Trump vs. Sanders

[bedlamite]

You guys are missing this from Rev's post:

Which is saying more about her competition than her own abilities

He's not saying she's awesome, He's saying Bernie and Trump suck that much worse.

[Perd Hapley]

You guys are missing this from Rev's post:

He's not saying she's awesome, He's saying Bernie and Trump suck that much worse.

Not really. How is she more accomplished than the other people in the race? Most of them are politicians, who got elected without having "First Lady" on their resume. Carson is a poor kid that became a highly respected surgeon. I don't know exactly what Trump has done, but he's apparently famous for being a businessman, and came out of nowhere (politically) to be a front-runner in a party whose top brass despise him.

So how is the Hillary more competent?

Someone said she's very good at being a politician. Explain how.

[RevDisk]

At being a politician. Not at any useful or productive things. 

She knows about about the realities of the political process, the various political machines, etc. She's been "in politics" for quite some time, and knows how to get political things accomplished. I don't generally like the content of those things and again, I don't like her whatsoever. I am not defending her. She should be in prison over the classified information in personal email thing. If put in terms that APS'ers will like better, she knows how to be a DC parasitic scumbag better than Trump or Sanders. Sanders has been in politics for quite some time, but doesn't get a lot accomplished because well... He's a socialist. Though oddly more pro-gun than one would expect. Trump doesn't have political experience (some don't count this as a negative and it might not be). But unless he hires very good staff, he won't get much accomplished. Which also might not be a bad thing.

Competence at being a federal level politician (or playing scumbag DC parasite games, if you prefer that phrasing) is not necessarily a compliment, or remotely positive. Generally the opposite.

[Perd Hapley]

A competent politician is one who is good at being elected, and at getting things done. Again, how has Mrs. Clinton shown much skill at either?

[roo_ster]

A competent politician is one who is good at being elected, and at getting things done. Again, how has Mrs. Clinton shown much skill at either?

She married Bill.

[charby]

Talked with my folks last night, who will be Iowa Caucus-goers.  They were wavering between Trump and Cruz.  I laid out both as objectively as I could and analyzed it from a couple of directions, given what I know of their predilictions.  In the end, they don't trust Cruz's recent immigration restriction conversion and they place the ethnic composition of America above the other issues where Cruz is an obvious improvement over Trump.  Also, neither has ever been a fan of free trade, since my dad actually read Ricardo in college and minored in econ.  Last, they think that Trump would be more vicious and vigorous in fighting PC in both social and legal realms.

Trump has a crazy strong grassroots movement in Iowa, going to be an interesting caucus night.

[roo_ster]

You mention recent conversions.  Trump has in the past held some pretty liberal viewpoints and not all that long ago.  Trump gets my vote over just about any of the D.C. establishment Republicans, but he doesn't have a spotless track record.  I do think he would be a pretty good candidate, certainly compared to people like Romney or McCain.  Just the fact that he wouldn't run away from hard questions gets him a lot of advantage even if his answer isn't the best. 

They are aware of this.  They would be happy with only the following:
1. Stop immigration & get those here now back home.
2. No more trade deals the benefit the very few and hose the rest of America.
3. Stop the PC/SJW assault on free speech and association.

Yes, they know he is not pure as the driven snow. 

[Hawkmoon]

Trump I believe somewhere in his soul knows that he's incompetent. But he tries to power through it with bluff, bravado, spouting whatever is necessary. Being able to ignore political correctness is one thing, so long as there's actual intelligence and competence behind the scenes. I don't see it in Trump. On the other hand and to his credit, if you ignore the un-PC rhetoric, his positions not as radical or far out there as the media presents. As much as certain folks think he's the savior of culture or whatnot, I doubt it. Expect a lot of talk, little action to back it up.

I don't completely trust Trump, but I do like much of what he's been saying recently. As for Cruz, I don't trust him at all.

Regarding Trump and competence behind the scenes, why do you think presidents have cabinets and national security advisors? Let's face it, even before the onset of Alzheimers Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the string. He was the front man, the guy who made the public pitch for whatever had been decided behind closed doors. It's widely suspected that the same was true for Eisenhower.

[Ben]

Regarding Trump and competence behind the scenes, why do you think presidents have cabinets and national security advisors? Let's face it, even before the onset of Alzheimers Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the string. He was the front man, the guy who made the public pitch for whatever had been decided behind closed doors. It's widely suspected that the same was true for Eisenhower.

