Re: 2016 Election
 

That's all they are, empty promises. It's all "I'm going to fix it". OK how? "It's going to be yuge". Uh OK? "I'm going to make America great again".

There is no policy from him, and certainly nothing that matches the party platform.

Re: 2016 Election
 

My bet is that before his first term is up he'll be impeached then carted off in a strait jacket to Fort Leavenworth

Re: 2016 Election
 

Like Charles I. If there's a warrant needs signing, I'll sign it.

Re: 2016 Election
 

well...just watch him speak for himself..and for Hillary!

so....Nay to the nay-sayers (including myself)...FAN-tas-tic....:thumbsup::


(fast forward to 59:48 for his brilliant acceptance speech....)

wouldn't call that "safe". Would call that brilliant....and disarmingly subtle. ;)
I say that aware of his conservative views on abortion and his TPP stance - positions with which I don't agree....but I still think he's gonna be a force to be reckoned with and a GREAT choice for Hillary - given the specifics of the Trump/Pence runaway train

Re: 2016 Election
 

The only thing GREAT would be if they all backed out.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I agree they both should if they are patriotic back out.

Clinton is more of the same, and a ridiculous economic plan- by imposing more spending plans and regulations and taxing the rich ( which often includes business owners) how would that reduce the national debt, and give incentive and resources to business to invest, hire more and pay higher salaries ?

Then Trump who I have no doubt would be tougher than Clinton in any negotiation, proposes a wall- that will take years to build; he is against trade deals, even if right that cant be undone overnight and renegitiating may cause a trade war in the short term, uncertainty is not what business needs. His proposal of implementing high tariffs may be an excellent negotiating tool, but China holds a lot of US bonds, so who knows final outcome of such a tactic.

And both face a Congress that may not implement either plan, if one can call either of the "plans" systematic in addressing the key structural problems of the US economy.

Then there is moonbeam Gary Johnson, every time I hear him speak I wonder how many joints he has smoked before the interview.

And the media is also to blame- I see little thoughtful questioning of the economic plans in the general media, instead trying to play "gotcha" on Trump's latest faux pas, or covering the latest verbal war between Clinton and Trump.

Sad thing is it seems either vice presidential candidate a better pick

Re: 2016 Election
 

Lots of talk about Putin playing a strong hand to back Trump. Through which he gets to carve up a destabilized Europe. Deep suspicion that recent DNC hack was Kremlin backed.

https://storify.com/DemFromCT/frankl...ks-and-the-dnc

Manchurian candidate?

Lots of Trump's money comes from Russia.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...really-a-thing

Re: 2016 Election
 

I don't use "safe" as a pejorative term. I say "safe" to express that Kaine is not a high risk choice. Being an excellent (remains to be seen) choice does not exclude him from being a safe choice. Joe Biden was both a "safe" choice and a brilliant VP pick.

Re: 2016 Election
 

What makes for a 'brilliant' VP pick? I've never really understood the significance of the pick, other than the obvious ones of not picking idiots like Palin or Quayle. They get one debate before the election, then sink to obscurity unless something really serious happens to the pres, which doesn't happen often enough to make it a factor when voting. Is it their ability to carry a state, or something?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Sure, specifically it doesn't hurt if they can clinch a state that the campaign is nervous about. There's a lot of little things I suppose. Zargof mentioned the need for the VP pick to not upstage the candidate and basically 'do no harm' which goes back to Palin/Quayle.

The machinations are more complicated. The entire party has been pulled left by Bernie and now Clinton needs to track more back to the middle. Can Kaine pull in a few disaffected white moderate Republicans who are repelled by Trump? This is interesting and concerning because now the minority base supporters are feeling taken for granted because they wanted a Booker or Castro. Bernie's people are still pissed off in general but might have warmed up to a Warren or Franken pick. There's a million calculations and, at the end of the day, it was decided they needed to work on the specific deficit that Hillary has which is white male voters and the white working/middle class in the broader sense. They're looking at the Midwest, rust belt, flyover states, whatever you want to call them --- there's some swing states in there.

EDIT TO ADD: The VP only gets one debate but if they are a good speaker, they can do wonders as a surrogate and campaigner. Just look at Diamond Joe. :heart:

Re: 2016 Election
 

Yes there are many Republic moderates that Trump has alienated, probably than moderate Democrats who are repelled by Clinton " extreme carelessness" according to the FBI, and the fact that the head of the FBI and CIA have indicted they cannot vet sufficiently those coming in the country.

IF Trump can better reach alienated on the economic situation, and plans to improve things, the election is his. Many believe that Clinton is more of the same and promising more programs and benefits that hardly gives them jobs, and good paying jobs. However Trump seems focused on over the top security issues and probably cant fight the strong political machine Clinton has put together.

Even Trump supporters cannot fathom many things he says, Clinton's best political advantage is Trump himself. I read somewhere that Clinton has more staff in 1 state that Trump has in the whole country.

One advantage Sanders had is he believed in what he proposed, to many Clinton will say anything to be elected and same with Trump. Amazing in an era of anti-establishment beliefs on both the right and left, the most establishment type will probably be elected.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Disappointing that Afghanistan is not a factor in the Presidential race. ISIS - created, armed and supported by the US military back when Hillary was in charge of such things - seem to get a free pass for their bombings in Kabul because, well, the victims are only wogs, right? Not real people, like. If Hillary wins this election, it will send a clear message to the rest of the world that a majority of US voters don't give a damn about human rights or war crimes unless the victims are Americans. Is that really what you Hillary supporters want? That's disgusting.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I think you are all wet on that one.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Re: 2016 Election
 

Gordon has always had a particularly vivid imagination.