Trump's Supporters

Um, I was specifically CRITICIZING "grand exclamations", which is basically all Trump has.

I was saying candidates should have SPECIFIC proposals for dealing with SPECIFIC problems -- proposals that are detailed enough to be evaluated on their merits.

 

Oh those racist Latinos, now 37% of them are for Trump.

 

I wonder how specific any politician can actual be, knowing very little of actual knowledge, compared to those involved with an issue, can be. Keep in mind, leaders around the world are also concerned what is being proposed and it's best not to divulge intent on many matters. After the elections, regardless party, that person gets regular updates on all kinds of things, so he/she can know, what they currently don't know.

 

Um, pretty darn specific. As proven by most serious candidates over the last several decades.

Part of being a candidate is both getting expert advisers, and educating yourself about the issues, and developing your policy proposals.

This makes no sense. The only place where "not divulging intent" sometimes makes sense is national security. And that doesn't stop you from enunciating an overall policy.

So how do you propose we evaluate presidential candidates, if all they ever say is broad bull(*)(*)(*)(*) without any specifics attached?

 

Unless you can link me to a reliable poll, I am proclaiming 100% of Latinos to be for Hillary.

Where's the link?

 

Well, you are sure allowed to fool yourself. Must be listening to MSM too much.

 

Um is not a word. And no, you're not.

Obama saying "I'm going to close GITMO" is a fabulous example of Obama's Grand Exclamation.

 

Are you maybe referring to somebody else?

The post you quoted had this line in it:

What you need is someone with specific ideas and solutions for change: Here is the specific problem, here is my specific and doable plan for addressing it.

That is not a call for a "Grand Exclamation". That is a call for specifics.

 

David Duke left the KKK in 1980.............

Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

Hillary's endorser appears to be a current member.

 

Most used advisors are to get elected and not experts on world events and even if they were, problems change literally from day to day. The voters for the most part, don't care about specifics and live with generalities, if they were you can find specifics for any candidate, made by them or some advocate, frankly Trumps inter thoughts are well documented, on the Internet.

Not only the leaders of other countries listen to US Presidential Candidates for potential actions in their country, but so do the people. Clinton beats Trump in Mexico 88 to 1, as their gravy train may be shut down...

Read what you can on all the Candidates and choose the one that most fits your views, not D or R after some name.....

 

"I'm going to close GITMO" was very specific. It was also wrong. You demand more of the same? Yes, yes you do.

 

The other points seemed a bit weak. For instance, why would voters believe that a successful builder could not build a wall?

Trump does not have to be a "dictator" to renegotiate crooked trade deals. As President Trump can simply refuse to send troops into frivolous wars. He needs no special powers to do most of the things he has promised to do.

 

Yes, it was specific. Was it accompanied by a specific and doable plan? If so, it meets my criteria. If not, not.

Wrong, as in he didn't manage to do it? Or wrong as in it was a bad idea?

Either way, a specific proposal allows you to evaluate both whether you like the general idea (closing Gitmo) as well as whether you believe the actual plan to get there.

Will a candidate fulfill all of their proposals? Of course not. There isn't enough time in the day, and no set of proposals survives contact with the opposing party, or with unexpected events.

But if a candidate has a proposal and a workable plan to get there, it's more persuasive and useful than if they just say "trust me!"

You're not making much sense to me here. Yes, I'm suggesting that specifics are important. Not whether I AGREE with the specifics.

 

Just as predicted, 3 new polls just came out today.

Rasmussen (Clinton +4)
Reuters (Clinton +
IBD/TIPP (Clinton +5)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html


I honestly think Clinton wins in a landslide. The Repubs pretty much selected the only candidate that can't beat Hillary. Well, other than Cruz of course.

 

Yeah, polling history shows that on his best day, Trump barely ties Clinton. And that was BEFORE the Democrats turned their guns fully on him.

What will be great is combining Trump's incendiary statements from the primary with Trump's artless "I never said that!" form of denial. He's going to try to put that behind him, and be unable to, and be shown up for the dumbest sort of liar while doing it.

Or he'll disown everything he said in the primary, betraying the people who voted for him, and looking like a clown to everyone else.

Maybe he'll find a third way, but I doubt it. Too much of what he said in the primary doesn't lend itself to the "misconstrued" defense.

 

Very true. And another thing to keep in mind is these polls are conducted in ways that do not necessarily include all the demographics that support Dems. Polls on average in 2012 were about 3% wrong. Rasmussen is one of the worst in terms of conservative bias, it was 5% off. So when you have Rasmussen at 4% for Clinton, that is really bad news for Repubs. Republicans really screwed themselves here.