Have to say it... trump is rocking this debate!

SixOfWands ↓

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 9:46 am

mamaof2 wrote:

100% trump is winning. May hashem help us all if Clinton wins.
Yidim who dislike trump are subconsciously worried about food stamps more then anything else.

You're right.

I am worried about people who need food stamps to survive.

I am worried about women. I'm worried that my daughters will not live in a world where men feel they have the right to touch them. Or to dismiss them based on their looks.

I'm worried about minorities. And gays and transgendered people. I'm worried about Israel. I'm worried about the United States.

I'm worried about our economy. I'm worried about what will happen to the health insurance of my friend who has cancer. I'm worried about my sons being drafted to fight a war provoked by a leader who doesn't understand the import of his words.

That's why I support Clinton.

↑ gold21 ↓

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 10:03 am

blueberries wrote:

What it come down to is if you like him you think he did very well. If you like Clinton you think she did very well. No matter what he or she says your mind is never changed. Just find ways to defed them.

Lol.
So true.
Personally, I find the extreme divisiveness (He's a nazi! She's the devil!) to be simple-minded. I think they both have pros and cons. I find Hilary more likeable while Trump brings the anti-p.c., anti-media, straight-shooter atititude to the table (I really don't like the media and I'm so sick of p.c. culture). Although obviously neither is the ideal candidate and the best ticket would be Trump/Clinton... That is, Ivanka Trump/Chelsea Clinton. Tongue Out

Women in my age range (they're not much older than me) and life stage, who understand the needs of a modern-day woman.... well, I can't think of a better ticket. Wink

Last edited by gold21 on Mon, Oct 10 2016, 10:09 am; edited 1 time in total

gp2.0

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 10:08 am

L25 wrote:

side question- I was always taught, vote for micky mouse but just vote. If you don't vote you are saying they don't have to care about your vote next time. If you don't like either candidate vote for someone else. Do you disagree?

Actually, not voting at all or voting for a third party is essentially voting for the candidate you dislike the most.

If you hate both trump and Hillary as candidates, but you hate trump 90% and Hillary 85%, vote for Hillary. Otherwise, your lack of a vote means Hillary gets less votes and trump wins.

There is a real concern that trump will win because people who would vote Hillary will vote third party instead and she will lose a large chunk of votes that way.

imasinger ↓

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 10:26 am

gp2.0 wrote:

This might be true in a swing state. But in a state that is very clearly already determined, it doesn't matter. Not under our current electoral system.

↑ imasinger

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 11:57 am

Laiya wrote:

I don't disagree, but I think it's still a good idea to vote. Also on the ballot or federal congressmen, state congressmen, local judges, state ballot measures, etc.

Also, they say that politicians pay attention to which constituencies vote, and in general care more about keeping constituents happy when they are more likely to vote.

100%! I just gave my DS, 21, a similar lecture before Shabbos.

I just have no qualms about voting for someone other than the two distasteful choices for President.

israelgirl

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 1:05 pm

Putting aside what they said, or didn't say-or the fact that this was the most embarrassing moment for America....

At the end of the day Trump strikes me as more real. Clinton can present herself better, sure-but under it all she just seems so rotten, people pleasing, egocentric, condescending, and full of it. Trump is a rambling maniac-granted-but he's more genuine. And for that fact alone people don't like him as he says things as they are. The sniffing for crying out loud? Maybe he has a cold-but seriously-who cares? Clinton just gives me a really bad feeling.

That's not coming from my logical standpoint-more what I internally feel about both of them from how they held themselves through the debate.

Jeanette ↓

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 1:13 pm

israelgirl wrote:

Yeah he's a genuine maniac. Since when is that a maalah? Usually at age 5 or so we learn that it's not okay to just blurt out whatever is on your mind and you need to consider other people.

tichellady ↓

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 1:22 pm

mamaof2 wrote:

100% trump is winning. May hashem help us all if Clinton wins.
Yidim who dislike trump are subconsciously worried about food stamps more then anything else.

