So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

Some have compared Trump to Reagan in the sense that many of the same things said about Trump were said about Reagan. But Trump is no Reagan. Reagan for one researched policy. He also was an adult and didn't act like a petulant child over things the way Trump does. Third, Reagan had a long history of involvement in conservatism and was knowledgeable about it as a result. Trump has no knowledge of conservatism. He only just recently became a conservative (supposedly).

 

I don't have a problem with being politically-incorrect, but that's not what gets a lot of people about Trump, it's his lack of knowledge period on issues. Not that he doesn't speak like a professional politician. A person could be knowledgeable about issues and still not speak like a professional politico and be politically-incorrect.

 

Would be awesome if Trump could speak with the professionalism and class of Reagan:

 

I do for the aforementioned reasons in a previous post. And this....

 

"Defaming" a billionaire who has a hair trigger for suing and has extracted millions isn't for the faint of heart when you are beyond the statue of limitations to sue for damages for said injury and therefore have nothing financially to gain.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/p...ticle-1.1390931

 

Would you have any interest in being dragged into a shit storm on a national level? Your life dissected. There is no upside for these women.

 

I wouldn't condone these actions if proven true, but at the same time this country showed it could survive Bill as president for 8 years with a similar track record.

 

Policy, SCOTUS, concern me more regarding both candidates.

 

 

Not wanting to get involved in the debate, but I think some of you guys aren't looking at this election from all the angles. So here's my take as an outsider:

 

Clinton: An exponent of the of the last 8 years status quo, which generated a tremendous shift in American policy. From my point of view said shift has precipitated the following:

 

- Russia is more assertive than ever.

- China is more assertive than ever.

- The Middle East is in shambles.

- We now have a terrorist state on the world map.

- American policy in the ME has displaced close to 10 million people in Syria and Iraq, 1.5 million of them made their way to Europe. This has caused destabilization, political and social strife. It was an influencing factor in Brexit, the rise far right parties around Europe, terrorism etc.

- By reducing its global footprint, America can no longer be relied upon to maintain the post WW2 order. If its unwilling or incapable to, the influence for security deal should be taken a look at.

 

Some good things came out of it too. It has forced Europe and Japan to take more responsibility on security and increase military budgets, however the only serious armies are France and the UK. I'm sure the Germans could pick up the slack but do we really want them to? It has also forced European countries to be more assertive themselves.

 

From my point of view, anything is preferable to the above, hence I'd welcome a change in American policy. Hillary is most definitely not going to bring it about and the status quo will be alive and well for another 4 years at least, which is a disaster imo. ANY alternative to the status quo is preferable.

 

Now the alternative is Trump. He is opposed to the status quo and that's a good thing, but there isn't much else going on for him other than that. I'll leave aside all the crap the media says about him, just you know watching him for the first time, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and consider him as having the best possible intentions, I'd still have a hard time believing he'd be able to deliver on his best intentions. Why? For some reason I can't take him seriously. The man is a buffoon at times, he contradicts himself, he seems volatile and shallow. He also seems to lack knowledge of how world politics work, and he also doesn't seem to be the kind of person that listens to people who know this stuff. He is going to make one gaffe after another. If his propositions would have come from anyone else, I wouldn't doubt them at all. It's really hard to have confidence in someone so volatile. There's more to being a politician/president than just programs and policies. You need to be an exceptional individual to take on such a task as the presidency of a country. Neither Trump nor Hillary are such people.

 

Either way whoever wins will be disappointing each in their own way. I really can't believe Hillary and Trump are the best American society can muster, which reinforces my belief that America can no longer be relied upon. Sad.

 

Good post, a lot of very valid points I think most of us can agree with.

 

If Trump wasn't so over the top aggressive, I think he would be seen in a far better light than he is now.

 

Although at the same time, that personality probably is what won him the nomination. Sadly people always go for personality over substance.

Some have compared Trump to Reagan in the sense that many of the same things said about Trump were said about Reagan. But Trump is no Reagan. Reagan for one researched policy. He also was an adult and didn't act like a petulant child over things the way Trump does. Third, Reagan had a long history of involvement in conservatism and was knowledgeable about it as a result. Trump has no knowledge of conservatism. He only just recently became a conservative (supposedly).

 

I don't have a problem with being politically-incorrect, but that's not what gets a lot of people about Trump, it's his lack of knowledge period on issues. Not that he doesn't speak like a professional politician. A person could be knowledgeable about issues and still not speak like a professional politico and be politically-incorrect.

 

Would be awesome if Trump could speak with the professionalism and class of Reagan:

 

 

I have always been a Reagan fan, as a matter of fact the first time I voted was for him during the 1984 election.

 

However back in the mid sixties when Reagan got into politics some of his actions relative to the times were thought to be harsh or controversial.

