[Irenicus]

There have been talks about which candidate is easier for Trump to beat already on the Trump thread.

But...due to too many postings (not to mention too much energy) in that thread, I believe that this subject deserves it's own topic.

So, here it is.

To facilitate this discussion, let's ignore the number of their respective delegates for a while. In other words, let's make this an hypothetical scenario.



In my opinion, Hillary is much more vulnerable in a fight against Trump. Therefore, I would like to see her as a nominee of the Demo(n)crats


First of all, the email leaks. I believe that everyone knows enough about that issue.

Second thing, Benghazi. Same as above.

Third, Trump knows her for years.

And finally, her advisor, Huma Abedin, has familiar connections to the Muslim Brotherhood (through her Mom) - a known fact, which the MSM ignored. And AIPAC for some reason... .

In short, she has a lot of skeletons in her closet - which is something that Trump would certainly use to his advantage.




Now...comrade Bernie.

Unlike Hillary, he certainly has less...garbage behind him (as far as I know).

Which, per se, makes him a tougher opponent. But still, he has weak points, which Trump will certainly use.

First of all, he is a communist, a member of an ideology that killed tens of millions of people worldwide.

Second thing, he is for free university education. But here is the catch. If he wants to implement that, he will need to a. raise taxes (which I believe, are relatively high already, correct me if I am wrong) and/or b. to take the US further in debt - which can never end well in the long run. And nobody wants to pay more taxes, or to witness another bubble ( which will be much more severe than the one in 2007) -wich is another fact Trump will use against Bernie.

So...which Pokemon you choose, and why?



(I did not see any similar thread, mods)

[kaotic]

Hillary hands down.

She has skeletons in the closet. Bernie doesn't.

Hillary:
-Sexism during Bill's raunchy past.
-Her getting fired from Watergate
-Benghazi
-Going against blacks in the 90's
-Lying
-More lying
-Banker backing
-Emails
-Her "nation building"
-Destabilizing the middle east
-Being a cunt

[RIslander]

(03-22-2016 03:21 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Hillary hands down.

She has skeletons in the closet. Bernie doesn't.

Hillary:
-Sexism during Bill's raunchy past.
-Her getting fired from Watergate
-Benghazi
-Going against blacks in the 90's
-Lying
-More lying
-Banker backing
-Emails
-Her "nation building"
-Destabilizing the middle east
-Being a cunt

[Mister Fingers]

I also vote for Hillary for the same reasons Kaotic mentioned. She'd be easier to combat come election time because of all the negative things surrounding her.

Bernie can fuck off. I would rather not see the precedent set that it's okay to nominate someone who's openly socialist. Not in America, anyway. You want that kind of thing, please go live in Europe.

[The Beast1]

Bernie is a harder opponent for Trump to beat. The race would be a lot closer if the Democrats were interested in winning.

Hillary will have the nomination given to her by more games of chance. This is her nomination, however she was expected to run against Jeb and not Trump.

I really just want to watch the shitshow that will be the Trump vs Hillary debate.

[philosophical_recovery]

I chuckled my face off over the left eating their own using the SJW language of the day.

Honestly, I couldn't get through the article, because the author is pretty bad.

Quote:

The latest installment of “The Internet Explodes with Hatred for Hillary Clinton” happened earlier this month. The Democratic presidential candidate, whose own record on AIDS research and funding is better than any other candidate, mistakenly said that former US first lady Nancy Reagan was a key supporter of AIDS research. Reagan was, in reality, horrible about AIDS in every possible way. Clinton immediately apologized, then apologized again, at length. Yet we’re still seeing a wagonload of “I’ll never vote for her” claims from progressives, as if her words about Reagan trump–and I’m using that verb deliberately–her actual record on AIDS research and funding. Why?
Clinton’s stellar record on AIDS is ignored while people indignantly attack her for making an inaccurate statement. I like Bernie Sanders. I really do feel the Bern. But I see Democrats brush aside things that he and other male politicians have done while raining fire on Hillary for the exact same thing–or something much less.
This happens all the time. Clinton is flamed for being a “career politician” and an “insider” when Sanders has been in political office much longer than she has. (Clinton was first elected to political office in 2000; Sanders was elected to his first office in 1981 and his first national office in 1991.) People flame Clinton for speaking in favor of the omnibus crime bill in the 1990s when she was first lady, a position with no political power. But Sanders, as a member of Congress, actually had the power to enact it into law, voting in favor of it despite the fact that many of his colleagues did not.
I’m not here to argue about Clinton versus Sanders. I genuinely like them both. I’m here to say that I’m sick of seeing her reviled for the same things people forgive easily when they’re done by men, and that the stakes are too high this election cycle to indulge that or leave it unexamined. If you’re reviling Clinton for saying something racist and stupid in 1994 in favor of a crime bill that turned out to be a very bad idea, but you’re not reviling Sanders for actually using his political power to pass that very bad crime bill law, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is. If you’re reviling Clinton for campaign contributions made by banks, but did not revile Barack Obama for the same thing, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is.