The problem is that in the end it is still the president's decision. If Trump surrounds himself with the best and the brightest, he has to listen to them, and that means not going all Junior High School with a slice of nuclear if an Ayatollah calls him a poopy head.

[makattak]

I don't completely trust Trump, but I do like much of what he's been saying recently. As for Cruz, I don't trust him at all.

Regarding Trump and competence behind the scenes, why do you think presidents have cabinets and national security advisors? Let's face it, even before the onset of Alzheimers Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the string. He was the front man, the guy who made the public pitch for whatever had been decided behind closed doors. It's widely suspected that the same was true for Eisenhower.

I don't get the Cruz distrust.  (Not just you,  but in other forums,  too.)

I'm not about to claim he's as pure as the wind-driven snow,  but he's done what he promised to do and his background elsewhere backs up that record.  (As I mentioned before,  look at his time at the FCC.)

He's a politician,  of course,  so there should be a distrust (or a trust, but verify). But I trust him more than most other politicians.

[charby]

I don't get the Cruz distrust.  (Not just you,  but in other forums,  too.)

I'm not about to claim he's as pure as the wind-driven snow,  but he's done what he promised to do and his background elsewhere backs up that record.  (As I mentioned before,  look at his time at the FCC.)

He's a politician,  of course,  so there should be a distrust (or a trust, but verify). But I trust him more than most other politicians.

He looks and has the visual cues of a used car salesman/televangelist. That makes it hard to trust someone at first.

[charby]

MSM is all over Bernie now, saying he may beat out Hillary for the nomination. Wow, I figured Hillary had the presidency in the bag.

[roo_ster]

I don't completely trust Trump, but I do like much of what he's been saying recently. As for Cruz, I don't trust him at all.

Regarding Trump and competence behind the scenes, why do you think presidents have cabinets and national security advisors? Let's face it, even before the onset of Alzheimers Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the string. He was the front man, the guy who made the public pitch for whatever had been decided behind closed doors. It's widely suspected that the same was true for Eisenhower.

1. Trump has had to make tough decisions, which is more than many policritters who never were in business, military, or executive positions can claim.

2. Reagan was not a dim bulb*.  Read the radio addresses he wrote out longhand in the 1960s and 1970s.  He had a firm grasp of his political philosophy, the issues, and the threats.  Do not fall for the inevitable left/liberal smear of the "conservative as nitwit."  Same thing with GWB and Kerry.  Test scores from Yale indicate similar IQs in the low 120s, with GWB having a slight edge.  The GOP could run a clone of the love child of Albert Einstein and Madame Curie and the MSM would still portray him as dumb relative to the scintillating intellect of whatever creature the Party of Slavery/Segregation/Socialism ran.

3. Cruz nips at the heels of the GOP establishment.  He doesn't go too far astray, just enough to differentiate himself from the GOPe pack of whipped currs.






* Reagan also was not as conservative as some would like to see him in hindsight.

[Ben]

* Reagan also was not as conservative as some would like to see him in hindsight.

Which is also something of a sad commentary on those who followed, and were compared as not living up to his conservative mantle.

[MechAg94]

I think I heard someone point out that just about every Repub Presidential candidate that followed Reagan was a critic of Reagan when he was running.  Reagan was an outsider that no one gave a chance to who won in a landslide in the national election.  Bush the 1st won big on his coattails afterward then lost as it was obvious he was a mushy liberal Republican.  The Bush's are the only candidates to win since Reagan and their opponents were pretty weak.  I think Cruz or Trump ought to win in a landslide in the main election if they make it that far. 

Cruz ran for Senate against a long time Republican establishment state candidate David Dewhurst.  Dewhurst was getting all the national Republican support and spent boat loads of money.  His ads were blanketing radio stations leading up to the Primary and run off.  Cruz still won.  He gained support just about every time people heard him speak.  Since winning, he appears to have avoided becoming an establishment drone like many of the Tea Party candidates.  And what do I hear on this site?  That Cruz's looks are more important than anything he says or has done.   

[Scout26]

Not only has he NOT become an establishment drone has constantly poked his finger in the eyes of the establishment. Remember he caused the .gov shut-down over Obamacare.  He stood on the floor of Senate and called McConnell a liar.  He has voted against every big .gov bill and sponsored bills like Kate's law.   He's been a conservative's conservative.  He has backed up his words with actions in Senate.  While Trump's words pisses off the GOP, Cruz's ACTIONS have pissed off the GOP establishment.