 

I like the photo of him addressing the protesters at Berkley University.

 

 

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release...08_reagan.shtml

 

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-i...ably-dont-know/

I have always been a Reagan fan, as a matter of fact the first time I voted was for him during the 1984 election.

 

However back in the mid sixties when Reagan got into politics some of his actions relative to the times were thought to be harsh or controversial.

 

I like the photo of him addressing the protesters at Berkley University.

 

 

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release...08_reagan.shtml

 

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-i...ably-dont-know/

He knew how to get shit done. I hope when Trump talks about law and order back in our streets if he's elected , when these degenerate thugs are out rioting in the name of BLM etc. and burning cars and robbing stores I'd love to see the National Guard called in and some good old billy club, water cannons, German Shepherd's, handling it

 

https://youtu.be/41XLXlCqFH8

 

Invalid Video Link

 

http://www.fury.news/2016/10/breaking-chil...justice-scalia/

Ameer dont forget the rise of far left in Europe. They have stronghold of almost every single media outlet and seems to be only agenda that cant be criticized. They want to be seemed as everyones voice when in fact they arent.

 

Imho having one super power in each continent is not a bad thing as long as they are not invaders.

I hope all three will be busy keeping each others in check and order.

Ameer dont forget the rise of far left in Europe. They have stronghold of almost every single media outlet and seems to be only agenda that cant be criticized. They want to be seemed as everyones voice when in fact they arent.

 

Imho having one super power in each continent is not a bad thing as long as they are not invaders.

I hope all three will be busy keeping each others in check and order.

 

Yes, but aside from the United States, the other three aspiring superpowers are bent on controlling and dictating to their neighbors. I would generally say that to maintain world peace and freedom, the United States needs to remain the premier global superpower, however there is a caveat to that, which is that we also need a leader who will actually take the steps to maintain peace instead of allow threats to just arise, like ISIS. An authoritarian nation that will take the steps necessary to destroy such a threat or even present it from arising can also contribute to peace and stability. But the people living under it will not be very free. The interpretation of it this way can also threaten global peace and freedom IMO because many may see it as just a price worth it to pay to live with reduced freedom under Russian, Chinese, or Iranian rule but with the threat eliminated than to live under supposed U.S. security that isn't provided.

Yes, but aside from the United States, the other three aspiring superpowers are bent on controlling and dictating to their neighbors. I would generally say that to maintain world peace and freedom, the United States needs to remain the premier global superpower, however there is a caveat to that, which is that we also need a leader who will actually take the steps to maintain peace instead of allow threats to just arise, like ISIS. An authoritarian nation that will take the steps necessary to destroy such a threat or even present it from arising can also contribute to peace and stability. But the people living under it will not be very free. The interpretation of it this way can also threaten global peace and freedom IMO because many may see it as just a price worth it to pay to live with reduced freedom under Russian, Chinese, or Iranian rule but with the threat eliminated than to live under supposed U.S. security that isn't provided.

 

We would not have ISIS (ISIL) and millions of dead and refugees without Bush's aspiring needs to invade Iraq.

And that was sold to public with weapons of mass destruction that turned to be false.

 

Lets be realistic: There is not superpower that would not try and succeed to dictate neigbors to some extent (and in many instances not so close neighbors).

I am happy that USA is what it is so we dont get harassed more by russians. But no nation is entirely without it's sins.

We would not have ISIS (ISIL) and millions of dead and refugees without Bush's aspiring needs to invade Iraq.

And that was sold to public with weapons of mass destruction that turned to be false.

 

Disagree for two reasons:

 

1) You could be saying that we wouldn't have had the Cold War if we hadn't decided to fight the Nazis. The evidence at the time showed that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and he may well have had WMDs and moved them out of the country at the last minute. The idea that if he was still around, that we wouldn't be having problems is just an assumption. Things could be worse right now if he was still in power.

 

2) The rise of ISIS was never preordained from the invasion. There was no reason for ISIS to come to power at all after overthrowing Saddam. The reason for that is because President Obama made two blunders, first in being bent on pulling the troops right out of Iraq, and two, in not taking ISIS seriously at all.

 

Lets be realistic: There is not superpower that would not try and succeed to dictate neigbors to some extent (and in many instances not so close neighbors).

I am happy that USA is what it is so we dont get harassed more by russians. But no nation is entirely without it's sins.

 

Oh I agree. But the U.S. is a superpower that does not do this. Canadians do not live in constant concern of the U.S. threatening or bullying them in some manner. Mexico doesn't either, in fact, Americans live more in concern of Mexican illegal immigration. Same for the United Kingdom, France, Germany, etc...and when one looks at all of the "crap," if you will, that the U.S. was involved in throughout the world during the 20th century, right or wrong, it was almost all due to having to counter communism.

