The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[JettaKnight]

I remember a story about Donald about the time of the Challenger disaster. I was in town for a meeting and picked up the story in a local paper (NYT?) Anyway, the Donald was pissed off in a meeting with bankers and lawyers and started kicking furniture with his new $300 pair of Gucci loafers. He ruined the shoes.

That story always stuck with me as how not to act in a business meeting.

It seems to me he only got worse, not better.

I never had to deal with the man, so I don't take responsibility for his creation. I wish his father had used a prophylactic, however.

Huh. I thought he'd spend more on shoes. I guess $300 was more then than now...


This is the behavior that "we" wanted, a non-politician that values money over societal norms, ethics, etc.


As long as the president makes us safe, content, well armed and well off, what else matters?

 

[foszoe]

Is a Democrat majority what's best for the country: Yes or no?

Do you believe that all questions can be answered with a yes/no binary response?

If you answer that with a yes response then I will answer your question with a yes/no answer. Otherwise, I won't artificially limit my choice of answers arbitrarily while leaving you with a plethora of options to choose from in response to any inquiry of mine.

However, I believe firmly that all questions are trinitarian.

Yes.

I don't know.

No.

All answers are also trinitarian and are simply expounding on one of those 3.

With that in mind and if you don't answer with a yes, then you can probably easily ascertain which of the 3 answers I would give to the above question.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Do you believe that all questions can be answered with a yes/no binary response?

If you answer that with a yes response then I will answer your question with a yes/no answer. Otherwise, I won't artificially limit my choice of answers arbitrarily while leaving you with a plethora of options to choose from in response to any inquiry of mine.

However, I believe firmly that all questions are trinitarian.

Yes.

I don't know.

No.

All answers are also trinitarian and are simply expounding on one of those 3.

With that in mind and if you don't answer with a yes, then you can probably easily ascertain which of the 3 answers I would give to the above question.

Gotta say, I don't think this question has many shades of gray.

1. Trump/Trump supporters go after GOP to cause them to lose, create Democrat majority.
2. Trump/Trump supporters ignore them, vote for their guy... win or lose... but GOP might maintain majority (which is good for Trump or Clinton).

In what situation does going after the GOP up for reelection and voting against them cause a positive outcome?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How many have actually done that though? If GOP congressional candidates openly say they will vote for Hillary, I'd say they're fair game. But I could still back a candidate on my ballot who says he can't vote for either one.

Likely a very small number. Print is redefining the question to fit that small example.

I'm talking about (as well as the person in my original example) going after those that don't kiss the ring. Not those that outright say they're voting Clinton.

either way, it's still irrelevant. You may not like them... but it comes down to Democrat or Republican majority.

Hahaha... this is exactly the Trump argument, just flipped around. They don't seem to like it.

 

[printcraft]

......In what situation does going after the GOP up for reelection and voting against them cause a positive outcome?

In what situation does attempting to drive down voter turnout and excitement for Trump help other GOP up for reelection when a lot of voters vote straight party tickets?

"hitlary has this in the bag, might as well stay home." (as seen on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, SEEB.S.)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

In what situation does attempting to drive down voter turnout and excitement for Trump help other GOP up for reelection when a lot of voters vote straight party tickets?

No answer: Deflecting with another question.

Strike two.

 

[Alpo]

Huh. I thought he'd spend more on shoes. I guess $300 was more then than now...

Well, that was 1986. They would be around $650 today. What's the inflation factor on an ill-tempered bully for 30 years?

 

[indiucky]

But just because I despise a cigar-poking democrat does not mean a crotch grabbing pig is the appropriate alternative.

You'd put the crotch-grabber in office. That is disgusting.

Both should go to Hell (if I believed in Hell), and they can take Cosby with them.

I try my best to not be disgusting...I am sorry you feel that way towards folks voting for Trump...I do not think Hillary's supporters are disgusting by any means...I know many of them and they seem like good people....

In an era where men can marry men, Planned Parenthood can sell baby parts, and the American people are willing to put a woman in office who personally attacked her husband's rape victims, my, "Oh my...Where is the fainting couch" meter has changed....Trump's comments seem almost quaint...Kind of like an episode of "Madmen"......

IMHO of course and with no disrespect towards you or your opinion....

 

[printcraft]

No answer: Deflecting with another question.

Strike two.

What happens on strike 3?

I answered your question upthread, now answer mine.

Or do I start calling fouls or something?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I try my best to not be disgusting...I am sorry you feel that way towards folks voting for Trump...I do not think Hillary's supporters are disgusting by any means...I know many of them and they seem like good people....

In an era where men can marry men, Planned Parenthood can sell baby parts, and the American people are willing to put a woman in office who personally attacked victims of rape, my "Oh my...Where is the fainting couch" meter has changed....Trump's comments seem almost quaint...Kind of like an episode of "Madmen"......

Are there many here that actually took offense to Trump's comments? Like I said before... what he said doesn't matter, at all. I'm sure he, and others, and I, have said far worse... My qualm is with picking someone that was so obviously chosen by the media because they had this type of dirt on him, to influence the election.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What happens on strike 3?

I answered your question upthread, now answer mine.

Or do I start calling fouls or something?

In what situation does going after the GOP up for reelection and voting against them cause a positive outcome?

And using "stupid person logic", isn't backing this behavior the same as supporting a Democrat majority?


