Donald Trump attacks Hillary Clinton as wins set stage for brutal election

[Ridgerunner]

But Trump can work around his lack of specific knowledge about foreign policy. He can talk about Hillary’s corruption, her lack of judgment in voting for the Iraq War in the first place, her lack of energy, stamina, strength, his own priority of destroying ISIS, and, most of all, his desire to make America’s Foreign Policy Great Again! Don’t forget that Trump is a master at kibitzing (to put it kindly), or BS’ing (to be more blunt).

The reality is that nobody truly understands foreign affairs other than those who have been in the intelligence business for years, and even then it’s only approximate.

Most dealing with foreign affairs is “keep strong, get as much information as you can, and act rationally after receiving advice from the best experts you know”. Think about this for a moment. When George W. Bush took office, the last thing he expected was to be a wartime president. He was all into “compassionate conservatism” whatever that is. Most likely he had notions of reducing deficits, as he said.

Then 911 happened. In the meantime, Saddam Hussein was repeatedly breaking the terms of the truce and intelligence from all over told him Saddam was working on WMD. The military really wasn’t prepared for either situation, so a lot of buildup, diplomacy with allies, etc, etc, etc. took his time, effort and resources. If the truth were known, his failure to curb excess spending by both parties was probably part of the price of pursuing the wars, in which he probably really believed. Almost certainly his mistakes were in believing a stable state could be made of Afghanistan and in believing the Iraq effort would be maintained prn by his successor.

In the outcome, though, he was vilified by an already-hostile media and probably accomplished few of the goals he really had in mind for the country internally.

Obama’s successes in getting his (misguided, in my view) internal policies accomplished came at the price of seeing American foreign policy collapse in the face of Islamic aggression, a tougher China, a revanchist Russia and a shabby economy.

As between Trump and Hillary Clinton, the question is not going to be who has the wisest foreign policy. Neither of them has a crystal ball, and neither has any idea what things are going to happen abroad in the next four to eight years. The question is who is going to tell a story that people will believe.

Trump’s handicap is that he has not studied public persuasion/deception for decades the way Hillary Clinton has. Her handicap is that she really does have a trail of failures in foreign policy, perhaps borne of corruption, perhaps only borne of ordinary foolishness.

 

[Peter_J]

That is what he did yesterday-he also served notice that the Benghazi fiasco is not going to go away regardless of how much Hillary and supporters wish it would.

But just because Hillary says she wishes Repubs would drop the matter doesn’t necessarily mean that she really does (no offense to my Dem friends). The hearings made her look like a martyr in many people’s eyes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually you can simply read the statistical turnout for N-E voting. Exit polls show that Trump won 55 % of female voters in his party.

Its click bang gossip imho as it turns out and I think it was put to rest Tues. Can the same results continue nation wide? I don’t see why not.

I’m not sure this means much. As I understand it, most married women vote Republican, or at least the white ones do. Most unmarried women vote Democrat.

In a Republican primary then, in which one assumes most female voters were married, Trump got 55% of maybe 50% of the total number of women in the U.S. If so, he has a long way to go to get most of the female vote in November.

Possibly that’s a wrong conclusion, but I have not seen anything yet that tells me different.

 

[Peter_J]

In a Republican primary then, in which one assumes most female voters were married, Trump got 55% of maybe 50% of the total number of women in the U.S.

I wonder if someone will remind Mr. Trump that there are 50 states, not 5.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure this means much. As I understand it, most married women vote Republican, or at least the white ones do. Most unmarried women vote Democrat.

In a Republican primary then, in which one assumes most female voters were married, Trump got 55% of maybe 50% of the total number of women in the U.S. If so, he has a long way to go to get most of the female vote in November.

Possibly that’s a wrong conclusion, but I have not seen anything yet that tells me different.

I’m not sure what your saying as its pretty much a give and for males also, though with males it makes a difference because of percentage variance. The stats didn’t discern single/married, neither do they with Hillary, but your right as a general rule. The percents who affiliate with each party differs by 1% however. As far as the percent of eligible voters both are around 50 million married, a million difference perhaps. But yes one to the left, one to the right as a general rule of liberal/conservative or moderate. The difference tends to run similar with single/married males only the variance differs by 12-million more married voters. So the Democrats urgent issue is how to get their most reliable female supporters to become more reliable voters.