 

It will be close. I think Trump will win. People are pissed. Even my aunt, who is hardcore straight Democrat ticket puncher said she wont check the box for Hillary. She said Trump or Gary Johnson. And my aunt HATES the GOP. When we are at time when she says she will consider checking the box for a Republican, and Trump on top of that....we are in different times.

My opinion:

 

Hillary: Smart cookie. Highly seasoned politician. Knows the game and is part of the good ole' boys club. Pathological liar, corrupt, has 0 ability to tell the truth. Even when looking you in the eyes. Can even do it with a smile. Husband was a part one of the largest attack on the 2nd Amendment. More political machine than human being.

 

Trump: Goofy billionaire. Has good ideas, good heart and good intentions. Terrible speaker and especially bad at delivery. Not part of the political machine. Has not been corrupted by donors and special interest groups. Even with his problems, Americans can relate to his ideas. Constantly praises police, troops, vets. Pro 2A. He's more human than machine.

 

My opinion is Trump will win. I have been watching YouTube videos of he and Hillary rallies. He's packing 20K seat arenas. Hillary is getting only like 500 people unless Obama is with her, half of them are school kids who can't vote anyways. Even Romney got 206 Electoral votes and he was not popular. This time is different. Obama's 8 years of lies and doing nothing but playing golf and pissing off Americans has created an absolute monster. People look at Hillary and see 4 more years of Obama looking back at them. People are highly pissed.

 

Trump wins by YUGE margin. I ignore polls. They said Trump only had 1% chance of being nominated and said Brexit would not happen.

Trump wins by YUGE margin. I ignore polls. They said Trump only had 1% chance of being nominated and said Brexit would not happen.

 

Trump has woken up the silent majority, I believe he will bring many first time voters to the polls supporting his election.

Whether it be a young voter or an older person who has never or seldomly voted in the past. They are pissed off at what Obama has done to this country.

They are sick and tired of all of the liberal left wing agenda being forced down their throats all while be yelled at to accept it and then being mocked themselves.

 

What they see and hear in Trump is a candidate that is just as pissed off at the political systems as they are, and he is not afraid to say it in the least bit.

Trump is pissed, they are pissed, they are mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore!

 

There is going to be a record turnout this election year and that turn out is going to lead to a Trump victory.

As mentioned all you need to do is compare the turn out at a Trump rally vs. a Clinton rally.

She is going to lose and her supporters are not going to like it.

 

Expect to see the usual temper tantrums IE: rioting, looting and violence from her base when Trump wins.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/ma...tuff-bomb-drop/

It ain't over till it's over.

I wouldn't count Hillary out she has the weight of the media and establishment behind her. I think she is universally dispised by a large

part of the population still think Trump can or should win. I know trump isn't a saint but at least if Trump breaks the law he can be removed from office, Hillary could shoot someone on the lawn of the white house and the way the media and the Dems are is you countn't impeach her.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/ma...tuff-bomb-drop/

It ain't over till it's over.

I wouldn't count Hillary out she has the weight of the media and establishment behind her. I think she is universally dispised by a large

part of the population still think Trump can or should win. I know trump isn't a saint but at least if Trump breaks the law he can be removed from office, Hillary could shoot someone on the lawn of the white house and the way the media and the Dems are is you countn't impeach her.

This election does seem a bit slippery.

 

If I was betting, I sure wouldn't put any $ on Trump winning.

 

Geeze, seems like times are getting terrible. Hopefully we don't have a Kanye/Kim K run for president next!

Trump is losing in the polls right now. I don't see how he will win.

Trump is losing in the polls right now. I don't see how he will win.

 

Polls are BS. Just in general, he won't get voted in.

Trump is losing in the polls right now. I don't see how he will win.

 

I don't believe the poll's.

Ameer dont forget the rise of far left in Europe. They have stronghold of almost every single media outlet and seems to be only agenda that cant be criticized. They want to be seemed as everyones voice when in fact they arent.

 

Imho having one super power in each continent is not a bad thing as long as they are not invaders.

I hope all three will be busy keeping each others in check and order.

About the media, in Finland and other northern countries yes but not everywhere.

 

They keep each other in check for a while, but when shit hits the fan guess where the wars are fought? Right now, the Russians are furious over the missile defense systems in eastern Europe. They are absolutely livid and I've heard some pretty crazy talk lately.

 

Yes, but aside from the United States, the other three aspiring superpowers are bent on controlling and dictating to their neighbors. I would generally say that to maintain world peace and freedom, the United States needs to remain the premier global superpower, however there is a caveat to that, which is that we also need a leader who will actually take the steps to maintain peace instead of allow threats to just arise, like ISIS. An authoritarian nation that will take the steps necessary to destroy such a threat or even present it from arising can also contribute to peace and stability. But the people living under it will not be very free. The interpretation of it this way can also threaten global peace and freedom IMO because many may see it as just a price worth it to pay to live with reduced freedom under Russian, Chinese, or Iranian rule but with the threat eliminated than to live under supposed U.S. security that isn't provided.

