The 2016 US General Election

[JAD_333]

I don't even think I would call him a businessman. I would call him more of a real estate speculator. So two different mindsets.

I think real estate speculator falls under the general category of businessman, but I won't quibble with you. Real estate speculators (having been one myself) do get a lot of negotiation experience. Anyone who has been a general contractor for himself or a client knows that construction budgets can't be met without negotiating costs with subcontractors and suppliers. That's a real talent and I don't doubt Trump has it, but it only goes so far in a position like POTUS.

Interestingly, what you said about businessmen could be said about military men. Ike did well since he was more an administrator who had to get along with many disparate personalities. Then I have a retired Army, West Point, Colonel who works as a CFO for a tech company. We are talking in the exam room and he mentions being on a committee with nine other people all civilians. They have to decide something so I asked how that went. I already knew the answer as he rolled his eyes and says herding cats was easier. Yet, then I have a retired Rear Admiral, who became a lawyer, and then a Federal Judge before finally retiring. Super nice guy, we could talk for hours, and he was very adept at negotiation and finding the middle ground.

Interesting stuff. Most presidents have had some form of military service: Post Civil War we have Grant, Hayes, McKinley, TR, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr.--did I miss anyone? But among them I wouldn't call any but Grant, McKinley, and Ike military men. They reached general officer rank and had major administrative responsibility, and BTW didn't do so bad as president. So, I'm not sure I agree that military men are in the same class as businessmen when it comes to holding high public office.

[Parihaka]

How many of these have you seen?

I have watched annually for years on CSPAN. There has NEVER been a reaction to a candidate like Trump got.

Were there not any deplorables invited?

[tbm3fan]

Were there not any deplorables invited?

I guess not as I didn't see David Duke

[JRT]

Looking at it from Trump's perspective, there is nothing to be gained by conceding, and much to be gained by challenging and criticizing perceived faults and perceived manipulations in the election process. This is not about any possibility of winning an election, rather it provides means of gaining more continued attention for Trump in the media spotlight, while also providing some manure to spread for another crop of conspiracy theory fodder for his flock of extremist sheep-people.

Are you serious? No one has asked Trump to concede at this point. He was asked whether he will do so if he loses the election. That's practically a boiler plate question for any candidate and a perfectly safe one for him or her to answer in the affirmative. If, in our wildest dreams, massive voting fraud is later detected--I don't mean the low level stuff that doesn't affect the overall results--then a candidate can decline to cede the election pending a recount or a court determination that there was indeed a fraud or mistakes that affected the outcome. If Trump gets trounced in the electoral vote, is he going to concede defeat or obsess over claims of voter fraud in some obscure voting districts here and there that don't amount to enough votes to change anything except who won the office of local dogcatcher. Now if we get a repeat of the 2000 election where the outcome in Florida mattered because its electoral votes would determine the overall winner of the race but the election was so close there had to be a recount, then Trump would of course not concede until the recount was over and it showed he had lost the state. The question before him now is whether he will accept the result of the election, win or lose. If he hedges, as he has done, or outright says no, he is in effect undermining our election system and encouraging millions of voters to believe it's corrupt. That's a serious matter, because we depend on our voting systems to correctly register who we wish to serve us in government.

I am serious about what I wrote, yes.

You missed my intended meaning.

...which was simply that I suspect that Trump will drag this out as long as he can beyond November if it is not expensive to do so, and not with the intention of winning that election, but for the other reasons stated.

edit: Trump is in this for Trump, and for nobody else, and it really is that simple.

[bfng3569]

Pretty bad considering that the Republican Senate announced that they would block Obama's agenda 100% before he even took office in 2008. There's the opposition lying down a mark in the sand essentially telling Obama not to bother. I believe the comment was that if he was for it we are against it. Ergo no need to accommodate them.

The second issue that worked against him was that he happened to be black and easily 10-20% of the population was not good with that.

Nice to see m8ssing my entire point.

[bfng3569]

you are wearing some pretty thick partisan blinders if you cannot differentiate between Gore legally challenging a historically close election (and conceding when the system ruled against him) vs Trump continually telling everyone how rigged the entire system is...in the context of what will be a HRC landslide victory.

be serious, does anyone -really- think Trump is talking about not conceding only if there's a narrow scenario of the election coming down to a few hundred votes in a swing state?

Thick partisan an glasses?

Trump was asked a general question with zero context.

Your inventing the scenario and the context to fit the storyline.

You act like Gore was just an innocent bystander to the courtd or that he had a legit legal claim to do so and rha5s makes it all OK and oh so different from what Trump did.... errr... wait a sec.... Trump didn't do anything did he?

Trumps claim of rigged elections and junk have nothing to do with the statement.

If you want to flip the coin, do you really think if Hillary loses a close election to Trump that she'll just quietly go into the good night?