They’re Very Expensive To Mobilize

Single women are hard to target and turn out.

They’re economically stressed. They work all the time, they take care of their kids, and they’re disaffiliated — they’re not involved with community groups. They’re more secular, attending church less often than married women.

Because they were the hardest-hit by the recession, single women are more mobile and more likely to be renters — which means they’re more easily disenfranchised. That matters a great deal, because the more stable a voter, the easier he or she is to target, register and turn out. NPR-2014

 

[meltzerboy]

The reality is that nobody truly understands foreign affairs other than those who have been in the intelligence business for years, and even then it’s only approximate.

Most dealing with foreign affairs is “keep strong, get as much information as you can, and act rationally after receiving advice from the best experts you know”. Think about this for a moment. When George W. Bush took office, the last thing he expected was to be a wartime president. He was all into “compassionate conservatism” whatever that is. Most likely he had notions of reducing deficits, as he said.

Then 911 happened. In the meantime, Saddam Hussein was repeatedly breaking the terms of the truce and intelligence from all over told him Saddam was working on WMD. The military really wasn’t prepared for either situation, so a lot of buildup, diplomacy with allies, etc, etc, etc. took his time, effort and resources. If the truth were known, his failure to curb excess spending by both parties was probably part of the price of pursuing the wars, in which he probably really believed. Almost certainly his mistakes were in believing a stable state could be made of Afghanistan and in believing the Iraq effort would be maintained prn by his successor.

In the outcome, though, he was vilified by an already-hostile media and probably accomplished few of the goals he really had in mind for the country internally.

Obama’s successes in getting his (misguided, in my view) internal policies accomplished came at the price of seeing American foreign policy collapse in the face of Islamic aggression, a tougher China, a revanchist Russia and a shabby economy.

As between Trump and Hillary Clinton, the question is not going to be who has the wisest foreign policy. Neither of them has a crystal ball, and neither has any idea what things are going to happen abroad in the next four to eight years. The question is who is going to tell a story that people will believe.

Trump’s handicap is that he has not studied public persuasion/deception for decades the way Hillary Clinton has. Her handicap is that she really does have a trail of failures in foreign policy, perhaps borne of corruption, perhaps only borne of ordinary foolishness.

I agree with almost everything you say here. Now, that’s a first! Well, except for the mention of a shabby economy, which, according to most economic indicators, is not so bad and surely has improved since Obama took office. But that’s a topic for another thread.

For this election cycle, I think “it’s the economy, stupid!” must be modified to “it’s the economy AND foreign policy, stupid!” And healthcare, particularly for us seniors.

 

[TMC]

Thats deflection we were not talking about Trump.

Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors, and the genuine contempt of the rival political party. In reality, Clinton is a liability to Democrats…Huffington Post

I can’t name the last person to meet that very specific list, but I can tell you who the first is going to be.

 

[Thorolfr]

I’m not sure this means much. As I understand it, most married women vote Republican, or at least the white ones do. Most unmarried women vote Democrat.

I know quite a few married white women who vote Democrat. Maybe it’s the part of the country you come from where most married women vote Republican.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree with almost everything you say here. Now, that’s a first! Well, except for the mention of a shabby economy, which, according to most economic indicators, is not so bad and surely has improved since Obama took office. But that’s a topic for another thread.

For this election cycle, I think “it’s the economy, stupid!” must be modified to “it’s the economy AND foreign policy, stupid!” And healthcare, particularly for us seniors.

Just briefly. I see where the economy grew last quarter at an annualized 1/2 of 1%. That’s 1/2 point away from a recessionary economy. The economy improved after Obama took office, but only over 2008, and it took a couple of years to do that. GDP growth has been anemic throughout his administration. Everybody knows that. But it’s on a downswing at present. And that’s with the Fed having its foot to the monetary floorboard the whole time.

It’s not good, MB. It’s not.

If you’re a senior, you have it better in healthcare than most Americans do. Not meaning to be offensive, but a working family that is not subsidized is really paying through the nose, and it keeps getting worse.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know quite a few married white women who vote Democrat. Maybe it’s the part of the country you come from where most married women vote Republican.