Without deflecting, without redefining, without making excuses...

 

[Alpo]

I try my best to not be disgusting...I am sorry you feel that way towards folks voting for Trump...I do not think Hillary's supporters are disgusting by any means...I know many of them and they seem like good people....

In an era where men can marry men, Planned Parenthood can sell baby parts, and the American people are willing to put a woman in office who personally attacked her husband's rape victims, my, "Oh my...Where is the fainting couch" meter has changed....Trump's comments seem almost quaint...Kind of like an episode of "Madmen"......

I don't feel you are disgusting. Sorry if I was unclear. I think Trump would be disgusting as president.

I don't know if Hillary attacked a woman raped by her husband. Was it ever proven that he did so, or was it alleged? I can say that most red-blooded females would attack any female who messed with her family. So, there's that.

 

[printcraft]

In what situation does going after the GOP up for reelection and voting against them cause a positive outcome?.....

Actions have consequence.
Any GOP member that is up for reelection that is not supporting the other members of the party are fair game, to borrow a phrase.
MAYBE they are in the wrong party to begin with.
You know, RHINO's. (stupid people)

Strike 3?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Actions have consequence.
Any GOP member that is up for reelection that is not supporting the other members of the party are fair game, to borrow a phrase.
MAYBE they are in the wrong party to begin with.
You know, RHINO's. (stupid people)

Strike 3?

Not yet.

Really doesn't answer the question. But I think you know the actual answer to it... and don't really want to admit it.

Why not let them believe what they want? Let them dislike the "GOP" candidate... but leave them alone and let them possibly win their elections so they can maintain a majority? And help Trump/oppose Clinton?

Why be vindictive and go after them, supposedly guaranteeing Democrat majority? This seems like a poor time for spite to take control, doesn't it? "If I can't win, none of you can win!" is selfish, and does real harm to the country.

The only reason to go after them is spite/revenge, and the only result of spite/revenge is negative.

 

[Alpo]

We'll see what happens in less than a month. In my small neighborhood, I've got my family that will not vote for ANY republicans this time when they have done so on many occasions in the past, I've got neighbors who have taken down their Trump sign and will probably sit this election out without voting. And I've got friends who still support Trump because they hate Hillary.

It's hard to call what might happen, but it's possible that the GOP will destroy itself this time.

 

[RMC]

As I see it, the individual Republicans that "PUBLICLY " denounced Trump essentially drew first blood to damage his chances of getting elected. Which came first, the chicken or the loyal? Oops, I mean the egg? Could it be some of these "Republicans" are benefitting from some of Hillary's crimes?

 

[foszoe]

Because one sees only 2 answers, does not mean one of the 2 answers is correct.

Since this question is more open ended so is my response.

I don't know.

My allegiance is not to a party. If the Democratic party or the GOP fail I do not care one whit.

I do know that out of adversity can come strength and positive outcomes. So i divide your question into more of a time horizon question.

Have their been events in history where the short term consequences were, by most accounts, horrible but the longer term results yielded a positive outcome?

i would argue yes. Perhaps my examples would differ and so I will not go into any here but leave that to the reader in the interest of staying on point.

I will instead give a very simple one. I start out lifting weights and exercising. In the short term there is real pain, in the long term the benefits begin to outweigh the cost.

So will the immediate results be beneficial? I don't know but probably not. I also remain unconvinced there is a Dem majority coming.

Will they be catastrophic? I don't know but probably not. I will maintain that losing the Supreme Court nominations of the next few years will be more consequential than the seat of someone who gets elected every 2-6 years.

As for the long term results. i don't know but I believe a reset is coming and if it takes the fracturing of the GOP to get there I am highly optimistic about the outcome.

If we continue to attempt preservation of the current political party system, I am very pessimistic about the outcome.

Gotta say, I don't think this question has many shades of gray.

1. Trump/Trump supporters go after GOP to cause them to lose, create Democrat majority.
2. Trump/Trump supporters ignore them, vote for their guy... win or lose... but GOP might maintain majority (which is good for Trump or Clinton).

In what situation does going after the GOP up for reelection and voting against them cause a positive outcome?

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;_CaFGy-WlF0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CaFGy-WlF0[/video]

 

[indiucky]

I do know that out of adversity can come strength and positive outcomes. So i divide your question into more of a time horizon question.
Have their been events in history where the short term consequences were, by most accounts, horrible but the longer term results yielded a positive outcome?

1861-1865

http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-casualties

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html?_r=0

 

[T.Lex]

So we are supposed to be shocked and surprised that someone finally replies in kind to the treatment they are receiving?
Really?

NO


Is the demoncrat candidate hitlary becoming president over the republican candidate Trump what's best for the country: Yes or no?

I'll answer this: No. (BTW, electing Trump isn't "what's best for this country" either.)

But, this is where the lack of consistent principles by many Trump supporters is revealed. If HRC getting elected is bad, getting HRC elected with a Dem majority in the legislative branch is worse. That's a principle. Heck, that's the primary principle driving me to vote this year.

And yet, many Trump supporters are publicly disavowing the only candidates standing in the way of the Dem/HRC majority. Is that principled? Is that what's best for the country?

Fair to ask INGO Trump supporters where they stand on the more local elections. Especially those claiming to act in a principled way.