 

Stability and peace under an authoritarian regime is preferable to freedom and chaos. Why do you always assume all societies have to be free or that they must be democratic? This is simply a result of you not being objective or perhaps not cynical enough. Democracy (and all the freedoms it entails) is a luxury. Not all societies can afford that luxury. Some societies are developed enough to be able to handle that responsibility. A democratic system puts a lot of trust, power and responsibility in the hands of people. As we've seen, even in the most developed/richest/educated societies they don't always use that power responsibly. It's quite simple, some societies prefer the predictability and stability of an authoritarian regime, it works for them. When change is forced upon them before they're ready, consequences can be devastating.

 

 

Trump is a good salesman...that's it. With Hillary you know what you're getting. She's been in the business and everyone knows her game. Trump is just selling his voters on a bunch of bs and lies. It's incredible how easily people eat it up even when he doesn't even mention HOW he's going to get anything done. He just says he'll get it done "because he knows the system and knows the best people"...you're kidding right? People buy that? The guys out to line his pockets by making his brand name explode ten fold. He will be a disaster on foreign policy, a disaster on fiscal policy, and ass-backwards when it comes to social issues.

And people think this guy's alpha, or a real man? The idea is hilarious. Makes me think back to our modern man thread...rule 1 on being a modern man...if you're getting your ass handed to you by a girl don't start saying she's on roids and crying like a little bitch

Stability and peace under an authoritarian regime is preferable to freedom and chaos. Why do you always assume all societies have to be free or that they must be democratic? This is simply a result of you not being objective or perhaps not cynical enough. Democracy (and all the freedoms it entails) is a luxury. Not all societies can afford that luxury. Some societies are developed enough to be able to handle that responsibility. A democratic system puts a lot of trust, power and responsibility in the hands of people. As we've seen, even in the most developed/richest/educated societies they don't always use that power responsibly. It's quite simple, some societies prefer the predictability and stability of an authoritarian regime, it works for them. When change is forced upon them before they're ready, consequences can be devastating.

 

That isn't what I meant. I don't assume that all societies have to be free or democratic. Like you said, free and democratic societies require various factors to work and the people have to understand the basic concepts as well. What I am talking about though is countries that are fairly free, but depend on the United States to protect them and maintain the peace in the region. What I am saying is that if the United States allows a threat to arise and said threat begins reigning chaos on said free country, and said free country could ally with an authoritarian country that will then crush the threat, then allying with the authoritarian country at the expense of freedom may be preferable to allying with the United States which they see as not protecting them. And that this kind of thinking can then ultimately lead to unnecessary oppression of freedom and instability.

 

I don't think any society really "prefers" an authoritarian system to a democratic system. A democratic system will be very stable and predictable provided it is a developed liberal democracy. That is why the United States has such a good amount of trust globally in terms of entities purchasing its debt. Because of stability. Modern liberal democracies in general are very stable. No one says, "No way in hell am I going to Britain/France/Germany/Australia/Canada/etc...because they're unstable, chaotic liberal democracies." You don't have to worry about a coup or generals trying to make themselves dictator or anything like that. The issue I think is that many societies in the world do not have any concept of how a free society actually functions or how to create one, and those that do know that trying to make their country into such a system could be very chaotic if not done right (i.e. Russia in the 1990s for example).

 

If your country is mostly uneducated peasants, then it's going to be a long road to making it into a functioning liberal democracy.

Trump is a good salesman...that's it. With Hillary you know what you're getting. She's been in the business and everyone knows her game. Trump is just selling his voters on a bunch of bs and lies. It's incredible how easily people eat it up even when he doesn't even mention HOW he's going to get anything done. He just says he'll get it done "because he knows the system and knows the best people"...you're kidding right? People buy that? The guys out to line his pockets by making his brand name explode ten fold. He will be a disaster on foreign policy, a disaster on fiscal policy, and ass-backwards when it comes to social issues.

 

And people think this guy's alpha, or a real man? The idea is hilarious. Makes me think back to our modern man thread...rule 1 on being a modern man...if you're getting your ass handed to you by a girl don't start saying she's on roids and crying like a little bitch

 

See now I both agree and disagree on this. I agree that a lot of people buy into Trump for illogical reasons. Some people though also fully understand what you're saying but just want to send a message anyway. I do not however believe that Trump is running to line his pockets. I think he is running out of a combination of ego and concern for the country. On foreign policy and fiscal policy, who knows. I agree that he is not alpha. People mistake his brash demeanor with being alpha, but he strikes me as very thin-skinned and childish, which is not alpha.

Polls are BS. Just in general, he won't get voted in.

Polls were right in 2012.