going to be a large dropoff over the next 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to consider any changes in reporting the numbers. I honestly don't know about the labor force, but the debt is certainly not an apples to apples comparison. That is because Obama placed the cost of the two wars into the calculation of debt/deficit. Even still, while the debt continues to rise, the deficit has been reduced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and we're done!  Please post in the 2016 Presidential Election Discussion.  Thanks!


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...