I would support half a Snapple as the Democratic nominee rather than go back to the policies of Reagan or Bush.

Those of us who are old enough to remember what it was like to live under the Reagan and the Bush administrations remember how bad it was. How much better almost everything–including the economy and job growth—got under Bill Clinton and Obama. I lived through this, and I would support half a Snapple as the Democratic nominee rather than go back to the policies of Reagan or (any) Bush.
I see people swear up and down their hatred of Clinton isn’t because she’s a woman, or doesn’t stem directly from decades of vicious, lying conservative propaganda— they will swear it!–and then immediately turn around and eviscerate her for something Sanders did (or is) himself, or call her a “crook,” or say nonsense like, “She doesn’t have an honest bone in her body.” Conservative copywriters, whoever you are, I applaud you for your success in taking a complete and total fabrication and successfully integrating it so far into the American consciousness that there are people who agree with nearly every policy position Clinton has today, yet will still claim that she’s “dishonest.” That’s some impressive chicanery, and I mean that.

Supporting Sanders should not be the same as hating Clinton.

We should be closely examining all candidates for office, and balanced, honest criticism of a candidate’s record and policies is crucial. Respectful debate about the candidates is necessary and healthy. But supporting Sanders should not be the same as hating Clinton. Too many people are not debating the candidates and their various records or platforms logically, instead viciously reviling Clinton–often in misogynistic terms–for things they routinely excuse in male politicians. And I have to say, the level of unfocused, irrational vitriol feels an awful lot like what conservatives have been doing to Obama for years.
There’s not a thing wrong with choosing Sanders over Clinton, or disliking Clinton’s current policy proposals. However, the out-and-out hatred we’re seeing from some Sanders supporters (and about which I am hardly the first person to write) bears some serious scrutiny. While the Sanders campaign has made real efforts to deal with the worst of it–the “Bernie Bros” acting as a misogynistic mob, attacking Clinton and her supporters Gamergate-style; the “Bern the Witch” controversy–there’s still far too much active hatred, and far too much of it is misogynistic or coded misogyny. Far too much of it stems from willing belief in conservative propaganda about Clinton that has been debunked over and over.
I think we all expected it, but I did not expect it from our side.
It’s one thing to prefer one candidate over another. That’s healthy. That’s admirable. It’s another to actively hate a candidate for doing exactly the same things as the last three men you voted for, despite her liberal record.
Let’s think practically about the election in November.

How privileged do you need to be to imagine that it’s a good idea to risk the actual lives of vulnerable Americans because you “hate” Clinton?

