Why Hillary will obliterate Drumpf.

[CuteOldGuy]

Waco, which was worse, Hiroshima or Nagaski?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Waco, which was worse, Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Hiroshima was "worse."

A little over 2x's as many people died in the initial explosion than in Nagasaki.

But actually that is not the "strategic" consideration in the decision.

It was estimated that a conservative and "optimistic" loss in a land invasion of Japan would have been about 1 million many of whom would have died in pre-invasion "softening" of the coastline defenses by shellings and bombings in anticipation of the invasion. A comparative example was Tarawa, the "taking" of which lasted 2-3 days, during which the U.S. lost around 4,000 good men. If you are not familiar with the effort there and the "costs," you might look it up ... .and while you are at it ..... look up Eddie Albert, the actor. He EARNED a Bronze Start with a combat "V" driving a boat in the first wave of Marines during which he saved many of them from being slaughtered when their LC's were unable to cross over the reefs at low tide.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Trump is fucked either way he pivots.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-...lkAwRzZWMDc3I-


Why Donald Trump will get obliterated, Barry Goldwater-style this fall

By Ben White April 29, 2016 12:33 PM




. View photo

Kamil Krzaczynski | Reuters. Donald Trump will likely become the most toxic GOP nominee since Barry Goldwater in 1964. How it'll shake out, Politico's Ben White explains.




Donald Trump supporters and some pundits like to fantasize that the real estate magnate will put blue states like New York, Massachusetts and California in play this fall against Hillary Clinton while also running strong in the industrial Midwest. Trump could win! It's not gonna happen.

Trump, should he lock down the nomination next week by winning Indiana, will go into the fall campaign as the most toxic Republican nominee since Barry Goldwater in 1964. Just begin with Trump's overwhelmingly negative personal ratings. Nationwide, around 65 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump. Clinton has her own problems but her unfavorable rating is 10 points better than Trump's. Where it really gets dismal for Trump is among women, 70 percent of whom view him negatively compared with 45 percent who view Clinton negatively. In a hypothetical head to head matchup, Clinton leads Trump by 58 percent to 31 percent among women.

Women accounted for 53 percent of the 2012 electorate and President Barack Obama won them by 12 points, 56 percent to 44 percent. Clinton could double that gap rendering any advantage Trump has among white males completely meaningless.
Trump and his supporters like to say that their campaign is winning among women in the GOP primaries. That's true but it also doesn't matter. Mitt Romney won among white women in 2012 and still wound up with a huge gender gap to Obama. Trump's numbers among minority women voters are likely to be historically bad.

And what has Trump done to begin to address this enormous electoral problem? He used his victory speech Tuesday night to denigrate Clinton, a former New York senator and secretary of state, saying she would not even get 5 percent of the vote if she were not playing "the woman card." A gleeful Clinton campaign seized on the comments to portray Trump as a blustering misogynist.

Trump's comments will certainly emerge in negative ads this fall directed squarely at women in swing states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Trump's supporters thrill to his brutal attacks on Clinton. Many of them, if Twitter is any guide, believe that none of it will matter because Clinton will be in jail by the time the election rolls around. That's not going to happen either.

Let's then take the argument that because Trump is winning GOP primaries in blue states by large margins that he puts those states "in play" in November. Trump got 60 percent of the vote in New York. That sounds great. But he received around 500,000 votes. Clinton got more than 1 million. Trump cannot win New York.

He also can't win California even if he prevails in the state's primary by a wide margin on June 7. Currently, Clinton leads Trump by 30 points, 59 to 29, in California. There is simply no way the state becomes competitive. Clinton will easily hold onto the core elements of the Democratic Electoral College base.

A better question is whether Clinton's huge advantages among women (53 percent of the 2012 vote) and minorities (28 percent) put traditional red states in play. Clinton leads Trump in Arizona and received about the same number of votes as Trump in the state's primary. Clinton also received more votes than Trump in the Georgia primary and polled very close to him in Alabama and Mississippi. She got more votes than Trump in Louisiana and Arkansas. Bernie Sanders received more votes than Trump in Oklahoma. Clinton got over 100,000 more votes than Trump in Virginia. You get the picture. Overall, Trump has received about 10 million primary votes to 12 million for Clinton.

