donald trump 4 prez

Key · 11-29-2016, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

I followed more than the debates. If you watched the debates you would have heard her stances on different policies. That's what she excels at.

The only thing I took from the debates is how often she told people not to vote for Trump, while Trump was putting his ideas (although ridiculous) forward. Nobody trusted her because she didn't give anyone a reason to. Her strategy was focused on bringing Trump down, while simultaneously giving him the win.

I mean...when the Democratic convention announces her as the new president before any results come in, there's something wrong. They should have fought harder, but instead gave Trump the win.

djchameleon · 11-29-2016, 11:17 AM

What ideas were Trump putting forward? He spent the entire debates attacking Hillary and that was it. Oh and being vague as duck.

Key · 11-29-2016, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

What ideas was Trump putting forward? He spent the entire debates attacking Hillary and that was it. Oh and being vague as duck.

He put plenty. He discussed what he'd do with immigration policies, and what he'd do in his first 100 days. Of course he also attacked Hillary, I wasn't insinuating that he didn't. But Hillary's campaign was focused on bringing Trump down, whereas it was just a secondary thing for Trump.

**Frownland** · 11-29-2016, 11:18 AM

If policy was actually relevant this election (the coverage touched on it far too little), Donald Trump would be much more difficult to either caricaturize or delude yourself into supporting him, and he would not have won the election. Stupid oversensationalized scandals are apparently the most important topic for our candidates to discuss.

Anyway, that's actually part of the bad campaigning element: they didn't run Hillary on being Hillary, they ran her on her not-Trumpness.

Chula Vista · 11-29-2016, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Or that it covers criticism of their own speech.

From "An American President":

Quote:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

djchameleon · 11-29-2016, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki

He put plenty. He discussed what he'd do with immigration policies, and what he'd do in his first 100 days. Of course he also attacked Hillary, I wasn't insinuating that he didn't. But Hillary's campaign was focused on bringing Trump down, whereas it was just a secondary thing for Trump.

He didn't mention anything about first 100 days until after he won. Some of the vague things he said he wanted to do was mainly at rallies. Trump's only strategy was to insult Hillary and tear her down that was his strength. What are you talking about it being secondary? He hardly ever talked about his policy plans because he could never go into detail about anything.

Key · 11-29-2016, 12:36 PM

Well when Hillary didn't combat his strategy, he basically didn't need to talk about his policies in depth. It was a **** show on both sides, but Hillary could've had the upper hand. The democratic party just felt it wasn't appropriate.

**Frownland** · 11-29-2016, 12:37 PM

He offered something different to people who didn't see any positive change in their lives from Obama's presidency. Hillary offered a continuation of Obama. If she had separated herself from that instead of promising Obama 2.0, she would have won.

It's not rocket science.

Key · 11-29-2016, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

He offered something different to people who didn't see any positive change in their lives from Obama's presidency. Hillary offered a continuation of Obama. If she had separated herself from that instead of promising Obama 2.0, she would have won.

It's not rocket science.

Pretty much this. People were fed up this time, and Donald Trump knew that, and used it to his advantage.

Trollheart · 11-29-2016, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

What ideas were Trump putting forward? He spent the entire debates attacking Hillary and that was it. Oh and being vague as duck.

Yeah, I've known quite a lot of ducks in my time, and they were all pretty vague....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

If policy was actually relevant this election (the coverage touched on it far too little), Donald Trump would be much more difficult to either caricaturize or delude yourself into supporting him, and he would not have won the election. Stupid oversensationalized scandals are apparently the most important topic for our candidates to discuss.

Anyway, that's actually part of the bad campaigning element: they didn't run Hillary on being Hillary, they ran her on her not-Trumpness.

They also ran her almost exclusively as "the female candidate". Vote to get our first woman president! Well, you have to have more than that to get people's vote.

Also, does anyone think the FBI thing was a set-up? It was sort of a sucker punch, wasn't it, just at the right time?

View Poll Results: can he do it?
yes	23	52.27%
yea	21	47.73%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

11-29-2016, 11:18 AM	#4714 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,548	If policy was actually relevant this election (the coverage touched on it far too little), Donald Trump would be much more difficult to either caricaturize or delude yourself into supporting him, and he would not have won the election. Stupid oversensationalized scandals are apparently the most important topic for our candidates to discuss. Anyway, that's actually part of the bad campaigning element: they didn't run Hillary on being Hillary, they ran her on her not-Trumpness. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

11-29-2016, 12:37 PM	#4718 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,548	He offered something different to people who didn't see any positive change in their lives from Obama's presidency. Hillary offered a continuation of Obama. If she had separated herself from that instead of promising Obama 2.0, she would have won. It's not rocket science. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

11-29-2016, 12:36 PM	#4717 (permalink)
Key . Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 13,153	Well when Hillary didn't combat his strategy, he basically didn't need to talk about his policies in depth. It was a **** show on both sides, but Hillary could've had the upper hand. The democratic party just felt it wasn't appropriate.