I don’t much doubt it. It’s just true on the whole. I’m sure in lots of suburban neighborhoods there are white female marrieds who vote Dem because its more chic to be liberal. It’s probably particularly so among mainline protestants and liberal Catholics.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hillary Clinton’s one appeal to (some) women is her total dedication to abortion on demand. Even in her response to Trump, she used the euphemism “womens’ health”. We all know what that really means. She knows who her most dedicated supporters are. But it’s quite possible the majority of American women are not as devoted to abortion on demand as she is.

Otherwise?

I doubt most women would like her record of corruption if they knew about it, and they probably will by election time.

Her savagery toward other women, and her failing to pay equal pay to women in her employ will be increasingly exposed as the election progresses.

A fair number of women will not welcome the idea of changing their religion for Hillary.

What is the reason women would want to support a person who started a war and turned more than one country over to terrorists?

And there are probably quite a number of women who would prefer to have a decent job than to have free abortion coverage but no job.

This could all turn out very differently from what people expect right now. We’ll see.

How is Hillary going to make others, including women, change their religion? I know about the comment she made concerning, IIRC, outmoded religious, cultural beliefs, but do you take this at face value? The idea seems absurd to me.

I’m not a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I don’t believe she is “Lucifer in the flesh,” as Boehner described Ted Cruz. Nor is Cruz, as much as I disagree with his politics.

 

[Waylon102]

For everyone who bashes Trump, do you really want Hillary in charge? She couldn’t handle the other positions she held, so let’s give her more responsibility. We may not know who Trump would appoint to the Supreme Court, but we know Hillary’s choices would be bad. Don’t complain if you stay home on election day and Hillary gets elected and promotes a bunch of anti-Catholic causes. Which she has already done by the way.

 

[Peter_J]

How is Hillary going to make others, including women, change their religion?

Well, I’ve heard several times, so it must be true right?

(That seems to work for Dems, so I thought I would try it. )

 

[Peter_J]

For everyone who bashes Trump, do you really want Hillary in charge?

I don’t know which state you live in, but in my state’s GOP primary, two days ago, Hillary’s name wasn’t on the ballot.

 

[HolyCrusader007]

Why should we require that of him? Having a “positive view of Mexicans” is every bit as racist as having a “negative view” of them inasmuch as it lumps a whole ethnic group into a category of approval or disapproval.

It is hurtful to Mexicans for Trump supporters to chant things like its the Mexicans and Chinese whom are stealing our Jobs. I cant imagine any responsible adult who would approve of having a negative view in general of an entire group such as the Mexicans. Imagine some guy in Mexico saying all Americans should pay for our wall…this comes off as an arrogant approach to just expect an entire peoples to pay for something you want to build.

The real question is whether he is actually biased against Mexicans, and I don’t think we have any real proof that he does.

Trump says that he loves Mexicans. But there is absolutely no way to get around the horrible rhetoric that Trump supporters have made against Mexicans. So the problem is because Trump continues to demand the Mexicans to pay for a wall…that this creates negative tensions toward the Mexicans.

He certainly has a negative view of the Mexican government, but then so do a lot of Mexicans. Never will I forget when, at one time, our parish priest was a Mexican national. He went on and on and on about how corrupt and uncaring that government is.

Oh yes, any gov of any country is open to criticism.

And neither do we know he has a negative view of Muslims, generally. What he actually said was that we shouldn’t be letting them in here from foreign countries as a temporary measure until we had some means of vetting them.

Trump says he loves Muslims, and says he will be neutral on Israel/Palestine…so this is a good thing IMO. The problem is the nasty language that Trump supporters use toward Muslims…and this is influenced by Trumps temp ban proposal. I mean to temp ban an entire group is a disgusting thing, Im sorry for my language but its just a nasty thing for example(hypothetical speaking) for a Saudi politician to want to ban all Christians from visiting Saudi, for a Chinese person to want to ban all white Americans from entering China. And far to many Muslims are fighting ISIL for me to say something like why are Muslims not doing anything about ISIL…,maybe we should ban all Muslims until things simmer down…which is basically what Trump says.

GWB did not call for all Muslims to be banned. GWB in the aftermath of 9/11 visited a Mosque and showcased tremendous leadership skills. And since 9/11 there has not been another 9/11 in the USA…there have only been a handful of terror attacks committed by Muslims in the USa since 9/11. Thousands of Muslims serve in the USA armed forces…

I wonder what the percentage of Americans is who think the very same thing. I would bet it is well over 50%.