If Donald Trump gets elected, how many vulnerable people will be hurt, how many programs cut, how bad will the the economy get under conservative policies? How much damage will be done if Trump, an open racist and misogynist, is empowered to command our military, veto bills, and nominate people to the Supreme Court, impacting life in the US for decades to come?
Trump exhorts his followers to attack protestors at his rallies (“The next time we see him, we might have to kill him,” a follower said after punching a black protestor at a rally.) Trump excuses his followers who attack a homeless Hispanic man on the street, claims that Mexican immigrants are rapists, refused to distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan, supports banning Muslims from entering the US, advocates killing the families of terrorists, and is openly sexist. Trump is the worst America has to offer.
How privileged do you need to be to imagine that it’s a good idea to risk the actual lives of vulnerable Americans because you “hate” Clinton so much that you vow to stay home if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination? How protected from the consequences of a Trump presidency do you need to be to think your hatred of Clinton constitutes, as I saw someone say earlier this week, an “inviolable principle,” meaning that it’s more important than the lives of vulnerable Americans? That all applies equally to any Clinton supporters saying the same about Sanders. (We have yet to see the full weight of American anti-Semitism aimed at Sanders, and if he wins the nomination, we most certainly will.)
Vote for whoever you like in the primary. But let’s step away from vicious attacks and hatred. Let’s step away from buying into debunked conservative propaganda about Clinton’s trustworthiness. Let’s look at the candidates’ actual proposals and weigh those proposals’ actual strengths and weaknesses. Let’s respect each other’s choices in the primaries.
And whoever becomes the Democratic nominee, the stakes are far, far too high for us to selfishly stay home because we didn’t get our first choice. I will happily, proudly vote for either Clinton or Sanders, and I hope you will do the right thing and join me.
This post originally appeared on Bitter Gertrude. We welcome your comments at [email protected].

https://web.archive.org/web/201603230428...r-clinton/

AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS MISOGYNY MISOGYNY MISOGYNY MISOGYNY

PRIVILEGE PRIVILEGE PRIVILEGE

She's muttering these supposedly magical incantations as if they convey meaning or say something. And she's worried about buttfucker disease, not innocents being mained and bombed to bits by jihadis. This topic focus is clearly only of interest to the fagcunt party. And Hillary is like, totally not dishonest, despite having connections to Watergate, the controversy that launched the entire -gate suffix that she uses in gamergate, her wonderful email server that violated all kinds of security policies and would have put a normal person in federal pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.

I encourage this bitter femsplaning and division in the party. I can't wait for the democratic party to be kicked the fuck out of DC, along with all the other sycophants with previously untouchable sinecures, if everything I want to be true about a Trump presidency becomes true.

[TooFineAPoint]

Hillary is a much, much harder opponent, and to be underestimated at your peril.

She will take the Dem nomination, and Bernie will cast himself on his sword for her, and try to have his supporters swear fealty to her.

One of the reasons the GOPe hates Trump so much (besides being tone-deaf and ivory towered to the max) is that all their data points to Hillary cleaning up in the general. Now, past performance does not indicate future results and all that, but make no mistake, Trump is in for a MUCH harder fight once he faces the bankster's demon wench.

[eskimobobseal]

That article made me physically ill.

To answer the OP question - I believe Hillary is the best option for Trump. He would do an incredible job not only pointing out the corruption of the Clinton foundation, but also the nation building, the lies regarding Benghazi/email-gate/IRS-gate/whitewater/Goldmann Sachs contributions, the enabling of Bill Clinton's rape by threatening his victims, the missing 6 billion dollars during her run as SOS, the cronyism and all the rest of it. Trump would be her worst nightmare.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(03-23-2016 01:30 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

Hillary is a much, much harder opponent, and to be underestimated at your peril.

She will take the Dem nomination, and Bernie will cast himself on his sword for her, and try to have his supporters swear fealty to her.

One of the reasons the GOPe hates Trump so much (besides being tone-deaf and ivory towered to the max) is that all their data points to Hillary cleaning up in the general. Now, past performance does not indicate future results and all that, but make no mistake, Trump is in for a MUCH harder fight once he faces the bankster's demon wench.

I don't agree with this at all. Here's why:

1) Hillary is a spoiled brat who has never had to work for anything and has been shielded from consequences her entire life.

2) Hillary has not faced any serious opposition in this election. Here, have a look at Bernie defending her most serious scandal and them laughing together about it:

Does that look like a politician running against you?

3) Hillary is going to get fucked with the ISIS takeover of her Libya project, which is ongoing right now and will erupt into a Syria-like situation in a few months.

4) Her own supporters are going to undermine her by cementing her establishment image. If you thought Mitt Romney and Bush caused a disaster by endorsing Ted Cruz, just wait until they endorse Hillary (like many cuckservatives are already doing). Anyone but the most blinded, indoctrinated person is going to see through it - Bernie voters are especially prone to this.

Hillary is powerful, but in a "house of cards" sort of way. While we shouldn't underestimate her, we must not forget that no one has even tried to attack her weak spots yet.