You are very out of touch with reality. I don't know one person in my modern orthodox (rather affluent) community who is voting for trump. This is not a community that uses food stamps ( not that there is anything wrong with using food stamps to feed ones family when one is in a tight spot). This is a community of smart, educated professionals who are horrified that frum Jews would even consider voting for trump. I know I'm not going to change to your mind about who to vote for but I just want to make sure you know that the vast majority of modern Orthodox Jews (at least in the big communities where I have family and friends)- even registered republicans are disgusted at the thought of trump being president.

↑ WhatFor

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 1:24 pm

israelgirl wrote:

What your post reminds me of:

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 1:32 pm

israelgirl wrote:

Trump is real

You mean he's real when he says "I did try and f**k her. She was married.” “Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” “Grab them by the pu55y. You can do anything.”

He's real when he mocked a disabled reporter. When he invited Russians to hack Clinton's accounts.

He's real when he invited people to assassinate Clinton if elected, stating, "If [Clinton] gets to pick her judges – nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know." And threatened to jail her if elected, like some low-rent dictator.

He was real when he said, ""Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?"

All of his policy shifts are real. http://www.nbcnews.com/politic.....47801

He was real when he said, ""[Vladimir Putin} is not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down." And when he expressed his admiration for Putin.

He was real when he promoted the racist birther lie for years. When he assumes that every person of color lives in poverty in the inner city. When he asks that everyone attending his rally who is not a Christian conservative raise his or her hand.

He was real when he said all women are gold diggers. Or pieces of a55. Or called women ugly. Fat. Bleeding out her whatever.

And he's real when he repeatedly lies, according to every credible news source that fact checks.

But as to his sniffles, I wouldn't care. BUT. But HE DENIED HE WAS SNIFFLING at the first debate. I mean, really. People get colds. Or allergies. Why deny it? It legitimately scares me that someone can lie about something that I'm watching him do. http://www.politico.com/story/.....28769

Fox ↓

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 2:11 pm

tichellady wrote:

I don't know one person in my modern orthodox (rather affluent) community who is voting for trump. This is not a community that uses food stamps ( not that there is anything wrong with using food stamps to feed ones family when one is in a tight spot). This is a community of smart, educated professionals who are horrified that frum Jews would even consider voting for trump.

Ah, the Pauline Kael moment! For the younger Imamothers, Pauline Kael was an influential film critic for the New Yorker and is famously attributed with some version of the following statement after Nixon defeated McGovern in 1972. The comment was widely mocked as an example of elitist tunnel vision.

Quote:

"I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him."

Trump's success is largely due to the perception that the "smart, educated professionals" with whom many of us are surrounded are significantly out of touch. Now, that may be unfair and even inaccurate, but even Clinton in her Goldman-Sachs speech acknowledged the perception.

The Democratic Party and the progressive left could have de-fanged Trump long ago, regardless of Clinton's history or popularity.

* They could have spoken against BLM's excesses.

* They could have spoken out against BDS's excesses.

* They could have spoken out forcefully about radical Islam and demanded that others do the same -- Orlando was not about "toxic masculinity."

* They could have pretended to at least care about balancing the needs of workers and environmentalists.

* They could have spoken against the abuse of Title IX in higher education to pursue questionable aims.

* They could have avoided the temptation to label people as racists, sexists, etc., simply for disagreeing with a particular policy.

* They could have talked more about trade -- the topic that fills a huge percentage of Trump's speeches.

* They could have been less patronizing. When Trump talked about crime in urban black neighborhoods, Clinton talked about how great black churches are. To paraphrase Jesse Jackson, there's a lot more fear of "a gang banger in the 'hood than a white man wearing a hood." Which might explain why, on a foray to Chicago's Loop recently, I saw a shockingly-high number of African-Americans wearing Trump buttons -- at least for a Democratic stronghold like Chicago.

The list could go on . . . but the bottom line is that Trump's candidacy has been significantly aided and abetted by liberal/leftist isolation and arrogance.

The problem with electing Clinton is not just her own qualifications and history; it's that her election will encourage the left to stick its head even deeper into the sand. The effects of that, as history has demonstrated, is that a populist leader will likely emerge who makes Donald Trump look benign.