Let's stipulate that anything is possible in 2016. A new, better, more presidential Trump who does not completely alienate women, African-Americans and Latinos could emerge between now and November. But we've seen how previous attempts to be "presidential" have gone for Trump.

Moving away from his core brand of uncensored attacks could also crush Trump's turnout among white men, who he needs to win in record numbers. Clinton could somehow stumble in debates (very unlikely) or investigations into her email use could take a surprising turn (also unlikely).

At bottom, there is very little reason to think the current picture — a very big Clinton win — will change very much between now and November. The GOP with Trump on the top of the ticket will probably go down to a Goldwater-type defeat and once again the Republican Party will have to try and reinvent itself at the presidential level.

Very articulate and well written post Yssup. She is winning Florida also last time I looked! Florida is turning blue now. We need more of a balance in the White House. Compromise is key. The tax code needs to be restructured so it's fair to the rich and poor. It can be done. We don't need to cut back on American's safety nets, like social security and Medicaid/Medicare and/or public education, to do that either.

[JD Barleycorn]

Ben White wrote the post that Assup pasted. Here is where White is wrong about just one thing that throws his opinion into the trash heap, not that Assup would understand.

In New York Hillary recieved more votes than Trump did but what White failed to point out is that there are far more registered democrats in New York than republicans. So the question is what percentage of the democratic vote did Hillary get as opposed to the percentage of the republican vote Trump got. In other words White lied and Assup believes.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Trump is fucked either way he pivots.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-...lkAwRzZWMDc3I-


Why Donald Trump will get obliterated, Barry Goldwater-style this fall

By Ben White April 29, 2016 12:33 PM




. View photo

Kamil Krzaczynski | Reuters. Donald Trump will likely become the most toxic GOP nominee since Barry Goldwater in 1964. How it'll shake out, Politico's Ben White explains.




Donald Trump supporters and some pundits like to fantasize that the real estate magnate will put blue states like New York, Massachusetts and California in play this fall against Hillary Clinton while also running strong in the industrial Midwest. Trump could win! It's not gonna happen.

Trump, should he lock down the nomination next week by winning Indiana, will go into the fall campaign as the most toxic Republican nominee since Barry Goldwater in 1964. Just begin with Trump's overwhelmingly negative personal ratings. Nationwide, around 65 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump. Clinton has her own problems but her unfavorable rating is 10 points better than Trump's. Where it really gets dismal for Trump is among women, 70 percent of whom view him negatively compared with 45 percent who view Clinton negatively. In a hypothetical head to head matchup, Clinton leads Trump by 58 percent to 31 percent among women.

Women accounted for 53 percent of the 2012 electorate and President Barack Obama won them by 12 points, 56 percent to 44 percent. Clinton could double that gap rendering any advantage Trump has among white males completely meaningless.
Trump and his supporters like to say that their campaign is winning among women in the GOP primaries. That's true but it also doesn't matter. Mitt Romney won among white women in 2012 and still wound up with a huge gender gap to Obama. Trump's numbers among minority women voters are likely to be historically bad.

And what has Trump done to begin to address this enormous electoral problem? He used his victory speech Tuesday night to denigrate Clinton, a former New York senator and secretary of state, saying she would not even get 5 percent of the vote if she were not playing "the woman card." A gleeful Clinton campaign seized on the comments to portray Trump as a blustering misogynist.

Trump's comments will certainly emerge in negative ads this fall directed squarely at women in swing states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Trump's supporters thrill to his brutal attacks on Clinton. Many of them, if Twitter is any guide, believe that none of it will matter because Clinton will be in jail by the time the election rolls around. That's not going to happen either.

Let's then take the argument that because Trump is winning GOP primaries in blue states by large margins that he puts those states "in play" in November. Trump got 60 percent of the vote in New York. That sounds great. But he received around 500,000 votes. Clinton got more than 1 million. Trump cannot win New York.

He also can't win California even if he prevails in the state's primary by a wide margin on June 7. Currently, Clinton leads Trump by 30 points, 59 to 29, in California. There is simply no way the state becomes competitive. Clinton will easily hold onto the core elements of the Democratic Electoral College base.