[TheNookieMonster]

Trump has much in common with his fellow national socialist Bern, including being hard to troll. But he could troll the fuck out of Hillary.

Anyway, we're fucked. Ten presidents like Hillary will destroy this country, or we could just destroy it now with one Bern/Trump.

[Blaster]

Clinton doesn't just lack charisma, she's actively repulsive.

[Libertas]

Bernie is a much tougher opponent.

Aside from anything else, he's offering something to an electorate that is in revolt. Clinton offers nothing. She doesn't know her market so she can't make the right offer. This is a change election, not just change from Obama, but change from the race for globalization at any cost. She cannot make offers on that. Bernie can and has which is why he's drawing huge crowds despite lacking some of Trump's other skills.

[TooFineAPoint]

I hope you guys are right, I really do.

[Blaster]

Trump's real opponent will be the media, GOP traitors, and left-wing establishment. The actual candidate probably doesn't matter much.

Hillary's strength has always been her connections ("the Clinton Machine") and political savvy. She (her organization) is good at crafting messages and pushing agendas from a position of structural advantage. A "System QB" might be a rough analogy. She plays her part as the administrator of a political machine that has excelled at elevating her position and status within the Democratic party.

Note how she's gotten this far without ever having won a contested election. Bill got her into the white house as first lady. Party politics got her the NY Senate Seat. Republican opposition there was perfunctory, the outcome was never in any real doubt. She was in her prime in 2008 but despite all her structural advantages could not beat a serious challenge from Obama. I still haven't ruled out Sanders being controlled opposition to correct Hillary's image as a proven loser, although I think he's controlled opposition that isn't staying down like he's supposed to.

Her awkward, unfunny response to Trump's barking dog ad is a perfect example of Hillary's difficulty keeping up with ambitious, risk-taking challengers. This is before you consider her laundry list of negatives, not the least of which being that Bill seems to be trying to undermine her campaign.

But ultimately none of that is going to matter much, because the people voting against Trump are going to be:

a) Loyal party democrats.
b) People who buy into Media hysteria.
c) People who give Trump a fair shake but still decide he's too risky to vote for.
d) Butthurt Neocons, Beltway pundits, other Republican rejects.
...
...
...
e) People who actually like the Democrat candidate.

[Wutang]

Clinton would be easier to beat for Trump then Sanders in my opinion. Some reasons:

- While we love Trump here it has to be admitted that there are a great deal of people in the general public that can't stand him which is reflected in his un-favorability ratings. Clinton also has pretty high un-favorability ratings so I think it could cancel the negative impact of Trump's un-favorability ratings. With Sanders it wouldn't be the same. He doesn't the draw the same heat and venom that Trump and Clinton does with his nice guy "Aw why can't we all get along" act.

- A lot of Trump's success is coming from voters that are sick of the typical establishment candidates that get thrown in front of the public every 4 years by both the GOP and Democratic Party. These people are both independents and/or people who typically wouldn't vote otherwise. The same goes Sanders though so in the event of a Sanders vs Trump contest they are both going to be fighting for this same pool of votes. If it was Trump vs Clinton instead then Trump would most likely eat up most of these votes and I think that combined with the fact a lot of good number of voters would stay home if the Democrat nominee was Clinton would be enough to push Trump over the finish line.

- The way I see Trump winning in the general election is by him winning all the states that the GOP has been winning the last few elections and the most important part: winning battleground states like Ohio and Michigan and maybe even flipping states like Pennsylvania. The blue collar vote will be key here and I think if the election was against Clinton then there's a high possibility of the best case scenarios happening. Take a bunch of steelworkers, construction workers, tradesman and the like from these sort of states and I think you'll find that they are gonna largely favor Trump in opposition to Clinton. Now if it was Trump against Sanders then I think it's gonna be a coin flip on who they go for.

- If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I can see Trump stealing away a good chunk of the Bernie bro voters or at the very least, they are going to stay home. If Sanders wins the nomination I can't fathom Clinton supporters crossing over to Trump. Also I think Sanders would draw a lot more first-time voters/voters who have sat out the last few elections if he got the nomination while Clinton won't.