US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump isn't making promises, just ask him. All he is doing is making suggestions.

That he did say, though I think as a counter to not piss off his base. In fact, his team actually suggested the Mexican wall was more metaphorical as well. All the turning back from the stuff that got the nomination will hurt. Trump is trying to walk along two balance that are 20 feet apart.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Trump isn't making promises, just ask him. All he is doing is making suggestions.

That he did say, though I think as a counter to not piss off his base. In fact, his team actually suggested the Mexican wall was more metaphorical as well. All the turning back from the stuff that got the nomination will hurt. Trump is trying to walk along two balance that are 20 feet apart.

It's a bait and switch. If he plans on cozying up to the Republican establishment then he's counting on his base not caring at that point because he's already got them on the hook.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Heh! "Read my lips. No new taxes!"

 

[angelo]

All Trump has to do is stick to the mantra of anti Islamism, and he'll romp home!

 

[Colonel Sanders]

From what I've read on other forums, Trump supporters wouldn't care if he came over and crapped on their front porch. All they'd say is that Hillary had already crapped on their front porch twice after eating their dog.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

From what I've read on other forums, Trump supporters wouldn't care if he came over and crapped on their front porch. All they'd say is that Hillary had already crapped on their front porch twice after eating their dog.

They're almost as dedicated as Hillary supporters. I say "almost" because they actually had a good choice and they turned him down in favor of her. Trump doesn't suffer from having competed against a good alternative.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

From what I've read on other forums, Trump supporters wouldn't care if he came over and crapped on their front porch. All they'd say is that Hillary had already crapped on their front porch twice after eating their dog.

They're almost as dedicated as Hillary supporters. I say "almost" because they actually had a good choice and they turned him down in favor of her. Trump doesn't suffer from having competed against a good alternative.

Ya, it really is annoying how everything that's wrong with Trump is twice as bad with Clinton.

 

[Tristan Scott]

They're almost as dedicated as Hillary supporters. I say "almost" because they actually had a good choice and they turned him down in favor of her. Trump doesn't suffer from having competed against a good alternative.

Ya, it really is annoying how everything that's wrong with Trump is twice as bad with Clinton.

Well, he has an excuse. He has a dick (such as it is).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course it's all about gender, nothing else.

Trump is a rude, egotistical, insulting, boorish, over-bearing jerk.

Hillary is [censored censored censored] I mean she's a woman, I swear that was all I was going to say, any criticism of her is always and only about her gender and can't be about anything else such as her [censored censored censored] I mean about nothing else, not anything else.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course it's all about gender, nothing else.

Trump is a rude, egotistical, insulting, boorish, over-bearing jerk.

Hillary is [censored censored censored] I mean she's a woman, I swear that was all I was going to say, any criticism of her is always and only about her gender and can't be about anything else such as her [censored censored censored] I mean about nothing else, not anything else.

Thats's right. No criticism of Clinton here. And you post definitely wasn't a Moore-Coulter.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No no no, I am convinced. The only reason anyone anywhere would ever criticize Hillary is because of gender. It can't be because of foreign policy (even though she is as bloodthirsty as any neocon such as Cheney and I have a record over a decade long of opposing wars under both Bush and Obama). It can't be because of domestic policy, and it can't be because of foreign policy. If you disagree with her it is because she's a woman.

By extension that means everyone actually agrees with her and those who think they disagree with her only do so because she's a woman. So now we have the greatest politician in the world, 100% of the population agrees with her although many pretend they do not. And they only pretend because she's a woman.

As for whether or not it is a Moore-Coulter, isn't it a little insulting to Coulter to compare her to Hillary?

 

[angelo]

That's exactly the case we had in Australia under a woman PM. All criticisms of her and her government was because she was a woman. The gender card played to the hilt!
Americans, you have been warned.

 

[bigfield]

That's exactly the case we had in Australia under a woman PM. All criticisms of her and her government was because she was a woman. The gender card played to the hilt!
Americans, you have been warned.

Yeah Americans, don't be as stupid and misogynistic as Australia's right wing:

 

[Harry Bosch]

No no no, I am convinced. The only reason anyone anywhere would ever criticize Hillary is because of gender. It can't be because of foreign policy (even though she is as bloodthirsty as any neocon such as Cheney and I have a record over a decade long of opposing wars under both Bush and Obama). It can't be because of domestic policy, and it can't be because of foreign policy. If you disagree with her it is because she's a woman.

By extension that means everyone actually agrees with her and those who think they disagree with her only do so because she's a woman. So now we have the greatest politician in the world, 100% of the population agrees with her although many pretend they do not. And they only pretend because she's a woman.

As for whether or not it is a Moore-Coulter, isn't it a little insulting to Coulter to compare her to Hillary?