[bfng3569]

Are you serious? No one has asked Trump to concede at this point. He was asked whether he will do so if he loses the election. That's practically a boiler plate question for any candidate and a perfectly safe one for him or her to answer in the affirmative. If, in our wildest dreams, massive voting fraud is later detected--I don't mean the low level stuff that doesn't affect the overall results--then a candidate can decline to cede the election pending a recount or a court determination that there was indeed a fraud or mistakes that affected the outcome. If Trump gets trounced in the electoral vote, is he going to concede defeat or obsess over claims of voter fraud in some obscure voting districts here and there that don't amount to enough votes to change anything except who won the office of local dogcatcher. Now if we get a repeat of the 2000 election where the outcome in Florida mattered because its electoral votes would determine the overall winner of the race but the election was so close there had to be a recount, then Trump would of course not concede until the recount was over and it showed he had lost the state. The question before him now is whether he will accept the result of the election, win or lose. If he hedges, as he has done, or outright says no, he is in effect undermining our election system and encouraging millions of voters to believe it's corrupt. That's a serious matter, because we depend on our voting systems to correctly register who we wish to serve us in government.

According to Democrats our voting system is corrupt.

I forget the name of the group that recently formed (I could have sworn Obama is going to be a part of it as well), but essentially it's a dem organization that's going to be trying to get voting districts re-districted with the claim the Republicans have been manipulating the districts over the years in their favor to maintain control over local government.

If they are correct, Republicans have been manipulating the system, if they are incorrect dems are trying to manipulate the system.

Either way, it kind of stinks of some level of corruption.

[ambidex]

How many of these have you seen?

I have watched annually for years on CSPAN. There has NEVER been a reaction to a candidate like Trump got.

How many such Dinners coincided with elections few weeks away ?

[ambidex]

The Al smith dinner is meant as a light hearted charity event where one jokes about oneself and ones opponent. The jokes are supposed to singe but not burn. Clinton stuck to that note, Trump went too far.

Obviously you have not seen these events. Check out 2008 and 2012 for reference

Conventions do change. There are no hard rules. People cribbing on it looks stupid or agenda driven to me.

Trump is recumbent, his aggression make sense. Furthermore he has been consistent with what he is saying about HRC especially when he asked Catholics to call her out as she is physically present there for what she and her team has been saying against them. What was wrong there for people to get offended ?

Ahead of Al Smith Dinner, Cardinal Dolan says Hillary owes Catholics an apology

[Parihaka]

I guess not as I didn't see David Duke

And therein lieth the problem. The Berniacs know the election was rigged against them.
The deplorables believe the election is rigged against them.

Trump, with all his lies and poison and failings still gets more than 40% support.
Do you truly believe that forty percent of the people who co-inhabit your land-mass can and should continue to be dismissed as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it." Simply because with all his faults, they still regard him as a better person than Hillary Clinton?
It's certainly how you view me but then we live in very different cultures with nothing comparable but a commonly shared inherited language.
How are you going to coexist with the people who serve you, work with you, provide your food etc when 2 out of 5 are people you despise?

[JAD_333]

I am serious about what I wrote, yes.

You missed my intended meaning.

It happens. Need to be more careful. Sorry.

[tbm3fan]

Nice to see m8ssing my entire point.

Don't be so sure

[tbm3fan]

Trump, with all his lies and poison and failings still gets more than 40% support.
Do you truly believe that forty percent of the people who co-inhabit your land-mass can and should continue to be dismissed as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."

Where did you get that 40% were deplorable enough to be dismissed as racist, sexist,...

Find me the exact quote just to be absolutely accurate first.

As for me I have always avoided those who I know are racist, sexist, and so forth long before this election.

[drhuy]

I am serious about what I wrote, yes.

You missed my intended meaning.

...which was simply that I suspect that Trump will drag this out as long as he can beyond November if it is not expensive to do so, and not with the intention of winning that election, but for the other reasons stated.

edit: Trump is in this for Trump, and for nobody else, and it really is that simple.

aint demcrats still whinning about how gore lost in florida?

[Parihaka]

Where did you get that 40% were deplorable enough to be dismissed as racist, sexist,...

Find me the exact quote just to be absolutely accurate first.

As for me I have always avoided those who I know are racist, sexist, and so forth long before this election.

Why from here

You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America.

Then, in context of the roast Buck was referring to

How many of these have you seen?

I have watched annually for years on CSPAN. There has NEVER been a reaction to a candidate like Trump got.

to which I asked

Were there not any deplorables invited?

to which you stepped in

I guess not as I didn't see David Duke

to which I replied

And therein lieth the problem. The Berniacs know the election was rigged against them.
The deplorables believe the election is rigged against them.

Trump, with all his lies and poison and failings still gets more than 40% support.
Do you truly believe that forty percent of the people who co-inhabit your land-mass can and should continue to be dismissed as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it." Simply because with all his faults, they still regard him as a better person than Hillary Clinton?
It's certainly how you view me but then we live in very different cultures with nothing comparable but a commonly shared inherited language.
How are you going to coexist with the people who serve you, work with you, provide your food etc when 2 out of 5 are people you despise?

It's really not difficult.