I will give Trump prop's for one thing.  He is very good at surrounding himself with smart people who can get things done.  Not only that, but they are very loyal to him.  Which tells me that he's very loyal to them and treats them well.  IF he didn't, the MSM would be trotting out every disgruntled former employee they could find.  And so far, I think the only was a illegal that worked in one of his restaurants and got fired when he started blabbing about being and illegal. 
 

[brimic]

Not only has he NOT become an establishment drone has constantly poked his finger in the eyes of the establishment. Remember he caused the .gov shut-down over Obamacare.  He stood on the floor of Senate and called McConnell a liar.  He has voted against every big .gov bill and sponsored bills like Kate's law.   He's been a conservative's conservative.  He has backed up his words with actions in Senate.  While Trump's words pisses off the GOP, Cruz's ACTIONS have pissed off the GOP establishment.

I will give Trump prop's for one thing.  He is very good at surrounding himself with smart people who can get things done.  Not only that, but they are very loyal to him.  Which tells me that he's very loyal to them and treats them well.  IF he didn't, the MSM would be trotting out every disgruntled former employee they could find.  And so far, I think the only was a illegal that worked in one of his restaurants and got fired when he started blabbing about being and illegal. 
 

That is why he gets my vote. None of the other candidates have earned it.

[wmenorr67]

If Bill won't choose her, why should we.

Anymore it isn't always about the person in the White House but who is chosen in the key positions that say a lot.

Who will be chosen as the second on the ticket and then if elected who will make up the cabinet?

[MechAg94]

I have to amend a previous post that was incorrect.  Hilary is competent about at least one thing.  She and Bill have shown great competence at using their public offices to enrich themselves and convincing everyone there is no point to trying to prosecute them. 

[Blakenzy]

Hillary is I'll-have-you-killed-for-disliking-my-new-hair-do Krazy. Only a real psychopath would think to make jokes after watching a person get beaten, sodomized and shot dead. I fear that soulless monster.

[Hawkmoon]

A competent politician is one who is good at being elected, and at getting things done. Again, how has Mrs. Clinton shown much skill at either?

As to the former, she got herself elected as a senator from New York, when neither she nor Bill had any previous affiliation whatsoever with the state of New York. But ... she got elected because Noo Yawkers wanted the Clinton name, not because they had any illusions about her capabilities other than as a consummate insider.

[Ben]

As to the former, she got herself elected as a senator from New York, when neither she nor Bill had any previous affiliation whatsoever with the state of New York. But ... she got elected because Noo Yawkers wanted the Clinton name, not because they had any illusions about her capabilities other than as a consummate insider.

Agree, and especially relevant given the Cruz - Trump "NYC values" kerfuffle. Everyone knows exactly what Cruz was talking about, so the whole 9/11 tie-in makes Trump look bad IMO. I doubt that more than 20% of the city's population votes Republican.

[tokugawa]

I would kind of like to have a president who did not personally hate me and my friends, along with every traditional American ideal.  Seems like a small, thing, actually. I mean, I go to work, pay my taxes, try not to hurt anyone or destroy things, it would just be sort of nice to not have my life meddled with constantly and have some jerk trying assiduously to attack my pursuit of happiness. See, I get the feeling my liberty and life may not be too far behind. Communists have a perfect record here. Gulags are their stock in trade, sort of like eggs and butter at the grocers. (except for commie grocers, they may have an egg next Thursday afternoon, the line forms Monday night.)

 Nor can I muster much enthusiasm for amoral vicious shrews.  Now a true commie will throw us into a gulag for the greater good of the people, a AVS will do it just because they can, and it gives them pleasure.

 IF Mr. Trump actually believes what he is saying, and is not playing the part of Perot as a deliberate attempt to split
the vote,  he might be viable. The sole reason he has any popularity is that he is saying the sort of things everyone has been thinking, but to afraid to say, lest they be accused with all the standard insults.

 My inner pessimist thinks our divisions are so wide anymore the country is in for either a pitiless tyranny or a bloody civil war that will make the current mess in mena look easily understandable.


 

[MechAg94]

I don't think Trump is going to do Perot.  Perot never had a chance to win the Repub nomination.  Trump is leading in many polls and way ahead of all the establishment guys. 

[Perd Hapley]

As to the former, she got herself elected as a senator from New York, when neither she nor Bill had any previous affiliation whatsoever with the state of New York. But ... she got elected because Noo Yawkers wanted the Clinton name, not because they had any illusions about her capabilities other than as a consummate insider.

Exactly. No skill required.