There's no doubt that Hillary's strategy of trying to seem as tough as a man has made her appear more aggressive on foreign policy than some. However, would you not at least admit it a little that there is something else driving the Hilary haters? It has become personal. To say that she is worse than Coulter is beyond exaggeration.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No no no, I am convinced. The only reason anyone anywhere would ever criticize Hillary is because of gender. It can't be because of foreign policy (even though she is as bloodthirsty as any neocon such as Cheney and I have a record over a decade long of opposing wars under both Bush and Obama). It can't be because of domestic policy, and it can't be because of foreign policy. If you disagree with her it is because she's a woman.

By extension that means everyone actually agrees with her and those who think they disagree with her only do so because she's a woman. So now we have the greatest politician in the world, 100% of the population agrees with her although many pretend they do not. And they only pretend because she's a woman.

As for whether or not it is a Moore-Coulter, isn't it a little insulting to Coulter to compare her to Hillary?

There's no doubt that Hillary's strategy of trying to seem as tough as a man has made her appear more aggressive on foreign policy than some. However, would you not at least admit it a little that there is something else driving the Hilary haters? It has become personal. To say that she is worse than Coulter is beyond exaggeration.

Something else? Of course not. The only reason anyone anywhere has a problem with her is because she's a woman. Something else, like a policy position? Impossible. It is only because of her gender and nothing else.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Something else? Of course not. The only reason anyone anywhere has a problem with her is because she's a woman. Something else, like a policy position? Impossible. It is only because of her gender and nothing else.

You protest too much, which of course is an indication that a nerve must have been struck. Another indication that it's a gender issue is when people make unfounded claims like "even though she is as bloodthirsty as any neocon such as Cheney", or the ridiculously unfounded comparison to Coulter. No, when people make statements like that, it is gender driven because there is no other plausible answer for that much vitriol. If one is just arguing her stance on certain issues is one thing, but that is certainly not what you are doing here.

 

[Rhea]

foreign policy (even though she is as bloodthirsty as any neocon such as Cheney

This is indeed a weird thing to hang your hat on. The evidence is pretty clear that it's completely wrong.
She may not be as dovelike as others, but she is clearly not as bloodthirsty as Cheney. To make such an exaggeration part of your argument is sort of a weird own-goal.

He statements around her "yes" vote for Iraq is a strong rebuttal just on the surface, and then her actions as Sec State confirm it.

Cheney created an excuse for a massive war out of whole cloth, peddled it, sold it, executed it, profited from it and still defends it.
Hillary does none of those things.

It can't be because of domestic policy,

Are you saying you agree with all of her domestic policy?

If you disagree with her it is because she's a woman.

When your disagreements seem to be based on straw men, then... well, one has to wonder, doesn't one?

As for whether or not it is a Moore-Coulter, isn't it a little insulting to Coulter to compare her to Hillary?

I don't get the really deeply anger-filled hatred for her. Her policies just don't account for that. It's quite puzzling. She's just _not_ that radical to earn that much bile.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Interesting news. Trump has raked Hillary for Libya. But recordings of Trump demonstrate he was all for taking out Khadaffi when Libya was in crisis. He lied. But few people on the right seem to care he lied about his stance in Libya, or his "bloodthirsty" attitudes about military action in Libya.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...mp-lie-about-his-positions-on-libya-and-iraq/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No no no, I am convinced. The only reason anyone anywhere would ever criticize Hillary is because of gender. It can't be because of foreign policy (even though she is as bloodthirsty as any neocon such as Cheney and I have a record over a decade long of opposing wars under both Bush and Obama). It can't be because of domestic policy, and it can't be because of foreign policy. If you disagree with her it is because she's a woman.

By extension that means everyone actually agrees with her and those who think they disagree with her only do so because she's a woman. So now we have the greatest politician in the world, 100% of the population agrees with her although many pretend they do not. And they only pretend because she's a woman.

As for whether or not it is a Moore-Coulter, isn't it a little insulting to Coulter to compare her to Hillary?

That was a babblefest.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Something else? Of course not. The only reason anyone anywhere has a problem with her is because she's a woman. Something else, like a policy position? Impossible. It is only because of her gender and nothing else.

You protest too much, which of course is an indication that a nerve must have been struck. Another indication that it's a gender issue is when people make unfounded claims like "even though she is as bloodthirsty as any neocon such as Cheney", or the ridiculously unfounded comparison to Coulter. No, when people make statements like that, it is gender driven because there is no other plausible answer for that much vitriol. If one is just arguing her stance on certain issues is one thing, but that is certainly not what you are doing here.

Or maybe I'm tired of discussing her bloodthirsty foreign policy and having people ignore every point I make and respond that it is all about gender. It is as if policy positions don't exist for you, and her policy starts and ends with her gender for you. If you were able to look beyond her gender you'd see the Cheney foreign policy, but you can't see that.