Fact is, is that in every state in the USA Muslims and non Muslims work together and live on the same streets. This would be impossible if over 50% of Americans wanted to temp ban all Muslims from coming to the US.

But Trump’s comments did not and do not register well when it comes to such things, because we have all been sensitized to think of almost every mention of race or ethnicity as 'racist".

Not me, when I hear a Chinese person say all whites are the devil…thats racism. Other then that I dont understand your above point. Racism is Racism. Now the black lives matter movement is not showing white racisim imo, those folks are themselves probably racists for creating a group called black lives matter…What about Mexican lives, what about Jewish lives is what I say to groups like black lives matter.

Remember when some woman or other was castigated for wearing a sort of westernized version of a kimono? Why, that was racist because it was “cultural theft” or something of that sort. So, it appears, is the western version of sushi.

Thats not racist IMO and I would imagine the vast majority of America does not see that as racist.

We’re awfully well trained to be stupid, it sometimes seems.

I recall one time, right here on CAF when people were talking about racism and ethnicism. I commented that my Polish barber tells “Polack” jokes. Oh, some just went wild, castigating him for telling them and me for not being offended by it.

We’re getting very well trained.

Well its one thing to joke around, I get that. But I see in the Trump supporters a very negative attitude toward Mexicans, Chinese and Muslims.

 

[sallybutler]

I don’t much doubt it. It’s just true on the whole. I’m sure in lots of suburban neighborhoods there are white female marrieds who vote Dem because its more chic to be liberal. It’s probably particularly so among mainline protestants and liberal Catholics.

I don’t think women in suburban neighborhoods chose to be Democrat in order to be chic any more than they chose to be Republican because it it chic in their neighborhoods.

BTW, most suburban neighborhoods I have lived in leaned right, not left. Of course that was in the SF Bay Area, where everybody does not live according to the stereotypes people seem to have of it.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think women in suburban neighborhoods chose to be Democrat in order to be chic any more than they chose to be Republican because it it chic in their neighborhoods.

BTW, most suburban neighborhoods I have lived in leaned right, not left. Of course that was in the SF Bay Area, where everybody does not live according to the stereotypes people seem to have of it.

I’ve often found that real life isn’t entirely like what I see on the Internet.

And I’m glad.

 

[anon67074017]

I would rather see Trump attack Sanders in a debate. Clinton is kind of boring.

 

[Sy_Noe]

She won’t be arrested, and she’s likely to be the nominee, but she doesn’t need the Sanders followers. Sanders was bringing out college kids, for the most part, people who had never voted before. Hillary has the Democratic base, and that’s all she really needs, though more is always better. She’ll get some Republicans who can’t stand Trump. Even a Republican who doesn’t vote for anyone is a vote for Hillary.

Exactly Lily Bernans. It will be even better as you said for Hillary and her party to get the first time voters. And I do think enough Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary by Nov. I’m far from young but I voted for Bernie and will vote for Hillary. People said the same thing about Hillary voters in 08 not voting for Obama and it turned out most did. Exit polling in NY showed that by far most Hillary supporters would back Bernie and visa versa by about the same percentage. But as you said many of the young Sanders supporters have never voted before anyway. I also am tired of hearing about the “Reagan Democrats” voting for Trump. Those voters haven’t voted Democratic in recent elections anyway either.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The stalled Obama economy is an albatross for Hillary

nypost.com/2016/04/28/the-stalled-obama-economy-is-an-albatross-for-hillary/

Absolutely minimal growth.

excerpt:

***Sure, the headline numbers look great — 5 percent unemployment, compared to the 10 percent rate he was stuck with during the height of the Great Recession. But dig deeper and you’ll find trouble: Unemployment is down in large measure because people have given up looking for jobs.

The deficit is falling because the GOP Congress has held the line on spending, and the market is up because the Fed has kept interest rates at rock-bottom levels so investors have nowhere else to go but to buy stocks.

And now, the final shoes seem like they could soon drop. The absence of real economic growth is making it harder to deny the fact that the past seven-plus years of massive taxes, over-regulation, ObamaCare disruptions and the constant drumbeat of class warfare are hurting, not helping, the average American worker.***