A better question is whether Clinton's huge advantages among women (53 percent of the 2012 vote) and minorities (28 percent) put traditional red states in play. Clinton leads Trump in Arizona and received about the same number of votes as Trump in the state's primary. Clinton also received more votes than Trump in the Georgia primary and polled very close to him in Alabama and Mississippi. She got more votes than Trump in Louisiana and Arkansas. Bernie Sanders received more votes than Trump in Oklahoma. Clinton got over 100,000 more votes than Trump in Virginia. You get the picture. Overall, Trump has received about 10 million primary votes to 12 million for Clinton.

Let's stipulate that anything is possible in 2016. A new, better, more presidential Trump who does not completely alienate women, African-Americans and Latinos could emerge between now and November. But we've seen how previous attempts to be "presidential" have gone for Trump.

Moving away from his core brand of uncensored attacks could also crush Trump's turnout among white men, who he needs to win in record numbers. Clinton could somehow stumble in debates (very unlikely) or investigations into her email use could take a surprising turn (also unlikely).

At bottom, there is very little reason to think the current picture — a very big Clinton win — will change very much between now and November. The GOP with Trump on the top of the ticket will probably go down to a Goldwater-type defeat and once again the Republican Party will have to try and reinvent itself at the presidential level.

" Trump is fucked either way he pivots ." Something that YOU have experience with and look forward to when they are making YOU air tight down at the Austin gloryholes, huh assup piggy ! YOU being the senior pivot man of the Austin reach-around crew !

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Hiroshima was "worse."

A little over 2x's as many people died in the initial explosion than in Nagasaki.

But actually that is not the "strategic" consideration in the decision.

It was estimated that a conservative and "optimistic" loss in a land invasion of Japan would have been about 1 million many of whom would have died in pre-invasion "softening" of the coastline defenses by shellings and bombings in anticipation of the invasion. A comparative example was Tarawa, the "taking" of which lasted 2-3 days, during which the U.S. lost around 4,000 good men. If you are not familiar with the effort there and the "costs," you might look it up ... .and while you are at it ..... look up Eddie Albert, the actor. He EARNED a Bronze Start with a combat "V" driving a boat in the first wave of Marines during which he saved many of them from being slaughtered when their LC's were unable to cross over the reefs at low tide.

Ok. So I should vote for Nagasaki. Got it. Thanks!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ok. So I should vote for Nagasaki. Got it. Thanks!

Do you want the land invasion option?

[CuteOldGuy]

This is a metaphor comparing voting for Clinton or Trump. I'm not debating WWII policy. Someone posted that Hillary would be a disaster. I agree. Trump will be a disaster, too. I used the metaphor to illustrate which disaster I should choose. I thought you would have picked up on that.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you want the land invasion option?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is a metaphor comparing voting for Clinton or Trump. I'm not debating WWII policy. Someone posted that Hillary would be a disaster. I agree. Trump will be a disaster, too. I used the metaphor to illustrate which disaster I should choose. I thought you would have picked up on that.

I'm not debating WWII policy either. Look around on the board and news.

There's a third option, if not a fourth, being tossed around regarding THE election.

Apparently, the Clintons believe they can buy the electoral vote like they have delegates.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Waco, which was worse, Hiroshima or Nagaski?

what does that have to do with the price of coffee beans in Columbia?

or who is the lessor of evils to vote for?

[CuteOldGuy]

Well Lexus has explained that Nagasaki is lesser of two evils. It still didn't turn out too well. So, even though it is certain that Hiroshima Hillary or Donald Nagasaki are going to win, and both are disasters, I'll feel better knowing that I didn't vote for either disaster. I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Now Gary may be a disaster as well, but compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he's more like a fender bender at Rock Road and Central Avenue. It'll buff right out.

I'm not voting for anyone who is intent on distorting or ignoring the Constitution, to make us "safer".

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm not voting for anyone who is intent on distorting or ignoring the Constitution, to make us "safer".

For whom did you vote in 2008 and 2012?

[i'va biggen]

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-w...bute-to-trump/





http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...vetted-himself

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

For whom did you vote in 2008 and 2012?

Can't remember 2008, but 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson. I haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican for President since McGovern in 1972.

[IIFFOFRDB]